Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00804/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00804-4/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

ERNEST LEE COX, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

I. BAL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-00804-WBS-EFB (PC)

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 22, 2022, the undersigned screened plaintiff’s 

original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and determined that it stated a potentially 

cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Bal, Williams, and Patterson.1

 ECF 

Nos. 1 & 14. The complaint was served on these defendants, who seek an extension of time until 

April 26, 2023 to respond. ECF No. 26. 

/////

/////

1

 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

Case 2:22-cv-00804-WBS-EFB Document 27 Filed 03/30/23 Page 1 of 4
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

In its screening order, the court also found that the complaint failed to state a cognizable 

claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). The 

court granted plaintiff leave to amend as to these claims, “[a]lthough it appears unlikely that [the] 

defects [can] be cured through amendment[.]” ECF No. 14 at 5. Plaintiff subsequently filed a 

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which the court screens herein.2

As in the original complaint, plaintiff asserts an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs by defendants Bal, Williams, and Patterson, three Mule 

Creek State Prison officials who, in late 2020, allegedly permitted Covid-19 infected inmates to 

mingle with vulnerable inmates such as plaintiff, a 60-year-old cancer patient. Like the original 

complaint, the FAC sufficiently alleges an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim 

against these three defendants. 

The FAC also attempts to state an ADA claim, alleging that plaintiff was “excluded from 

or denied the benefit of a service and program, the single cell that was provided to all other 

inmates, high risk medical, due to immunological deficiencies.” ECF No. 19 at 4. To state a 

claim under the ADA and/or the RA3

, plaintiff must allege: (1) he is an individual with a 

disability, (2) he is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of a public entity’s 

services, programs, or activities, (3) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the 

benefits of the public entity's services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated 

against by the public entity, and (4) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by 

reason of his disability. Vos v. City of Newport Beach, 892 F.3d 1024, 1036 (9th Cir. 2018). 

Here, as in the original complaint, the FAC does not allege that plaintiff was denied a single cell 

because of any alleged disability. See ECF No. 14 at 5. 

2

 Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once 

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the 

case. 

3

 “Title II of the ADA was expressly modeled after [Section] 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act.” Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Case 2:22-cv-00804-WBS-EFB Document 27 Filed 03/30/23 Page 2 of 4
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

Moreover, there is no individual liability for defendants sued for Title II violations 

pursuant to section 1983. See Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1156 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We 

therefore join the Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits and hold that a plaintiff cannot bring an 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a State official in her individual capacity to vindicate rights 

created by Title II of the ADA or section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.”). Instead, the proper 

defendant in an ADA action is the public entity responsible for the alleged discrimination. United 

States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 153 (2006). The term “public entity” includes state prisons. See

Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrs. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998). As plaintiff seeks to sue under 

the ADA but does not name any public entity as a party, he fails to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted under the ADA for this separate and additional reason. 

Despite notice of the deficiencies in the complaint as to plaintiff’s ADA and RA claims 

and the opportunity to amend, plaintiff is unable to state an ADA or RA claim upon which relief 

could be granted. The court finds that further leave to amend is not warranted. See Plumeau v. 

School Dist. # 40, 130 F.3d 432, 439 (9th Cir. 1997) (denial of leave to amend appropriate where 

further amendment would be futile). Accordingly, the court recommends that these claims be 

dismissed with prejudice. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ motion for extension of time (ECF No. 26) is DENIED as moot; and

2. The First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 19) sufficiently alleges an Eighth 

Amendment conditions of confinement claim against defendants I. Bal, M. 

Williams, and T. Patterson. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:22-cv-00804-WBS-EFB Document 27 Filed 03/30/23 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s purported claims under the ADA 

and RA be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

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, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 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. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: March 30, 2023. 

Case 2:22-cv-00804-WBS-EFB Document 27 Filed 03/30/23 Page 4 of 4