Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01578/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01578-6/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- 06cv1578-WQH (BLM) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY CHARLES CLEVELAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

T DENNISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv1578-WQH (BLM)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

MORENO’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

ON THE PLEADINGS 

[Doc. No. 68] 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States

District Judge William Q. Hayes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and

Local Civil Rules 72.1(c) and 72.3(f) of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of California.

On August 8, 2006, Plaintiff Larry Charles Cleveland, a

former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights suit against several defendants under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et

seq.). Doc. No. 1. The Court granted Defendant Schwarzenegger’s

motion to dismiss on August 10, 2007 [Doc. No. 55] and dismissed all

of the remaining Defendants and claims, except for Plaintiff’s

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claim against Defendant

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 70 Filed 08/14/08 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

1 This Court’s Civil Local Rules require that each party opposing a

motion file an opposition or statement of non-opposition no later than 14

calendar days prior to the noticed hearing. CivLR (7.1(e)(2) (emphasis in

original). Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) provides that “[i]f an opposing party

fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that

failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for

ruling by the court.” CivLR 7.1(f)(3)(c). Accordingly, this Court could

construe Plaintiff’s failure to oppose Defendant Moreno’s motion as a consent to

the granting of the motion. However, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the

Court will address the motion on the merits.

-2- 06cv1578-WQH (BLM) 

Moreno, on March 6, 2008 [Doc. No. 61]. 

Defendant Moreno filed an answer to the Complaint on June 25,

2008. Doc. No. 67. The same day, Defendant Moreno filed a motion

for judgment on the pleadings as to the last remaining claim. Doc.

No. 68. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.1

 This Court finds the issue appropriate for decision on the

papers and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule

7.1.(d)(1). See Doc. No. 69. The Court has considered the

Complaint, Defendant Moreno’s motion, and all supporting documents

submitted by the parties. For the reasons set forth below, this

Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant Moreno’s Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings [Doc. No. 69] be GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

“[a]fter the pleadings are closed--but early enough not to delay

trial--a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(c). “[J]udgment on the pleadings is properly granted

when, taking all the allegations in the [non-moving party’s]

pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Rose v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 513 F.3d 1032, 1036

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 70 Filed 08/14/08 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- 06cv1578-WQH (BLM) 

(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Milne ex rel. Coyne v. Stephen Slesinger,

Inc., 430 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005)); Fajardo v. County of Los

Angeles, 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999) (same). Generally, if

matters outside the pleadings are presented to and considered by the

court, the motion must be converted into a Rule 56 motion for

summary judgment and the parties given a reasonable opportunity to

present additional material. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d); Bingue v.

Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169, 1172 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Moreno violated the ADA by

denying him the use of his medically-prescribed orthopedic shoes

from May 17, 2004 through July 25, 2005, when Plaintiff was housed

in administrative segregation at the R.J. Donovan Correctional

Facility. Compl. at 65. In his motion, Defendant Moreno argues

that he is entitled to judgment on the pleadings because Plaintiff’s

factual allegations fail to state a claim for an ADA violation.

Mem. P. & A. Supp. Def. Moreno’s Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings

(“Def.’s Mem.”) at 3-7. Additionally, Defendant Moreno asserts that

his motion must be granted because the ADA does not authorize

lawsuits against state officials sued in their individual

capacities. Id. at 7-8. 

Because Defendant Moreno is correct that a public official

cannot be sued in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

predicated upon an alleged violation of the ADA, the Court need not

reach Defendant Moreno’s first argument. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit

joined the Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that “a

plaintiff cannot bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a

State official in [his or] her individual capacity to vindicate

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 70 Filed 08/14/08 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- 06cv1578-WQH (BLM) 

rights created by Title II of the ADA...” Vinson v. Thomas, 288

F.3d 1145, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2002). Since then, district courts

within the Ninth Circuit consistently have followed Vinson and

denied § 1983 claims premised upon ADA violations by state officials

acting in their individual capacities. See, e.g., Gary v. Hawthron,

2007 WL 2781098, *2 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (dismissing Plaintiff’s ADA

claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)); Sartain v. Scribner, 2008 WL

2312772, *1 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (adopting magistrate judge’s

recommendation to dismiss for failure to state a claim following

initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii));

Sartain v. Meyers, 2008 WL 731046, *8 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (granting

state officials’ motion for summary judgment because “as a matter of

law, [Defendants] are not liable in their individual capacities for

the alleged violations of the ADA”). 

In this case, Plaintiff clearly states in his Complaint that

he is suing Defendant Moreno in his individual capacity for

violating Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA. Compl. at 8, 80.

Moreover, Plaintiff captioned the Complaint as arising under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and asserts this federal question as the basis for

this Court’s jurisdiction. As such, even if the Court accepts as

true all of the allegations set forth in the Complaint regarding the

denial of Plaintiff’s orthopedic shoes, see Rose, 513 F.3d at 1036,

Plaintiff fails to state a claim for violation of the ADA because

the face of his Complaint alleges an individual cause of action

under § 1983 that cannot stand, Vinson, 288 F.3d at 1155-56 (holding

that the ADA does not provide for § 1983 actions against state

officials in their individual capacities). Defendant Moreno,

therefore, is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Rose, 513

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 70 Filed 08/14/08 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- 06cv1578-WQH (BLM) 

F.3d at 1036, and this Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant Moreno’s

motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) be

GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

the District Court issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this

Report and Recommendation, (2) granting Defendant Moreno’s motion

for judgment on the pleadings, and (3) dismissing the case.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this

Report must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no

later than August 29, 2008. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall

be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than

September 12, 2008. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise

those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). 

DATED: August 14, 2008

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO:

HONORABLE WILLIAM Q. HAYES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL AND PARTIES

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 70 Filed 08/14/08 Page 5 of 5