Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00202/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00202-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN GERALD DANIELS III,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. TOLSON, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00202-AWI-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING STU SHERMAN BE 

SUBSTITUTED FOR DEFENDANT 

KATHLEEN ALLISON AND ACTION

PROCEED AGAINST SHERMAN IN HIS 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR VIOLATION 

OF THE ADA

(Doc. 19)

THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

I. Screening Order and Requirement

Plaintiff Norman Gerald Daniels III, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 8, 2013. On November 

12, 2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state any 

claims. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 21, 2014, alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12132, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that 

seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 

Case 1:13-cv-00202-AWI-SAB Document 20 Filed 01/06/15 Page 1 of 6
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

(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court 

shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 

F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Prisoners 

proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and 

to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 

2013); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but nevertheless, the 

mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Discussion

A. Summary of Allegations

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 

and State Prison (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, brings this action against Acting Warden Kathleen 

Allison; Assistant Wardens R. Tolson, K. Santoro, and Perdome; Physician’s Assistant T. Byers; 

Correctional Counselor II S. Smith; Sergeant E. Beeler; and Appeals Examiner C. Hammond. 

Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is substantially similar to his original complaint. Plaintiff is 

legally blind and his vision cannot be corrected beyond 20/200. Plaintiff seeks access to visual 

equipment to enable him to read and write like a “normal person,” and he unsuccessfully 

attempted to resolve the issue through the prison’s remedy process. (Amend. Comp., p. 4.) 

Plaintiff seeks a personal magnifier so that he may read and write in his cell. (Id., 5,9 .) Plaintiff 

Case 1:13-cv-00202-AWI-SAB Document 20 Filed 01/06/15 Page 2 of 6
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

alleges that magnifying eyeglasses are insufficient to treat his vision impairment; the small card 

magnifier offered to him was a “sad attempt” and provided insufficient magnification; he is 

entitled to read and write in his cell; a personal magnifier is a medical appliance with which he 

should be provided as a disabled inmate; and staff “twisted” the Armstrong remedial plan to deny 

his request for a personal magnifier. (Id., pp. 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14.) Prison staff, however, take the 

position that a personal magnifier is not a medical appliance and it contains glass which can be 

used as a weapon; and that Plaintiff’s disability is sufficiently addressed through adequate access 

to shared ADA equipment, a page magnifier, and the pair of glasses he received to help with his 

disability. (Id., p. 5 8, 14.)

B. ADA Claim

1. Nature of Claim

After consideration of Plaintiff’s allegations and the relief he seeks, it appears Plaintiff’s 

claim is limited to relief under Title II of the ADA, which 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. The Court finds no indication that Plaintiff is 

attempting to pursue an Eighth Amendment medical care claim, as Plaintiff seeks access to a 

personal magnifier so he can read and write in his cell, activities which he is currently unable to

engage in given his vision impairment. See Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (“The ADA prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate treatment for 

disability.”) Moreover, although the events at issue are intertwined with the prison’s appeals 

process, Plaintiff’s disagreement with staff appeal decisions does not give rise to a claim under 

section 1983 because the appeals process itself creates no substantive rights. Ramirez v. Galaza, 

334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Rather, 

staff’s involvement vis-a-vis the appeals process is relevant only as it relates to the denial of 

Plaintiff’s request for accommodation under the ADA. As such, the Court finds this action is 

limited to an ADA claim. 

///

Case 1:13-cv-00202-AWI-SAB Document 20 Filed 01/06/15 Page 3 of 6
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

2. Official Capacity Claim Against Acting Warden

Title II of the ADA applies to the services, programs, and activities provided for inmates 

by jails and prisons. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 208-13, 118 

S.Ct. 1952 (1998); Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1021-22; Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190,

1214-15 (9th Cir. 2008). “To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show 

that (1) [he] is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) [he] was excluded from participation in 

or otherwise discriminated against with regard to a public entity’s services, programs, or activities; 

and (3) such exclusion or discrimination was by reason of [his] disability.” Lovell v. Chandler, 

303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002); accord Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1021; McGary v. City of 

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

As Plaintiff was previously informed in the first screening order, his allegation that he has 

a visual impairment which renders him unable to read or write in his cell without the use of an 

adequate personal magnifier and prison officials have refused to provide him with an adequate 

personal magnifier is sufficient to support a claim for relief under the ADA at the pleading stage. 

E.g., Blaisdell, 729 F.3d at 1241; Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 342. However, Plaintiff may not pursue a 

claim for relief under the ADA against any prison official in his or her individual capacity. 

Chester v. Univ. of Washington, No. C11-5937 BHS, 2012 WL 3599351, at *2-3 (W.D. Wash. 

2012); Shaughnessy v. Hawaii, No. 09-00569 JMS/BMK, 2010 WL 2573355, at *8 (D. Hawai’i 

2010); Anaya v. Campbell, No. CIV S-07-0029 GEB GGH P, 2009 WL 3763798, at *5-6 (E.D. 

Cal. 2009); Roundtree v. Adams, No. 1:01-CV-06502 OWW LJO, 2005 WL 3284405, at *8 (E.D. 

Cal. 2005). The ADA precludes discrimination by public entities, and therefore, the proper 

defendant in an ADA suit is an appropriate state official in his or her official capacity. Thus, 

Plaintiff may not sue Defendants Beeler, Byers, Smith, and Hammond, as it is clear from the 

amended complaint that they were personally involved in denying his appeals and they are named 

as defendants because of that personal involvement. Defendants Allison, Tolson, Santoro, and 

Perdome, however, hold higher-level managerial positions at the prison and they may be proper 

defendants in their official capacities. 

Case 1:13-cv-00202-AWI-SAB Document 20 Filed 01/06/15 Page 4 of 6
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

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Allison is the acting warden. Accordingly, as the highest-level

official at CSATF, it appears that she is the proper person to be named in this action, in her official 

capacity. However, the Court may take judicial notice of information on government websites not 

subject to reasonable dispute, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(“CDCR”) website identifies Stu Sherman as the Acting Warden of CSATF.1 Fed. R. Evid. 201; 

Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2010). Therefore, Stu 

Sherman presently appears to be the proper defendant in this action, in his official capacity. 

Rounds v. Oregon State Bd. of Higher Educ., 166 F.3d 1032, 1036 n.2 (9th Cir. 1999) (no official 

capacity claims against former state officials). In the event that Mr. Sherman is succeeded by 

someone else during the course of this litigation, substitution of the new Acting Warden will be

appropriate. Rounds, 166 F.3d at 1036 n.2.

III. Recommendation

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s amended complaint states a cognizable official capacity 

claim against the Acting Warden of CSTAF for violation of the ADA. Accordingly, it is 

HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. CSATF Acting Warden Stu Sherman be substituted for former CSATF Acting 

Warden Kathleen Allison, and this action proceed against Mr. Sherman in his official capacity for 

violation of the ADA; and

2. Defendants Tolson, Santoro, Perdome, Byers, Smith, Beeler, and Hammond be 

dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against 

them under the ADA.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 

thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 

the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, __ F.3d __, 

 

1 Kathleen Allison is now a CDCR Executive Staff member.

Case 1:13-cv-00202-AWI-SAB Document 20 Filed 01/06/15 Page 5 of 6
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

__, No. 11-17911, 2014 WL 6435497, at *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 

923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00202-AWI-SAB Document 20 Filed 01/06/15 Page 6 of 6