Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01296/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01296-1/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MANUEL CORDOVA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D. HURTADO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01296 TLN AC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge by Local 

Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s complaint is currently before the court for 

screening. 

I. Allegations in the Complaint 

 Plaintiff is a disabled inmate at the California Medical Facility (“CMF”) at all times 

relevant to the allegations in the complaint. The complaint alleges a violation of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) when the seven members of the Reasonable Accommodation 

Panel denied plaintiff’s request for a talking book player while he was housed in administrative 

segregation from September 2, 2021 until February 17, 2022. By virtue of his learning disability, 

plaintiff was denied access to services that other non-disabled inmates in administrative 

segregation received in the form of books to read. Plaintiff also alleges a separate Eighth 

Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim based on these same facts. 

Case 2:22-cv-01296-TLN-AC Document 16 Filed 05/24/24 Page 1 of 3
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 

II. Analysis 

Plaintiff’s complaint does not state an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference 

to plaintiff’s serious medical need for a reading device. In order to state a claim for violation of 

the Eighth Amendment based on inadequate medical care, a plaintiff must allege “acts or 

omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (emphasis added). A serious medical need exists if 

the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the 

unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F. 2d 1332, 1337-41 

(9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff’s learning disability and alleged need for a reading device support his 

ADA claim,1

 but they do not constitute a serious medical need within the meaning of the Eighth 

Amendment. A reading device is an accommodation for a disability, not a medical treatment. 

Failure to provide the device could not result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain. Accordingly, plaintiff’s factual allegations do not support an Eighth 

Amendment medical claim. 

Moreover, the ADA itself “prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate 

treatment for disability.” Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(citing Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996)); see also Bryant, 84 F.3d at 249 

(“[T]he Act would not be violated by a prison’s simply failing to attend to the medical needs of 

its disabled prisoners. . . . The ADA does not create a remedy for medical malpractice.”). 

For these reasons, the court recommends dismissing the Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference claim against defendants because this defect is not curable. See Klamath-Lake 

Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that 

while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile amendments). 

//// 

//// 

1

 By separate order entered this same date, plaintiff’s complaint was found to state a colorable 

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Service of the complaint was ordered on this 

single ADA claim. 

Case 2:22-cv-01296-TLN-AC Document 16 Filed 05/24/24 Page 2 of 3
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 

3 

III. Plain Language Summary for Unrepresented Party 

Since plaintiff is acting as his own attorney in this case, the court wants to make sure that 

the words of this order are understood. The following information is meant to explain this order 

in plain English and is not intended as legal advice. 

The court has reviewed the allegations in your complaint and determined that they do not 

state a valid Eighth Amendment claim against the defendants. It is recommended that this claim 

be dismissed from your case. Your ADA claim is proceeding as explained in a separate order. 

If you disagree with this recommendation, you have 14 days to explain why it is not the 

correct result. Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The district judge assigned to your case will make the final decision about 

whether your Eighth Amendment claim can continue. 

CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference claim against defendants be dismissed without leave to amend for failing to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 

to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: May 23, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-01296-TLN-AC Document 16 Filed 05/24/24 Page 3 of 3