(PC) Henderson v. CDCR ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOMMY BERNARD HENDERSON, Case No. 2:23-cv-01598-JDP (PC) JR., 12 ORDER Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 15 CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this case against defendants under 22 section 1983 for violation of his civil rights, under the Rehrabilitation Act, and under Title II of 23 the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). ECF No. 1 at 24 3-5. His claims, as articulated, are non-cognizable. I will give him leave to amend. Additionally, 25 I will grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. 26 27 28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 4 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 5 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 7 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 26 27 28 1 II. Analysis 2 Plaintiff alleges that he qualifies as an individual with a disability within the meaning of 3 | the ADA and RA, but his claims exclusively concern the inadequate medical treatment he 4 | allegedly received after Legionnaire’s Disease broke out at the California Health Care Facility. 5 || ECF No. | at 4-5. The ADA and RA prohibit discrimination because of disability; they do not 6 || create remedies for inadequate medical care or malpractice. See Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 7 | F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The ADA prohibits discrimination because of disability, not 8 || inadequate treatment for disability.”); see also Zukle v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 9 | 1041, 1045 n.11 (9th Cir. 1999) (“There is no significant difference in analysis of the rights and 10 | obligations created by the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.”). As such, his claims cannot 11 | proceed. 12 Plaintiff may amend his complaint to explain how defendants’ actions violated the ADA 13 | and RA, or he may bring an inadequate medical care claim under the Eighth Amendment. He is 14 | advised that the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa 15 | County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The amended complaint should be 16 | titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 19 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 20 | complaint. If he does not, I will recommend this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 21 3. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ( q Sty — Dated: _ November 1, 2023 q——— 25 JEREMY D,. PETERSON 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28