Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02163/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02163-13/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VANCE BLAINE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE 

FACILITY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-2163 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, who is blind, is a state prisoner at the California Health Care Facility (CHCF). 

Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Presently pending is plaintiff’s request for accommodations in the form of a 

portable computer with a full screen reader program.1

 See ECF No. 55. 

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed April 24, 2014. 

ECF No. 13. Pursuant to screening the FAC under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this court found that it 

states cognizable claims against defendants Dr. Sabin, Dr. Crosson and Dr. Ditomas, for 

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs concerning treatment for his eyes and 

 

1

 Plaintiff also requests that defendants provide him with counsel at their expense, for which 

there is no authority. 

Case 2:13-cv-02163-KJM-AC Document 57 Filed 09/08/16 Page 1 of 4
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

vision. See ECF Nos. 18, 36, 53. Service of process by the United States Marshal remains 

outstanding for defendants Crosson and Ditomas.2

 Due to plaintiff’s visual impairments and his continuing difficulties in pursuing this 

action, the court granted plaintiff’s ninth request for appointment of counsel on June 8, 2015. See 

ECF No. 46. However, this court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution/Pro Bono Coordinator was 

unable to locate an attorney willing to voluntarily represent plaintiff. Therefore, by order filed 

May 19, 2016, the court informed plaintiff that he would need to represent himself. See ECF No. 

51. The court obtained the assistance of the Office of the California Attorney General to identify 

and locate the unserved defendants. See ECF Nos. 51-3. 

Pursuant to his instant request for accommodations, plaintiff states that when he was 

previously incarcerated at the California Medical Facility (CMF), he was able to use “a computer 

that reads all documents, take notes and receives dictations.” ECF No. 55-1 at 1. Plaintiff states 

that he has exhausted his request for the same or similar accommodations at CHCF, without 

obtaining a satisfactory resolution. He has attached copies of several accommodation requests 

and two administrative appeals.3 These materials indicate that plaintiff has not exhausted his 

 

2

 Only defendant Sabin has been served and appeared in this action; he is represented by private 

counsel. 

3

 These accommodation requests and administrative appeals reflect the following: 

1824 (ADA) Log No. CHCF-D-15-02148: CHCF’s “Reasonable 

Accommodation Panel” (RAP) informed plaintiff on September 2, 

2015, that “[i]n accordance with the Armstrong Remedial Plan 

(ARP), CHCF staff are meeting the requirements . . . [because you 

can] utilize the ADA clerk inmate workers . . . in the law library 

[and] two Optilex machines which can read books and other written 

documents to you, you may wear headphones in order to maintain 

confidentiality.” ECF No. 55-1 at 6. Plaintiff was informed that 

he could file a CDCR 602 if he disagreed. Id. 

602 Appeal Log No. CHCF-D-15-01971: Plaintiff complained in 

part that “the vision impaired machine in the library does not take 

notes or write or take dictation. . . .” ECF No. 55-1 at 10. The 

appeal, which noted plaintiff’s TABE score at 1.7, was partially 

granted on Second Level Review, on October 21, 2015, on the 

ground that plaintiff could access one of the two “Optelec devices” 

during his assigned library hours, “which magnifies and reads text 

in audible format.” Id. at 8. However, plaintiff was informed that 

“CHCF does not have a machine that can transcribe or dictate audio 

(continued...) 

Case 2:13-cv-02163-KJM-AC Document 57 Filed 09/08/16 Page 2 of 4
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

administrative remedies through Third Level Review, which is a prerequisite to asserting a new 

claim in this (or another) action under the Americans with Disabilities Act.4 Nevertheless, these 

materials also appear to indicate that plaintiff has no further practical recourse for obtaining 

technical or personal assistance in researching and preparing his legal materials, particularly in 

obtaining access to a technical program that both “reads” and “writes.” 

Due to the special circumstances in this case, the court will request that the Office of the 

California Attorney General inquire of the CHCF Litigation Coordinator and/or Law Librarian 

 verbiage. CHCF is meeting the requirements set by Armstrong 

Remedial Plan.” Id. In response to plaintiff’s request that other 

inmates or staff be permitted to read plaintiff’s confidential 

documents, or make writings or take dictations thereon, the CHCF 

Warden informed plaintiff that such activities were not permitted 

under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3450(d) (“No inmate or parolee 

shall prepare, handle, or destroy any portion of a departmental 

record containing confidential information as that term is defined in 

section 3321.”). Id. 

1824 (ADA) Log No. CHCF-D-15-03117: CHCF’s RAP informed 

plaintiff on November 30, 2015, that the Librarian would assist him 

in writing letters to the court informing court staff of plaintiff’s 

disabilities. ECF No. 55-1 at 14-6. 

1824 (ADA) Log No. CHCF-D-15-02714: CHCF’s RAP informed 

plaintiff on December 8, 2015, that, inter alia, his request for 

additional time in the library was approved with modification. ECF 

No. 55-1 at 13. 

602 Appeal Log No. CHCF-D-15-03540: This appeal was 

screening out as duplicative of 602 Appeal Log No. CHCF-D-15-

01971. ECF No. 55-1 at 11-2. 

1824 (ADA) Log No. CHCF-D-16-01699: CHCF’s RAP informed 

plaintiff on June 29, 2016, that his requests for a computer with a 

full screen reader program along with a windows and office 

program, was disapproved as duplicative. 

4

 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) mandates that an inmate exhaust ‘such 

administrative remedies as are available’ before bringing suit to challenge prison conditions.” 

Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1854-55 (June 6, 2016) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)). 

 Plaintiff is informed that new claims based on actions that took place after the original 

complaint was filed, are not barred under McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002) (per 

curiam), so long as plaintiff exhausted them prior to including them in the operative amended 

complaint. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Akhtar v. J. 

Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1210 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Case 2:13-cv-02163-KJM-AC Document 57 Filed 09/08/16 Page 3 of 4
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

about the ways in which plaintiff is currently supported in pursuing this action, and whether there 

are any additional means to support him, e.g., by providing additional personal assistance and/or 

additional technical support (for example, a computer program that provides both text-to-speech, 

and speech-to-text, options, borrowed or leased from another CDCR facility (e.g., CMF) or 

another state entity (e.g., California Department of Rehabilitation)). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Office of the California Attorney General is requested to: 

a. Contact the Litigation Coordinator and/or Law Librarian at the California 

Health Care Facility to determine the ways in which plaintiff is currently supported in his 

pursuit of this action, and to specifically identify all potential additional means and 

methods for constructively supporting plaintiff through the conclusion of this action; and 

b. Within 30 days after the filing date of this order, file and serve a statement 

reflecting the findings of such inquiry, including all appropriate declarations. 

 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on Ms. Monica Anderson, 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General. 

DATED: September 7, 2016 

Case 2:13-cv-02163-KJM-AC Document 57 Filed 09/08/16 Page 4 of 4