Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02065/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02065-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

ANTHONY E. OWENS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-2065 

DEBORAH AVILLION, 

Office of Child Support

Enforcement DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff’s complaint was filed in this case on June 5, 2006. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and

in forma pauperis. Before the undersigned is the issue of whether the complaint should be

served. 

BACKGROUND

Owens is currently incarcerated in the Sebastian County Detention Center (SCDC). He

names as a defendant Deborah Avillion, an employee of the Office of Child Support

Enforcement. 

According to the complaint, Owens has been ordered to pay child support. Owens alleges

he is incarcerated because of the child support obligation. He asserts he has not had a DNA test

done. 

Owens alleges that he is disabled. He indicates he has had two prior back surgeries and

has to have another surgery. He asserts he has a claim for Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

Benefits pending.

As relief, Owens asks that the child support case be dismissed. He also asks that he be

paid $1,000 for each day he was held pursuant to the child support body attachment. 

Case 2:06-cv-02065-JLH Document 7 Filed 07/05/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

DISCUSSION

This case is subject to dismissal prior to service of process. The primary purpose of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is to provide individuals with disabilities “civil rights

protections with respect to discrimination that are parallel to those provided to individuals on the

basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.” 56 Fed. Reg. 35,545 (1991). The ADA’s

goal is to provide a “clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of

discrimination” with “clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards” to address such

discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1), (2). 

The ADA contains five titles: Employment (Title I); Public Services (II); Public

Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities (Title III); Telecommunications (Title

IV); and Miscellaneous Provisions (Title V). The allegations of the complaint appear to involve

Title II. 

Title II provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such

disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs,

or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. §

12132. A “qualified individual with a disability” is defined as “an individual with a disability

who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of

architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and

services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation

in programs or activities provided by a public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2). “Public entity” is

defined to include “any State or local government” and “any department, agency, . . . or other

instrumentality of a State.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). 

Case 2:06-cv-02065-JLH Document 7 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

“To prevail on a disability discrimination claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a

qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was excluded from participation in a public entity’s

services, programs or activities; and (3) such treatment was because of his disability.” Sonkowsky

ex rel Sonkowsky v. Board of Educ. for Independent School District No. 721, 327 F.3d 675, 678

(8th Cir. 2003). 

In this case, Owens does not allege that he was excluded from participation in the services,

programs, or activities of a public entity. Instead, he alleges that the “public entity” has acted in

accordance with its mandate and has attempted to collect child support from him for the benefit

of an unidentified minor. In essence, Owens seeks to invoke the ADA as a shield to protect him

from the enforcement activities of a public entity. 

There is no allegation that Owens is being treated differently than any other individual who

allegedly owes child support and is subject to an enforcement action by the Office of Child Support

Enforcement. Owens’ argument is that because of his disability he should somehow be insulated

from the enforcement action. Owens attack on the actions of the defendant is nothing more than

a collateral challenge to these actions under the guise of an ADA claim. Clearly under these facts,

no claim is stated under the ADA. 

CONCLUSION

I therefore recommend this action be dismissed prior to service of process on the grounds

that the action is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii)(IFP action, or any portion thereof,

may be dismissed on such grounds at any time). 

Owens has ten days from receipt of this report and recommendation in which to file

written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections

Case 2:06-cv-02065-JLH Document 7 Filed 07/05/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Owens is reminded that

objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.

DATED this 5th day of July 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02065-JLH Document 7 Filed 07/05/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>