Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02061/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02061-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edgar Mac Collins
Plaintiff
State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

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

----oo0oo----

EDGAR MAC COLLINS,

NO. 06-CV-02061 WBS KJM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Defendant State of California moves to dismiss

plaintiff Edgar Mac Collins’ first amended complaint (“FAC”),

which alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. Plaintiff has filed a response

stating that although he “continues to contend he is a qualified

individual and one denied reasonable accommodation under the

Americans With Disabilities Act,” he recognizes that his claims

are “more properly addressed as ordinary tort claims,” and

therefore “has filed his suit in state court and intends to

proceed solely therein.” The court interprets plaintiff’s

response as a statement of non-opposition to the motion.

Case 2:06-cv-02061-WBS -KJM Document 18 Filed 05/22/07 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

Although plaintiff’s amended complaint adequately

alleges that he is a qualified individual under the ADA, the only

public entity activity plaintiff contends he was denied

sufficient access to was medical services. Medical care is one

of the “services, programs, or activities” covered by Title II of

the ADA. United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 157 (2006). 

However, “where the handicapping condition is related to the

(conditions) to be treated, it will rarely, if ever, be possible

to say with certainty that a particular decision was

‘discriminatory’.” United States v. Univ. Hosp., 729 F.2d 144,

157 (2d Cir. 1984). 

Plaintiff’s decision not to oppose the motion therefore

appears to be appropriate. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges only

substandard medical care for injuries to his eyes and foot, and

his mental health problems. (FAC ¶¶ 6-7, 12-13.) It fails to

allege that he was discriminated against in any other way aside

from his medical care or that he received discriminatory

treatment because of his disability. It is well established that

the ADA does not provide a private right of action for

substandard medical care. Fitzgerald v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 403

F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005) (“Several circuits have

expressly concluded that neither the ADA nor the Rehabilitation

Act provide remedies for alleged medical negligence.”) (citing

Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996)). 

The Ninth Circuit instructs that “a district court

should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the

pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could

Case 2:06-cv-02061-WBS -KJM Document 18 Filed 05/22/07 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

not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Nunes

v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Doe v.

U.S., 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)). Here, the court has

advised plaintiff of the elements of a properly plead ADA claim,

and the fact that the ADA does not provide a private right of

action for substandard medical care. (January 11, 2007 Order 4-

5.) Because plaintiff has already been given an opportunity to

cure these defects, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint

with prejudice. See e.g., Nicholson v. Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office, No. 06-470, 2006 WL 2092604, at *1 (D. Ariz.

July 26, 2006) (“Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be

dismissed without leave to amend because the defects in the

original Complaint were not corrected.”). Plaintiff’s response

to the motion seems to acquiesce to this outcome. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to

dismiss be, and same hereby is, GRANTED, and the action is hereby

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

DATED: May 22, 2007

Case 2:06-cv-02061-WBS -KJM Document 18 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 3