Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00612/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00612-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

TIMOTHY S. DAUBERT, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

A-1 Tours and Travel, )

 )

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-00612-OWW-SMS 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS (DOC. 2)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, OR, IN

THE ALTERNATIVE, A STATEMENT OF

INTENTION TO PROCEED ON THE

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, NO LATER THAN

THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages 

concerning alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities

Act. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

I. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration and attachments that

make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly,

the request to proceed in forma pauperis IS GRANTED. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a).

Case 1:06-cv-00612-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 10
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

II. Screening the Complaint

A. General Standard

In cases wherein the plaintiff is proceeding in forma

pauperis, the Court is required to screen cases and shall dismiss

the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation

of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,

or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief,

whether an original claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim, shall contain

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds

upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends,

unless the court already has jurisdiction and 

the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction

to support it, (2) a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for

the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the 

alternative or of several different types 

may be demanded.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as required

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a

flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and

state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v.

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity

overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support

Plaintiff's claim. Id. Although a complaint need not outline all

elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from the

allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement

to relief under some viable legal theory. Walker v. South Cent.

Case 1:06-cv-00612-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 10
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

Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990); Lewis v.

ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6th Cir. 1998).

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most

favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447

(9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A

complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of

facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim

or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981).

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a

Case 1:06-cv-00612-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 3 of 10
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

fanciful factual allegation. Id. A federal court may dismiss a

claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless

legal theory or if the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Id.

The test for malice is a subjective one that requires the

Court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good

faith. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46

(1915); see Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11th Cir.

1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive

suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of costfree filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be

inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the

defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims

decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309

(D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or contains

disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with

knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v. Asher,

741 F.2d 209, 212 (8th Cir. 1984). 

B. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Liberally read, Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on May 18,

2006, alleges that Defendant A-1 Tours and Travel discriminated

against Plaintiff, who is disabled because he is unable to walk

or climb stairs, in March and May 2006 when Defendant told

Plaintiff that he could only go on tours they offered if

Plaintiff could walk up the stairs into the chartered buses;

Defendant’s tour buses are not accessible to the handicapped, and

Defendant has failed to provide handicapped accessible buses for

Case 1:06-cv-00612-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 4 of 10
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

the disabled for many years and specifically since 2002, when

handicapped accessible buses became required. Defendant informed

Plaintiff that because he could not walk up the stairs to the

buses, he could go to Orange Belt or Greyhound to get where he

wanted to go. The specific tours, destinations, or routes in

issue are not identified; further, it is not clear whether

Defendant offered to the public buses to Plaintiff’s desired

destinations. Plaintiff alleges that this conduct violated the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff seeks 1) to have

the Court require that Defendant change its policies towards the

disabled and offer handicapped buses for the disabled on the

tours they offer; and 2) damages.

 To the extent that Plaintiff seeks damages for a violation

under Title III of the ADA, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state

a claim because damages are not recoverable under Title III of

the ADA; rather, only injunctive relief is available for

violations of Title III. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1) (providing that

remedies under Title III are the same as those outlined in 42

U.S.C. § 2000a-3(A), which do not permit recovery of monetary

damages); Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2002).

With respect to a claim for injunctive relief under Title

III of the ADA regarding a private company’s conduct, 42 U.S.C. §

12182(a) provides that no individual shall be discriminated

against on the basis of disability in the full and equal

enjoyment of services. Discrimination includes application of

eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out a

person with a disability from fully and equally enjoying any

goods or services unless necessary for provision of the services,

Case 1:06-cv-00612-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 5 of 10
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

6

failure to make reasonable modifications in practices if

necessary to afford services to persons with disabilities unless

the changes would fundamentally alter the nature of the service

or would result in an undue burden, failure to ensure no

exclusion of a disabled person because of the absence of

auxiliary aids and services unless it would fundamentally alter

the nature of the service, and failure to remove or by other

means overcome transportation barriers in existing vehicles used

to transport individuals (except retrofitting vehicles by

installing hydraulic or other lifts) where removal is readily

achievable. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(i)-(v).

It is not clear whether the tours in question are fixed

route systems or demand responsive systems; however, it appears

that Plaintiff sought tours offered on an over-the-road bus,

defined as a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck

located over a baggage compartment. See, § 12181(5). Section

12182(b)(2)(D) expressly states that discrimination includes the

purchase or lease of an over-the-road bus which does not comply

with the regulations issued under section 12186(a)(2) of the

title by a private entity which provides transportation of

individuals and which is not primarily engaged in the business of

transporting people. Further, § 12184(a) prohibits discrimination

against an individual on the basis of disability in the full and

equal enjoyment of specified public transportation services

provided by a private entity that is primarily engaged in the

business of transporting people and whose operations affect

commerce. Specific public transportation includes transportation

by bus that provides the general public with general or special

Case 1:06-cv-00612-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 6 of 10
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

7

service (including charter service) on a regular and continuing

basis. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(10). Discrimination under § 12184

includes application of discriminatory eligibility criteria;

failure to make reasonable modifications, provide auxiliary aids

and services, or remove barriers; and the purchase or lease of an

over-the-road bus which does not comply with the regulations

issued under § 12186(a)(2).

Title III of the ADA does not require a plaintiff to prove

that discrimination was intentional or that the disability

motivated the defendant’s actions; it is enough that a defendant

failed to make reasonable accommodations or simply engaged in

disparate treatment. The plaintiff must show that he or she is an

individual with a disability and that because of the disability

the person was denied participation in or the benefit of a

service provided by the entity. Lentini v. California Center for

the Arts, 370 F.3d 837, 846-47 (9th Cir. 2004); Dunlap v.

Association of Bay Area Governments, 996 F.Supp. 962, 965

(N.D.Cal. 1998). In order to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8,

Plaintiff need not allege all the elements of a prima facie case

of discrimination in order to survive a motion to dismiss;

rather, the complaint must only be a short and plain statement of

the claim that shows that the pleader is entitled to relief and

that gives fair notice to the defendant of what the plaintiff’s

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Swierkiewicz v.

Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511-12 (2002). 

Here, Plaintiff has alleged that he is unable to walk, which

appears to be a disability with respect to the major life

activity of walking; because of his disability, he was

Case 1:06-cv-00612-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 7 of 10
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

8

discriminated against in the form of denial of participation in

the bus tour service, which appears to be special transportation

services within the meaning of the statute.

Plaintiff’s two attempts to obtain transportation services

are sufficient to confer standing on Plaintiff to seek injunctive

relief; being deterred from attempting to gain access shows a

concrete, particularized, actual injury. Pickern v. Holiday

Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2002). Further,

a threat of harm in the future because of existing or imminently

threatened noncompliance with the ADA suffices for a threat of

imminent injury. Id. Here, it may be inferred that Plaintiff

seeks to patronize the Defendant’s business but cannot, and the

noncompliance continues to exist.

III. Amendment of the Complaint or Proceeding upon the One

 Stated Claim of the Present Complaint

In summary, although the claim for injunctive relief is

sufficient under Rule 8 to give Defendant fair notice of the

basis of Plaintiff’s claim, Plaintiff does not and cannot state a

claim for damages under Title III of the ADA. Nevertheless, it is

possible that Plaintiff may otherwise state a claim for damages,

and Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to state such a claim

in an amended complaint.

However, Plaintiff may instead prefer not to file an amended

complaint and instead to proceed against the defendant only on

the ADA injunctive relief claim. If Plaintiff desires to proceed

on this claim instead of amending the complaint, Plaintiff may so

indicate by filing a statement of intention to proceed on the ADA

injunctive claim in the presently filed complaint instead of

Case 1:06-cv-00612-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 8 of 10
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

 If Plaintiff files a notice of intention to proceed on the original complaint, the Court will then proceed to

issue orders concerning service on the defendants. If instead Plaintiff files a first amended complaint, the Court will

proceed to screen the first amended complaint before issuing any order to serve the complaint. 

9

filing a first amended complaint.1

 Accordingly, the Court concludes that in Plaintiff’s

original complaint, Plaintiff states one claim for injunctive

relief under Title III of the ADA, but Plaintiff does not state a

claim for damages. Plaintiff is given leave either to proceed on

the original complaint or to file a first amended complaint.

 Plaintiff IS DIRECTED to file no later than thirty days

after the date of service of this order either

1) A statement of intention to proceed on the original

complaint; or

2) A first amended complaint that complies with the

requirements of the pertinent substantive law, the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended

complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must

be labeled "First Amended Complaint"; failure to file either a

statement of intent to proceed on the original complaint, or an

amended complaint, in accordance with this order will be

considered to be a failure to comply with an order of the Court

pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 and will result in dismissal of

this action.

Further, Plaintiff IS INFORMED that a complaint must contain

a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading

policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements

of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev.

Case 1:06-cv-00612-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 9 of 10
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

10

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which the

defendants engaged in that support Plaintiff's claim. Id.

In addition, Plaintiff IS INFORMED that the Court cannot

refer to a prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff's amended

complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay,

375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once Plaintiff files an amended

complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in

the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must

be sufficiently alleged.

Finally, Plaintiff IS INFORMED that a failure to file a

statement of intention to proceed on the original complaint or an

amended complaint in a timely manner, or to seek an extension of

time before the due date, will be considered a failure to comply

with an order of the Court and will result in a recommendation

that the action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00612-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 10 of 10