Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01097/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01097-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard D. Casity
Plaintiff
High Desert State Prison
Defendant
B. Wheeler
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD D. CASITY,

Plaintiff,

v. 

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-1097 CSK P

 ORDER

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

Screening Standards 

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

governmental entity or 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 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), (2). 

////

Case 2:24-cv-01097-DC-CSK Document 7 Filed 06/25/24 Page 1 of 9
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

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 

1227. 

 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 

However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 

quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 

true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 

(1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 

Plaintiff’s Allegations

 Plaintiff is confined to a wheelchair. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that in April 

2023, he arrived at High Desert State Prison where there has not been a working toilet on B yard 

for a year. He claims that more than half of the inmates on B yard are in wheelchairs, using 

Case 2:24-cv-01097-DC-CSK Document 7 Filed 06/25/24 Page 2 of 9
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

walkers, or suffering some other form of disability, and inmates are unable to get back in their 

building to use the toilet because they are locked out while on the yard. Plaintiff submitted 

multiple requests for health care services, reasonable accommodation requests, and grievances, 

asking to have the toilet fixed, but no action was taken. (ECF No. 1 at 3, 4.) On his complaint 

form, plaintiff checked the “medical care” box and claims no adequate medical care, alleges 

discrimination, and states no ADA assistance was granted. (Id.) Plaintiff names High Desert 

State Prison and B. Wheeler, ADA Coordinator, as defendants. Plaintiff seeks money damages 

and wants the B yard toilet fixed. 

Discussion

 The court reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A 

screening, finds that it states a potentially cognizable claim against defendant B. Wheeler, ADA 

Coordinator, based on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim concerning 

the lack of a working toilet on B yard from April 2023 until April 2024. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

 For the reasons stated below, the court finds that the complaint does not state a cognizable 

claim against defendant High Desert State Prison, and also does not state cognizable ADA or 

medical claims. Such claims are dismissed with leave to amend. 

Defendant High Desert State Prison

 Plaintiff named High Desert State Prison as a defendant. The Eleventh Amendment 

serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought by private parties against a state or state agency 

unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); 

Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978)( per curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-

50 (9th Cir. 1982). In the instant case, the State of California has not consented to suit. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against High Desert State Prison are legally 

frivolous and should not be included in any amended complaint. 

 Plaintiff’s ADA Claim

Plaintiff also brings a discrimination claim under the “ADA,” Title II of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) The ADA prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of a disability in the programs, services, or activities of a public entity. 

Case 2:24-cv-01097-DC-CSK Document 7 Filed 06/25/24 Page 3 of 9
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

The elements of a cause of action under Title II of the ADA are: (1) the plaintiff is an 

individual with a disability; (2) the plaintiff is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the 

benefit of some public entity’s services, programs, or activities; (3) the plaintiff 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 the plaintiff’s disability. Thompson v. 

Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). To recover monetary damages under Title II of the 

ADA, a plaintiff must prove intentional discrimination on the part of the defendant under a 

deliberate indifference standard. Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138 (9th Cir. 

2001). “Deliberate indifference requires both knowledge that a harm to a federally protected right 

is substantially likely, and a failure to act upon that likelihood.” Id. at 1139. An entity’s failure 

to act “must be a result of conduct that is more than negligent, and involves an element of 

deliberateness.” Id. 

Here, plaintiff fails to allege facts demonstrating that defendant High Desert State Prison 

discriminated against him or treated him differently because of his disability. See Duvall, 260 

F.3d at 1138 (Title II of the ADA requires intentional discrimination); Brown v. Castillo, 2007 

WL 3054165, at *16 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2007) (“plaintiff has not alleged that he was excluded 

from or denied a prison program based on his disability.”). Plaintiff alleges that more than half of 

the inmate population housed on B yard suffer from some form of disability. However, plaintiff 

does not allege that such inmates were housed on B yard because of such disability, or that prison 

officials refused to fix the toilet because of their disabilities. In addition, there were other, 

nondisabled inmates housed on B yard, which means that all inmates housed on B yard, both 

disabled and nondisabled, were denied a working toilet. 

Thus, it appears that plaintiff’s factual allegations are more appropriately construed as an 

Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim rather than a discrimination claim.

1

 Based 

1

 The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which the prisoner is 

confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual 

punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. The 

Eighth Amendment “embodies broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, 

humanity, and decency.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976). Conditions of confinement 

Case 2:24-cv-01097-DC-CSK Document 7 Filed 06/25/24 Page 4 of 9
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

on plaintiff’s current allegations, it is unclear whether plaintiff can provide sufficient facts to

demonstrate a violation of the ADA, but his ADA claim is dismissed with leave to amend.2 

Potential Medical Claim

 As discussed above, plaintiff’s factual allegations fall squarely within Eighth Amendment 

conditions of confinement claims. Indeed, plaintiff includes no specific facts concerning medical 

care. In an abundance of caution, plaintiff is provided the standards that govern medical claims. 

A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and unusual 

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment unless the mistreatment rises to the level of 

“deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2006) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). Deliberate indifference may be shown by the denial, 

delay, or intentional interference with medical treatment or by the way in which medical care is 

provided. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988). The two-part test for 

deliberate indifference requires plaintiff to show (1) “a ‘serious medical need’ by demonstrating 

that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the 

‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s response to the need was 

deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. A defendant does not act in a deliberately 

indifferent manner unless the defendant “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate 

may, however, be harsh and restrictive. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). 

Nonetheless, prison officials must provide prisoners with “food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, 

medical care, and personal safety.” Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). 

A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: 

(1) objectively, the official’s act or omission must be so serious such that it results in the denial of 

the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities; and (2) subjectively, the prison official must 

have acted unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of inflicting harm. See Farmer, 511 U.S. 

at 834. Thus, to violate the Eighth Amendment, a prison official must have a “sufficiently 

culpable mind.” See id.

2

 If plaintiff chooses to amend to attempt to state a claim under the ADA, he is advised that he 

“cannot bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a State official in her [or his] individual 

capacity to vindicate rights created by Title II of the ADA,” and thus there would be no individual 

liability for plaintiff’s ADA claims against defendant Wheeler in this case. Vinson v. Thomas, 

288 F.3d 1145, 1156 (9th Cir. 2002). Instead, “the proper defendant for a claim under Title II of 

the ADA is the public entity responsible for the alleged discrimination.” Pauley v. California, 

2018 WL 5920780, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2018). 

Case 2:24-cv-01097-DC-CSK Document 7 Filed 06/25/24 Page 5 of 9
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

health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

Plaintiff’s Options 

 Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendant Wheeler and pursue his Eighth 

Amendment conditions of confinement claim against only defendant Wheeler, or plaintiff may 

delay serving any defendant and attempt to state other cognizable claims. If plaintiff elects to 

proceed forthwith against defendant Wheeler, against whom he stated a potentially cognizable 

Eighth Amendment claim for relief, then within thirty days plaintiff must so elect on the 

appended form. In this event, the court will construe plaintiff’s election as consent to dismissal of 

the noncognizable claims and defendant High Desert State Prison without prejudice. Under this 

option, plaintiff does not need to file an amended complaint. 

Or, plaintiff may delay serving any defendant and attempt to state other cognizable claims. 

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state other cognizable claims, he has thirty 

days to do so. Plaintiff is not granted leave to add new claims or new defendants. 

 Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 

in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 

contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 

personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation 

of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act, or omits to perform an act 

he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 

 A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a claim 

and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an 

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31. While detailed factual allegations are 

not required, “[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 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft, 556 

U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 570). 

Case 2:24-cv-01097-DC-CSK Document 7 Filed 06/25/24 Page 6 of 9
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

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility 

standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for 

more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. 

Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a 

defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and 

plausibility of entitlement to relief.

Ashcroft, 566 U.S. at 678 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions 

can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are 

not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. 

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 

Local Rule 220; see Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) 

(“an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as nonexistent.’” (internal citation omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original 

pleading is superseded. Plaintiff is not granted leave to add new claims or new defendants. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is granted.

 2. The allegations in the complaint are sufficient at least to state potentially cognizable 

Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against defendant B. Wheeler. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A. If plaintiff chooses to proceed solely as to such claims, plaintiff shall so indicate 

on the attached form and return it to the court within thirty days from the date of this order. In 

this event, the court will construe plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order 

dismissing the defective claims without prejudice. 

3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against defendant High 

Desert State Prison is dismissed without leave to amend, and plaintiff’s other potential medical, 

discrimination and ADA claims are dismissed with leave to amend. Within thirty days of service 

of this order, plaintiff may amend his complaint to attempt to rectify the identified deficiencies. 

Plaintiff is not obliged to amend his complaint.

 4. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 

proceed solely on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment condition of confinement claim against 

Case 2:24-cv-01097-DC-CSK Document 7 Filed 06/25/24 Page 7 of 9
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

defendant B. Wheeler. 

Dated: June 24, 2024

/1/casi1097.14o.csk

Case 2:24-cv-01097-DC-CSK Document 7 Filed 06/25/24 Page 8 of 9
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

RICHARD D. CASITY,

Plaintiff,

v. 

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-1097 CSK P

NOTICE OF ELECTION

Plaintiff elects to proceed as follows: 

______ Plaintiff opts to proceed with his Eighth Amendment conditions of 

confinement claim against defendant B. Wheeler. Under this option, 

plaintiff consents to dismissal of defendant High Desert State Prison, as 

well as his ADA and potential medical claims without prejudice. 

OR

_____ Plaintiff opts to file an amended complaint and delay service of process. 

DATED: 

 _______________________________ 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:24-cv-01097-DC-CSK Document 7 Filed 06/25/24 Page 9 of 9