(PC) Muhammad v. CDCR ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KWESI MUHAMMAD, Case No. 2:23-cv-00756-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. SCREENING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND GRANTING LEAVE 13 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TO AMEND CORRECTIONS AND 14 REHABILITATION, ECF No. 14 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Kwesi Muhammad is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following defendant’s successful motion to dismiss, plaintiff has 19 amended his complaint and it is before me for screening. Like his previous complaint, plaintiff 20 alleges that defendant CDCR violated his rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities 21 Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) when it failed to provide him with a second 22 mattress to address post-COVID-19 chronic fatigue and joint pain. ECF No. 14 at 6-7. Since 23 plaintiff’s amended complaint continues to suffer from pleading defects, I will dismiss the 24 complaint and give him a final opportunity to amend. 25 Screening and Pleading Requirements 26 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 27 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 28 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 1 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 2 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 3 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 5 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 6 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 7 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 8 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 9 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 10 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 11 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 12 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 13 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 14 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 15 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 16 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 17 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 18 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 19 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 20 Analysis 21 Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from long COVID, and as a result he has troubling 22 sleeping on the mattress provided by CDCR. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff requested two new 23 mattresses, but according to the complaint his request was declined because of his disability. Id. 24 at 5. Plaintiff claims that CDCR’s action of denying him an additional mattress violated his rights 25 under the ADA and the RA. ECF No. 14. 26 As I explained previously, to sustain a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must 27 allege that: (1) he is an individual with a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified 28 to participate in or receive the benefit of some public entity’s 1 services, programs, or activities; (3) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity’s services, 2 programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (4) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or 3 discrimination was by reason of [his] disability. 4 Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., 609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir. 2010) (overruled on other grounds by 5 Castro v. Cnty. of L.A., 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc)). Similarly, to state a claim 6 under the RA, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) he is handicapped within the meaning of the RA, 7 (2) he is otherwise qualified for the benefits or services he seeks, (3) he was denied the benefit of 8 those services solely by reason of his handicap, and (4) the program providing the benefit or 9 services received federal assistance. Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002); 10 Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041, 1045 n.11 (9th Cir. 1999) (“There is no 11 significant difference in analysis of the rights and obligations created by the ADA and the 12 Rehabilitation Act.”). 13 A plaintiff may not succeed on either an ADA or RA claim based on allegations that 14 medical treatment for his disability was inadequate. See Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1022. And here, 15 plaintiff’s allegations go to the adequacy of the treatment he received from CDCR, not to the 16 denial of services because of his disability. See Mixon v. Tyson, 1:16-cv-01868-BAM (PC), 2017 17 WL 5998231, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2017) (“The lack of medical treatment or the failure to 18 provide an accommodation for [a plaintiff’s] medical condition does not provide a basis upon 19 which to impose liability under the ADA.”); Gosney v. Gower, No. 6:16-cv-01072-SB, 2019 WL 20 1447474, at *4, (D. Or. Apr. 1, 2019) (The “ADA . . . afford[s] disabled persons legal rights 21 regarding access to programs and activities enjoyed by all, but do[es] not provide them with a 22 general federal cause of action for challenging the medical treatment of their underlying 23 disabilities.”). 24 As noted in my prior order, courts have held that there is no basis for either an ADA or 25 RA claim when prisoners are not provided with a specific mattress or pillow. See Thomas v. 26 Ogbehi, 1:15-cv-01059-LJO-BAM (PC), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107445, *30-31 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 27 27, 2018) (“Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the denial of his requests for medical devices and 28 1 appliances, and such allegations do not provide a basis upon which to impose liability under the 2 ADA or RA.”); Millare v. CDCR, 2:22-cv-1862-KJM-KJN-P, 2023 WL 2760908, *4 (E.D. Cal. 3 April 3, 2023) (“The undersigned finds that the alleged confiscation of plaintiff’s DME cervical 4 pillow relates to medical care and is not related to discrimination against plaintiff because of his 5 disability.”). Further, plaintiff has not alleged any facts that support his claim that he was 6 subjected to intentional discrimination by reason of his disability and excluded from participation 7 in any program or activity. His bare allegation that that CDCR refused to provide him with a 8 mattress because of his disability is conclusory and insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; 9 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 10 I will grant plaintiff a final chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this 11 action be dismissed. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 12 will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th 13 Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face 14 without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 15 complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended 16 complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each 17 defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “Second 18 Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an 19 amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 21 1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an amended 22 complaint or advise the court that he wishes stand by his current complaint. If he selects the latter 23 option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 24 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 25 3. The Clerk’s Office is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 26 27 28 1 | 1718 SO ORDERED. 3 ( — Dated: _ May 20, 2024 ssn (aoe 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 g 9 10 il 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28