Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-02072/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-02072-10/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

MORIANO MILLARE,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. STARR, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-02072-DAD-AC (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. Nos. 38, 44)

Plaintiff Moriano Millare is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 September 27, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that defendant Starr’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 

38) be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. No. 44.) Specifically, based upon the evidence 

submitted by the parties on summary judgment showing that plaintiff is no longer housed at the

Duel Vocational Institution (“DVI”) and that the DVI is now closed, the magistrate judge 

concluded that defendant Starr was entitled to summary judgment in his favor as to plaintiff’s 

claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. (Id. at 16–17.) Further, the magistrate judge 

concluded that defendant Starr was not entitled to summary judgment in his favor as to plaintiff’s 

claim for damages brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (Id. at 10–16.) 

Case 2:20-cv-02072-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 12/23/24 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

As to this claim, the magistrate judge noted that defendant Starr “effectively concede[d] that the 

accommodation provided to plaintiff was unreasonable” as he admits that the accommodation of

moving the public speaking course at Delta College from a room on the second floor of the 

prison, which plaintiff could not access due to his disability status, to the gymnasium, which still 

required the use of stairs, was inadequate. (Id. at 13–14.) As to whether defendant Starr acted 

appropriately and conducted an adequate fact-specific inquiry into what would constitute a 

reasonable accommodation for plaintiff, the magistrate judge found that a triable issue of material 

fact existed, because although defendant Starr produced evidence on summary judgment that a 

meeting took place to review plaintiff’s request, “no evidence about how the decision was made 

to move the Public Speaking course to the gymnasium, or how this move would accommodate 

plaintiff specifically” had been presented. (Id. at 14.) 

Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 

any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. at 17.) No 

objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 27, 2024 (Doc. No. 44) 

are adopted;

2. Defendant Starr’s motion for summary judgment in his favor (Doc. No. 38) is 

granted as to plaintiff’s claim for declaratory and injunctive relief and denied as to 

plaintiff’s damages claim for disability discrimination under the ADA; and

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:20-cv-02072-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 12/23/24 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

3. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings including the issuance of a Final Pretrial Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-02072-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 3