Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01234/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01234-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD RAY YORK,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01234-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING 

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY ADA CLAIMS, 

TITLE III CLAIM, SECTION 1983 CLAIM, 

AND DEFENDANT BEARD

(Docs. 9 and 10)

Plaintiff Reginald Ray York, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132 and 12182(a) (Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Titles II 

and III) on August 6, 2014. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 2, 2015, the Magistrate Judge screened 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and recommended this action proceed on Plaintiff’s 

cognizable Title II ADA claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff filed timely objections on June 26, 

2015.

Plaintiff objects to the recommendations that Defendant Beard be dismissed and that his 

individual capacity ADA claims be dismissed. ADA claims are brought against public entities and 

given that the alleged violation occurred at - and appears confined to - the institutional level

arising from a housing decision made by the warden, the Kern Valley State Prison warden in his 

Case 1:14-cv-01234-LJO-GSA Document 12 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

official capacity is the proper defendant.1 E.g., Shebby v. Adams, No. 1:03-cv-06487-LJO-NEW 

(DLB) PC, 2007 WL 2505569, at *2 (E.D.Cal. 2007) (individual liability precluded under the 

ADA). 

Plaintiff also argues that Defendants Davey and Arlitz violated his Eighth Amendment 

rights by denying him single cell status. (Obj., ¶¶53, 54.) Plaintiff’s allegations do not support a 

viable Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim and his argument that he has an Eighth 

Amendment right to a single cell because he is more vulnerable due to his physical disabilities 

lacks merit. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994); Clem v. Lomeli, 

566 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2009); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings 

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on June 5, 2015, is adopted in full; 

2. This action shall proceed against Defendants Biter, Davey, and Arlitz in their 

official capacities for violation of Title II of the ADA;

3. Plaintiff’s individual capacity Title II ADA claims are dismissed for failure to state 

a claim;

4. Defendant Beard is dismissed for failure to state a claim under Title II of the ADA; 

5. Plaintiff’s Title III claim is dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; 

6. Plaintiff’s section 1983 claim is dismissed; and

7. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff’s assertion that the Magistrate Judge failed to view his allegations with the requisite liberality is not 

supported by the record. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013). (Obj., ¶10; e.g., F&R, fn. 2.)

Case 1:14-cv-01234-LJO-GSA Document 12 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 2