Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01959/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-01959-1/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

KAHEAL PARRISH,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. MACOMBER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-01959-TLN-AC

ORDER

Plaintiff Kaheal Parrish (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil 

rights action seeking relief under 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 302.

On April 21, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 

served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 

recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 12.) On May 19, 2020, 

Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 15.) 

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see 

also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed 

findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and 

Case 2:17-cv-01959-TLN-AC Document 19 Filed 06/16/20 Page 1 of 3
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

decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th 

Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi 

Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 

judge’s analysis. 

To the extent Plaintiff argues he has stated a viable claim under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) because his mental illness is a protected disability (ECF No. 15 at 2), 

Plaintiff’s argument is unavailing. The ADA was enacted to “provide a clear and comprehensive 

national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 

U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). The ADA is applicable to state prisoners. See Pennsylvania Dep’t of 

Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998) (“Modern prisons provide inmates with many 

recreational ‘activities,’ medical ‘services,’ and educational and vocational ‘programs,’ all of 

which at least theoretically ‘benefit’ the prisoners (and any of which disabled prisoners could be 

excluded from participation in)”); see also Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1022–23 (9th 

Cir. 1997); Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447, 453–56 (9th Cir. 1996). 

In order to state a claim under Title II of the ADA, Plaintiff must allege: (1) he is an 

“individual with a disability;” (2) he is “otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit 

of some public entity’s services, programs, or activities;” (3) he was “either excluded from 

participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity’s services, programs, or activities, or 

was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity;” and (4) “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) (quoting Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(per curiam)). To recover monetary damages under Title II of the ADA, Plaintiff must prove 

intentional discrimination on the part of the defendant. Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 

1124, 1138 (9th Cir. 2001) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The standard for intentional 

discrimination is deliberate indifference. Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1056 (9th Cir. 

2002); Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1138–40. Where an entity has notice of the need for accommodation 

Case 2:17-cv-01959-TLN-AC Document 19 Filed 06/16/20 Page 2 of 3
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

and fails to act, the deliberate indifference test has been met, so long as the failure to act is the 

result of more than negligence and involves an element of deliberateness. Id. 

Plaintiff alleges that his mental illness constitutes a disability, but he provides no 

supporting facts or allegations that could justify an ADA claim. He does not allege that he was 

excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of any services, programs, or activities due 

to his disability. (See, generally, ECF No. 8.) Nor does he allege he was denied reasonable 

accommodations or modifications in relation to a discriminatory policy, practice, or procedure. 

Plaintiff’s current claim, that adverse actions were taken against him because of his mental

illness, do not make out discrimination pursuant to the ADA. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection is 

overruled. 

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff argues he asserted a viable claim under the Equal Protection 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see ECF No. 15 at 2–3), these arguments were already 

properly addressed and rejected by the magistrate judge. (See ECF No. 12 at 4.) Therefore, 

Plaintiff’s objection is overruled. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 21, 2020 (ECF No. 12), are adopted in 

full; 

2. This action shall proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants J. Valice, H. 

Luevano, T. Stanfield and S. Peterson used excessive force against Plaintiff on December 15, 

2015;

3. All other putative claims are DISMISSED without leave to amend; and

4. Defendants J. Macomber, L. Eldridge, J. Clough and Todd are DISMISSED without

service. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 15, 2020

Case 2:17-cv-01959-TLN-AC Document 19 Filed 06/16/20 Page 3 of 3