Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02457/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02457-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

RUDOLPH HERRERA MORALEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KEVIN R. CHAPPELL,

Defendant. /

No. C 15-2457 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The court dismissed the original

complaint with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 10.)

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

Case 3:15-cv-02457-WHO Document 12 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff states that he was denied access to educational programs due to his

learning disability and his inmate grievances were improperly denied.

Title II of the ADA "prohibit[s] discrimination on the basis of disability." Lovell v.

Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). 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 subject to

discrimination by such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title II of the ADA applies to inmates

within state prisons. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 213

(1998).

Case 3:15-cv-02457-WHO Document 12 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In order to state a claim that a public program or service violated Title II of the ADA,

a plaintiff must show: he is a "qualified individual with a disability"; he was either excluded

from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity's services, programs, or

activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and such exclusion,

denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his disability. McGary v. City of

Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004).

Plaintiff may bring a claim under Title II of the ADA against state entities for

injunctive relief and damages. See Phiffer v. Columbia River Correctional Institute, 384

F.3d 791, 792 (9th Cir. 2004). The standard for recovery of damages is deliberate

indifference to plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124,

1138 (9th Cir. 2001). "Deliberate indifference requires both knowledge that a harm to a

federally protected right is substantially likely, and a failure to act upon that likelihood." Id.

at 1139. 

Plaintiff argues that he was denied a one-on-one tutor and as a result he was unable

to pass a an entrance exam to take courses with Coastline College. For relief plaintiff only

seeks compensatory and punitive damages. To obtain damages plaintiff must demonstrate

deliberate indifference. Plaintiff only presents conclusory allegations that his rights under

the ADA were violated. He fails to present allegations to support a finding of deliberate

indifference on behalf of the defendants. The amended complaint will be dismissed with

leave to present sufficient allegations of deliberate indifference. Plaintiff must also present

more facts regarding his learning disability to present a claim under the ADA. 

Plaintiff’s claim regarding the denial of his inmate grievances is also dismissed

because there is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance

system. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855

F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988).

CONCLUSION

Case 3:15-cv-02457-WHO Document 12 Filed 11/25/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with

the standards set forth above. The second amended complaint must be filed within

twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption and civil

case number used in this order and the words SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the

first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint,

plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original

complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the

dismissal of this action.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02457-WHO Document 12 Filed 11/25/15 Page 4 of 4