Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05817/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05817-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSH THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D.L. STEPHENS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:00-cv-05817-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 144)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE ADA CLAIM

ONLY (Doc. 130)

Plaintiff, Josh Thomas (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 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 72-302.

On May 24, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties. The

Findings and Recommendations recommend that the court grant

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s ADA claim. 

The Findings and Recommendations contained notice to the parties

that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to

be filed within thirty (30) days. On June 13, 2005, Plaintiff

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 147 Filed 08/24/05 Page 1 of 5
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

filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this 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. Plaintiff’s

objections do not provide a basis to not adopt the Findings and

Recommendations.

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §

12101 et seq., 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. In his

objections, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred by

finding that his back injury was not a disability within the

meaning of the ADA. To be disabled under the ADA, Plaintiff must

prove that his disabilities substantially impaired a major life

activity. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540

U.S. 44, 49 (2003). Federal regulations describe major life

activities as including functions “such as caring for oneself,

walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and

working.” 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(ii); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(I).

This illustrative list of major life activities requires the

activity to be of "comparative importance" and "central to the

life process itself." Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 638

(1998). 

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 147 Filed 08/24/05 Page 2 of 5
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

Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention in his objections that he

is unable to lift, push, pull, stand, bend, stoop, squat, sit,

reach, walk or work, the undisputed evidence shows only some

physical limitations at the time the alleged ADA violation

occurred. At issue in the pending ADA claim is Plaintiff’s

disability in 1999, not today. On February 11, 1992, Plaintiff

was found to be subject to work restrictions, “specifically no

lifting over 40 pounds or equivalent pushing, pulling, twisting,

or repeated position changes such as climbing, bending, or

squatting.” On August 24, 1998, Plaintiff was found to have a

work restriction of not being able to “lift greater than 25lbs,

no prolonged standing or no receptive bending or stopping.” The

court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the inability to walk

or stand for prolonged periods, not being able to lift more than

25 pounds, and not be able to do tasks requiring repetitive

bending or squatting are not the type of activities that are

central to life itself. In 1999, when the alleged ADA violation

occurred, the undisputed evidence reveals that Plaintiff could

lift, push, pull, stand, bend, stoop, squat, sit, reach, walk,

and work. Plaintiff was only limited in much he could assert

himself in these activities. In the absence of authority to

the contrary, the court does not find that being restricted in

how much someone can lift, push, pull, stand, bend, stoop, squat,

sit, reach, walk, and work is a disability within the meaning of

the ADA. 

The Magistrate Judge also found that even assuming Plaintiff

was disabled, Plaintiff had not shown an ADA violation. The

elements for such a claim are: (1) that the plaintiff is

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 147 Filed 08/24/05 Page 3 of 5
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

disabled; (2) that he is otherwise qualified; and (3) that the

defendants' actions either (a) excluded his participation in or

denied him the benefits of a service, program, or activity; or

(b) otherwise subjected him to discrimination on the basis of his

physical or mental handicap. Duffy, 98 F.3d at 455. 

Plaintiff’s ADA claim is based on his contention that Defendants

removed him from his position knowing of his disability. 

However, Plaintiff admits he was unable to do the job, and

Plaintiff makes no argument that he could do the job with a

reasonable accommodation. This is not an ADA violation. 

Plaintiff contends in his objections that Defendants required him

to do work in conflict with his medical restrictions. Plaintiff

offers no evidence the tasks he was asked to do were not part of

the job description and others with the same job were not

required to do these tasks, implying that Plaintiff was singled

out because of his disability. Asking someone to do a task that

they are physically unable to do is not, alone, a violation of

the ADA. While violating a prison doctor’s work restrictions

and subjecting Plaintiff to punishment if Plaintiff does not do

certain tasks in the prison setting may create a cause of action,

there is no authority that this is a violation of the ADA. 

This conduct did not deprive Plaintiff of the benefits of a

program or submit him to discrimination. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 24, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s

ADA claim against defendants Caetana, Lyman (formerly Stephens),

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 147 Filed 08/24/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Seeley, and Harlow, filed October 13, 2004, is GRANTED; and,

3. The case proceed on the remaining Eighth Amendment

claim.

The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for

further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 147 Filed 08/24/05 Page 5 of 5