FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 30, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 8- 15 81 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 30 7- CV-FTM -2 9- SPC DARON EDISON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us TOMMY DOUBERLY, W ard en , BRENDA W ILLIAMS, AFA Pro gr am s, MR. LOVELL, Corre ct io ns Offic er, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 30 , 20 10 ) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d HILL, Ci rcu itJu dg es .HILL, Circ ui t J ud ge :

Daro n Ed is on , a pr is on er i n aFlo rid a st at e p ris on , fil edth is act io n pr o s e , al le gi ng vi ol at io ns of t he Am eri can W ith Di sabi li ti es Act, 4 2 U.S.C. § § 1 21 01 - 12 21 4 (t he “ ADA”). The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o d efen da nt s, an d Ed is on ap pe al s. I. Daro n Ed is on bro ug htth is act io n a ga in stTim ot hy Doub erl y , Bren da W il li am s, an d Ti m ot hy Love ll , all eg in g v io la ti on s o f Tit le II o f th e ADA by de fen da nt s i n t he ir “ of

fic ia l capa ci ti es ” as em

pl oyees o f GEO Care Gro up , Inc ., (“ GEO”), a pr iv at e p ris on m an ag em en t co rp or at io n o pe rat in g aFlo rid a st at e pr is on . Edis on so ug htin

jun ct iv e rel ie f an d d am ag es as the res ul t o f de fen da nt s’ al le ge d v io la ti on s o f Tit le II, whi ch pro hi bi ts a “publ ic en ti ty” from di sc riminat in g ag ai ns t qua li fie d i nd iv idua ls with d is ab il it ie s b ecau se of t he ir d is ab il it ie s. 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 21 32 . Onl y publ ic en ti ti es are l iabl e fo r vi ol at io ns of Ti tl e II o f th e ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 31 . Pa. Dep t. o f Co rr . v. Y

es key , 52 4 U.S. 2 06 , 21 0 (1 99 8) . The di st ric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o d efen da nt s o n t he gro un ds th atGEO is

2no t a p ub li c en ti ty and , th eref or e, no t l iabl e u nd er the st atut e. It i s t o t hi s que st io n 1 we no w tu rn . II. Edi so n c on te nd s t ha t GEO is a publ ic en ti ty und er the ADA becaus e Sec ti on 12 13 1( 1) (B) o f th e st atut e d efi ne s a p ub li c en ti ty, in pa rt, a s an“ in st rum en ta li ty of a St at e.” Edi so n b ol st ers hi s co nt en ti onby app li cat io n o f tr ad it io na l ca no ns of st atut ory in te rp ret at io n t o t he term “ in st ru m en ta li ty of a St at e.” W e ag ree wi th th is ap pr oa ch to in te rp ret in g t he term in st ru m en ta li ty of a St at e. Infact , we agr ee wi th th e Co urt o f App eal s fo r th e Sec on d C irc ui t t ha t in te rp ret at io n o f th e ADA’ s u se of t he term “ in stru m en ta li ty of a St at e” i s en ti re ly co ntro ll ed

by the st atut ory

lan gu ag e it se lf. Gre en v. New Y ork, 46 5 F .3d65 , 78 -7 9 (2 d C ir. 2 00 6) . In Gre en , th e p la in ti ff al le ge d t ha t a p riv at e h os pi ta l was a publ ic en ti ty for pu rp os es of t he ADA becaus e itcarr ie d o uta publ ic fun ct io n p ur su an t t o a co nt ractwith New Yo rkCit y to pro vi de cert ai n s erv ic es . Id. at78 . The Se co nd Although G EO is not named as a defe ndant, plaintiff states that he has sued de fenda nts 1 in their “off

icial ca pacities” and that the law suit, therefor e, is rea lly a suit ag ainst the alleg ed “public entity ,” GEO . Plaintiff’s theory is that GEO is a public entity under the ADA, a

nd, there fore , its employ ees ha ve off icial ca pacities. B eca

use we hold that GEO is not a public entity , we ne ed not and do not dec ide whethe r its employees w ould have ha d officia l capa cities if it were . 3Ci rcu it , ho wev er, s ai d tha t t he pl ai nt iff’s th eo ry “ fai le d t o g rap pl e wit h t he actua l wor ds of t he st atut e.” Id. The co urt o bs erv edth at , un de r th e ru le s o f st atut ory in te rp ret at io n, t he term

“publ ic en ti ty” m

us t b e g iv enit s p la in m ean in g, an d, i f th os e wor ds are s us cep ti bl e to m or e th anon e su ch m ean in g, the ir i nt erp ret at io n m us t b e g ui de d b y

th e can on s of st atut ory co ns tru ct io n. Id. Cou rts are n otfree , andm ay no t el ect , to ad op t 2 ot he r in te rp ret at io ns of s ta tu to ry lan gu ag e an d e xp an d t he reac h o f a s ta tu te m erel y be cau se so m e m ig htfin d i t d es irabl e. W it h t he se li m it at io ns in m in d, t he Seco ndCir cu itlo ok edto th e d efi ni ti on s se ct io n o f Tit le II. Thatsec ti on de fin es “publ ic en ti ty” to m ean“ an y de pa rtment, ag en cy , sp eci al pu rp os e d is tri ct , or o th er i ns tru m en ta li ty of a St at e o r St at es or lo cal go ve rn m en t.” 4 2 U.S.C. § 12 13 1 (1 )(B) . The co urt, rea so ne d, t he refo re, tha t th e p riv at e h os pi ta l t he re co ul d b e a p ub li c en ti ty on ly if i t wer e an

“ in stru m en ta li ty of a St at e,” as itfitno othe r st atut ory cat eg ory . Id. The

3 qu es ti on , th en , is whatdo es th e st atut e m eanby the word s “ in st ru m en ta li ty of a We move beyond these methods of statutory interpre tation, to legislative intent a nd 2 policy considera

tions, only

if both the plain meaningof the languag e and the canons of construction fa il to resolve the ambiguity . Id. The hospital, like the private prison manag ement compa ny here , was not a state or loca l 3 g overnme nt, a depa

rtment, ag ency , or spec ial purpose district of a state or loca l gove rnment or the National Railroa d Passeng er c orporation or a commuter a uthority . 4St at e.” Id.

“ In st ru m en ta li ty,” the Seco ndCir cu itob se rv ed , is a wor d s us cep ti bl e o f m or e th anon e m ean in g. Id . at79 . Turn in g the n t o t he can on s o f st atut ory co ns tru ct io n, t he co urt n ot edth atun de r th e can on no sc it ur a s oc iis , “ a wor d i s kn own by the co m

pa ny it k eep s.” Id. (ci ti ng Ja re ckiv. G.D. Sea rl e & Co . , 36 7 U.S. 30 3, 3 07 (19 61 )) (al th ou gh no sc it ur a s oc iis is no t an in es cap ab le rul e, “ itis of te n wi se ly app li edwher e a wo rdis cap ab le of m an y m ean in gs inord er t o a vo id th e g iv in g o f un in te nd edbre adth to th e Act s o f Co ng res s” ). The “ co m pa ny” whi ch “ in st rum en ta li ty” keep s i n thi s d efi ni ti on of p ub li c en ti ty inc lu de th e wor ds “ de pa rtment, a ge nc y , andsp eci al pu rp os e d is tri ct .” The co urt n ot edth atall of t he se word s ar e qua li fie d b y th e rem ai ni ng word s i n t he de fin it io n –“ of

a St at e o r St at es or l oc al go ve rn m en t.” Gree n , 46 5 F .3dat 7 9. Age nc ie s an d d ep art m en ts are u ni ts of ago ve rn m en ta l en ti ty. A sp eci al pu rp os e di st ric t (i n New Yo rk , as wel l as in Flo rid a) i s s etup to serve th e sp eci al ne ed s o f a go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty, su ch as wa te r co ns erv at io n. Th e d efi ni ng ch arac te ris ti c o f al l of th es e en ti ti es is th atth ey are ei th er trad it io na l g ov ern m en ta l u ni ts or c reat edby on e. Thu s, t he Seco ndCir cu itco nc lu de d, t he word s “ in strum en ta li ty of a St at e” were i nt en de d t o re fer, as do all th e o th er wo rd s ar ou ndth em , to a go ver nme nt al

5un it . Id. 4

The pri va te ho sp it al in Gre en was no t s uc h ago ve rn m en ta l u ni t, the co urt co nc lu de d. No r was itcrea te d b y a go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty. Ins te ad , “ itis a pa ral le l pr iv at e en ti ty.” Id. Even wher e su ch a pr iv at e en ti ty con tra ct s wi tha go ve rn m en t to pe rfo rm

a tr ad it io na l an d e ss en ti al go ve rn m en t fu nc ti on , itrem ai ns a pr iv at e co m pa ny, nota publ ic en ti ty. A pri va te co nt ract ordo es no t, the co urt h el d, be co m e li ab le un de r Tit le II m erel y by con tra ct in g wi th th e St at e to pro vi de go ve rn m en ta l s erv ic es , ess en ti al or o th erwi se . Id. The Se co ndCir cu itaffi rm ed th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f th e p riv at e h os pi ta l. W e to o h av e lo ng reco gn iz edth atou r au th or it y to in te rp retst atut ory la ng ua ge is co ns tra in edby the pl ai n m ean in g o f th e st atut ory lan gu ag e in th e co nt ex t o f th e en ti re s ta tu te , as a ss is te d b y th e can on s o f st atut ory

co ns tru ct io n. Ng uy en v. Uni te d Sta te s , 55 6 F .3d12 44 , 12 52 -5 7 (1 1 Cir . 20 09 ); Sh ot z v. Cit y o f th Pla nt at io n, Fla. , 34 4 F .3d11 61 , 11 67 (11 Cir . 20 03 ). W e h av e aff irmed m an y th ti m es th atwe do no t l oo k a t o ne wordor t erm in is ol at io n b utrathe r lo okto th e The re sult would be the same, the Sec ond Circuit noted, under the rule of sta tutory 4 construction of ejusdem ge neris , which provide s that when g ener al words f ollow the enumer ation of par ticular c lasses, the g ener al words should be c onstrued as a pplying only

to things of the same g ener al class a s those enumer ated. Id. at 79 n. 10. Edison agree s with the application of ejusdem ge neris , but argues that it would permit interpre tation of the statutory languag e to include entities that ar e the functional equivalent of g overnme ntal entities, and would not requir e entities to be of the same g ener al class. This interpr etation violates the c anon of c onstruction. 6en ti re s ta tu te an d i ts co nt ex t. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Silva , 44 3 F . 3d79 5, 7 98 (11 th

Ci r. 20 06 ). Our jo b i n t hi s ca se , th en , is to in te rp retth e ADA’ s u se of t he word s

“ in stru m en ta li ty of a St at e” i n am an ne r co ns is te ntwith t he ir p la in m ean in g a nd co nt ex t, an d i n t hi s en de av orwe are p ers ua de d t ha t t he Seco ndCir cu itha s “ go t i t rig ht .” W e, to o, h ol d t ha t t he term “ in st ru m en ta li ty of a St at e” re fers to go ve rn m en ta l u ni ts or u ni ts crea te d b y th em . All of t he co urts th atha ve co ns id eredth is qu es ti on have co m e to th e sa m e co nc lu si on . In Cox v. Ja cks on , 57 9 F . Sup p. 2 d 8 31 , 85 2 (E.D. Mi ch . 20 08 ), th e di st ric t co urt h el d t ha t a p riv at e m ed ic al pro vi de r fo r a p ris on co ul d n otbe co ns id ereda “publ ic en ti ty” un de r th e st atut e b ecau se itwas n ota go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty. The c ou rt a do pt edth e h ol di ng of Gre en th ata pr iv at e co nt ract ordo es no t be co m e a p ub li c en ti ty und er Tit le II m erel y by con tra ct in g wi th a go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty to p ro vi de go ve rn m en ta l s erv ic es . Id. In Hah n v . Lin n C

ou nt y , 19 1 F . Sup p.2 d 1 05 1, 1 05 5 n .2 (N.D. Io wa 20 02 ), th e d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t the pl ai n m ean in g o f th e la ng ua ge of Ti tl e II l im it s i ts li ab il it y to a publ ic en ti ty andth ata co nt ractua l re la ti on sh ip be twee n apri va te co rp or at io n anda co un ty gov ern m en t d oe s n ottra ns fo rm th e p riv at e co rp or at io n in to a “publ ic en ti ty.” Si m il arl y , in O’Co nn or

v. Metr o Ri de, Inc . , 87 F. Sup p. 2 d 8 94 , 90 0 (D.

7Mi nn . 20 00 ), th e d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t a p riv at e co rp or at io n was no t a p ub li c

en ti ty m erel y

be cau se itco nt ract edwith t he publ ic en ti ty to p ro vi de a sp eci al iz ed tra ns itpro gr am

fordi sabl edpe rs on s. Fi na ll y , in Doe v. Adki ns , 67 4 N.E.2d73 1 (Oh io Ct. Ap p. 1 99 6) , th e co urt he ldth ata pr iv at e m en ta l h eal th servi ces co rp or at io n t ha t p ro vi de d c on tra ct se rv ic es to a lo cal m en ta l h eal th ag en cy was n otanin st ru m en ta li ty of th at go ve rn m en ta l u ni t fo r th e p ur po se s o f th e ADA. The co urt o pi ne d t ha t “ be cau se [th e d efen da nt ] is no t a d ep art m en t, ag en cy , or s pe ci al pu rp os e d is tri ct , or o th er in st ru m en ta li ty of a s ta te or l oc al go ve rn m en t we fi ndth atitis no t a p ub li c en ti ty fo r pu rp os es of S ect io n 1 21 32 [of th e ADA] .” III. W e ag ree wi th th es e co urts th ata pr iv at e co rp or at io n i s n ota publ ic en ti ty m erel y be cau se itco nt ract s wi th a publ ic en ti ty to p ro vi de so m e se rv ic e. Sin ce GEO is s uc h apri va te co rp or at io n, we h ol d t ha t GEO is no t a p ub li c en ti ty subjec ti ng itto li ab il it y

un de r Tit le II o f th e ADA andis , th eref or e, no t a p ro pe r de fen da ntin th is act io n. Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s AFFIR MED. 5 The dissent sug g ests that the appe llant should have an oppor tunity to amend the 5 complaint. Howeve r, he ha s not requeste d permission to amend – her e, or in the district c ourt. 8BARKETT, Circ ui t Jud ge , di ss en ti ng :

The m ajor it y ’s ana lysis is fla wedbe cau se itco nf la te s g ov ern m en t co nt ract in g wi thgo ve rn m en t fu nc ti on . In d oi ng so , th e m ajor it y fai ls to reco gn iz e th e ex tre m el y

si gn ifi can t d is ti nc ti on be twee n apri va te co m pany tha t can l awfu ll y pe rfo rm a fu nc ti on witho utst at e in vo lv em en t an d o ne th atcan no t. Itis si m pl y no t po ss ib le foran y

en ti ty to l awfu ll y

op erat e a p ris on witho utau th or iz at io n fr om an d a co nt ractwith t he st at e. Unl ik e h os pi ta ls , whi ch canbe op erat edon be ha lf o f th e go ve rn m en t t hr ou gh a co ntractua l ag reem en t o r can be op erat edin de pe nd en tl y , pr is on s ca n n ev er b e o pe rat edin de pe nd en tl y of the go ve rn m en t. Tha t v it al di ffer en ce l ead s m e to di ss en t. The Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear t ha t t he op erat io n o f a p ris on is a

“pr im ary fu nc ti on [] of g ov ern m en t” – s o m uc h s o t ha t “ [i]t i s d iff

ic ul t t o i m ag in e anact iv it y

in whi ch a St at e h as a st ro ng er i nt eres t.” Pa. Dep ’t o f Co rr . v. Y

es key , 52 4 U.S. 2 06 , 20 9 (1 99 8) (qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d) . “ One of t he pri m ary fu nc ti on s o f go ve rn m en t . . . is th e p res erv at io n o f so ci et al ord er thr ou gh en fo rcem en t o f th e cri m in al law, an d t he m ai nt en an ce o f pe na l i ns ti tu ti on s i s an es se nt ia l p artof t ha t t as k.” Id. (quo ta ti on m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) (em ph as is ad de d) . The g ov ern m en t i s the on ly ent it y with t he po wer an d autho rit y to im pr is on in di vi du al s; th us , th e o pe rat io n o f a p ris on is pu rel y a go ve rn m en t 9fu nc ti on . Abs en t au th or iz at io n fr om an d aco ntractwith ago ve rn m en t, GEO co ul d n ot— n or

co ul d a ny oth er p riv at e en ti ty — est ab li sh an d o pe rat e a p ris on . 1 It i s t hu s cl ear t ha t GEO is ful fil li ng a pr im ary go ve rn m en t fu nc ti on by ope rat in g Mo or e Hav enan d i s t he refo re an “ in st ru m en ta li ty of a St at e” fo r pu rp os es of Ti tl e II o f th e ADA. Inth e cas e upo n wh ic h t he m ajor it y rel ie s, Gre en v. Cit

y o f Ne w Y ork, th e no n- go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty inv ol ve d (aho sp it al ) was lawf ul ly abl e to pro vi de th e ve ry same serv ic es to ot he rs in a co m m erci al set ti ng witho utco nt ract in g wi th th e st at e. 46 5 F .3d65 (2dCir . 20 06 ). The co urt fo un d t ha t m erel y co nt ract in g wi th th e st at e d idno t t ran sf

orm a pr iv at e en ti ty int o ago ve rn m en t u ni t, an d the refo re he ldth atth e h os pi ta l was no t an “ in st ru m en ta li ty of a St at e” u nd er Tit le II. Id . at 78 -7 9. Whil e st at e in vo lv em en t was no t n eces sa ry to pe rfo rm

th e fu nc ti on at i ss ue in Gre en , th atcan no t b e sa idof o pe rat in g apri so n . Si m il arl y , th e d is tri ctco urt op in io ns cit edby the m ajor ity in vo lv edco m

pa ni es th at(1) op erat eda gr oup h om e fo r di sabl edin di vi du al s, Hah n v . Lin n C ou nt y , 19 1 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 05 1 (N.D. Io wa 20 02 ); ( 2) pro vi de d t ran sp orta ti on , O’Co nn or v. Metr o Ri de, Inc . , 87 F. Sup p. 2 d 89 4 (D. M in n. 2 00 0) ; (3 ) pr ov id edm ed ic al servi ces , Cox v. Ja cks on , 57 9 F . Sup p. The idea of private ly

incar cer atingindividuals – the incarc eration of individuals without 1 state involvement – is so offe nsive to our Amer ican va lues that the U.S. Constitution forbids it. See U.S. Const. amend. XI I I . 1 02d83 1 (E.D. Mi ch . 20 08 ), an d (4 ) op erat eda m en ta l h eal th faci li ty, Doe v. Atki ns ,

67 4 N.E. 2d73 1 (Oh io Ct. Ap p. 1 99 6) . Noton e o f th es e cas es in vo lv edth e pe rfo rm an ce o f anex cl us iv e g ov ern m en ta l fu nc ti on th atco ul d b e p erfo rm edby a pr iv at e en ti ty onl y

with the st at e’s au th or iz at io n t o a ctinit s p la ce. GEO’ s op erat io n o f a p ris on is anex cl us iv e g ov ern m en ta l fu nc ti on , m ak in g i t an

“ in stru m en ta li ty of a St at e” s ub ject t o t he requi rem en ts of Ti tl e II o f th e ADA. 2 To t he ex te ntth atth e m ajor it y ho ld s t ha t co nt ract in g wi th th e g ov ern m en t t o pr ov id e se rv ic es do es no t, b y it se lf, m ak e a p riv at e co m pa ny sub ject t o Ti tl e II o f th e ADA, I agr ee. Howe ve r, whe n aco m pa ny tak es th e p la ce o f th e st at e in pe rfo rm in g afun ct io n wi th in th e ex cl us iv e p ro vi nc e o f th e st at e, th atco m pa ny can no t b e p erm it te d t o a vo idth e requi rem en ts of t he law g ov ern in g tha t s ta te fu nc ti on . Mo reo ve r, be cau se th e m ajor it y ho ld s t ha t GEO is no t a p ro pe r de fen da nt , th is cas e sh ou ldbe rem an de d t o t he di st ric t co urt wi th in st ru ct io ns th atEdi so n, The tools of statutory

construction support a f

unctional def

inition of “instrumentality of 2 a State,” a s opposed to the one a dopted by the majority . In reje ctingan interpr etation of “instrumentality

of a State” that includes private prisons, the majority fails to adher e to the “ultimate g oal” of

statutory construction, which “ is to give e ffe ct to congressional intent.” Renteria-M

arin v. Ag-Mart Produc e, Inc . , 537 F.3d 1321, 1324- 25 (11th Cir. 2008) (c itation omitted). “The A DA wa s enac ted to provide a national mandate for the e limination of discrimination ag ainst individuals with di sabilities . . . and must be broadly construed.” Kornblau v. Dade County , 86 F.3d 193, 194 ( 11th Cir.1996) (quotation marks and c itation omitted). The majority

does just the opposite when it adopts a na rrow c onstruction of the statute. 1 1who li ti ga te d h is cas e pr o s e in th e d is tri ctco urt, b e al lo wedto am en d h is

co m pl ai nt . Und er the di st ric t co urt’s an d t he m ajor ity ’s vi ew, Edi so n s ho ul d h av e su edth e Fl or id a Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s. Howev er, i t i s ce rta in ly excu sabl e 3 fo r Edi so n to ha ve be li ev edth atGEO, whi ch ful ly ope rat es th e p ris on wher e Edi so n a ll eg es di sc riminat io n, was a pr op er p art y . Edi so n a tt em

pt edto ob ta in co un se l b y fil in g am ot io n fo r ap po in te d c ou ns el bo th be fo re the di stric t co urt an d b efo re thi s ci rcu it . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d Edi so n’s m ot io n fo r ap po in tm en t o f co un se l af te r co nc lu di ng , m is ta ke nl y , th atth is cas e rai se d n o n ov el or c om pl ex is su e o f la w. The d is tri ctco urt al so fou ndth at Edi so n h adde m on st rat edhi s ab il it y to li ti ga te pr o s e . 4 The di stric t co urt erredin co ns tru in g Ed is on ’s abi li ty to fi le a pr o s e co m pl ai ntas e vi de nc e th athe di d n otne edass is tanc e fro m ap po in te d c ou ns el . 5 His ab il it y

to fil e a ca se with wri ti ng ass is ta nc e is no t ev id en ce t ha t Ed is on co ul d de ve lo p l eg al th eo rie s o n h is own or o th erwi se effe ct iv el y res earc h n ua nc ed Edison’s counsel infor

med the cour

t that the statute of limitations on Edis on’s ADA 3 claim has run. A s such, the re sult of the majority ’s dec ision today is that Edison cannot initiate a new suit ag ainst the Florida Depa rtment of Corre ctions. This court grante d Edison’s rene wed motion for a ppointment of counsel and, during or al 4 argument, Edison’s counsel c onfirmed that she would continue re prese nting Edison at the district court. Edison was able to file his case pro se be causehe re ceive d writingassistance from law

5 cler ks at the prison librar

y who assist illi terate and disable d prisoners by writingfor a

nd rea ding to them. 1 2cl ai m s. 6

Fu rth erm or e, co nt rary to t he di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on s, Ed is on rai se s an is su e o f fi rs t i m

pr es si on inth is cir cu itan d a s s uc h ra is es a no ve l l eg al is su e in an areawher e th ere i s s pars e cas el aw. In l ig htof t he factth atEdi so n i s l eg al ly bli nd , hi s ca se rai se s n ov el is su es of l aw, an d h e d idno t b en efi t fr om th e as si st an ce o f co un se l dur in g t he di st ric t co urt p ro ceed in gs , th e cas e sh ou ldbe rem an de d wi th th e o pp ortu ni ty for Ed is onto am en d h is co m pl ai nt . Leav in g the m ajor it y ’s

7 ho ld in g o n t he ADA asi de , itis anin jus ti ce t o l eav e a b li nd , in carc erat edli ti ga nt wit ho utan y

leg al reco ur se in th is co m pl ex li ti ga ti on be cau se hi s re qu es t fo r co un se l was wron gf

ul ly den ie d dur in g the di st ric t co urt p ro ceed in gs . Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, I d is se nt .

In fac t, Edison had to re-f ile his suit because he initially , and mistakenly , filed his 6 lawsuit under § 1983, a

nd not the ADA. See e .g. , Miller v. King , 449 F.3d 1149, 1151 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (re mandingcase with 7 leave to amend, in par

t, beca use litiga nt did not benefit from a ssistance of c ounsel at the time of filing his complaint); W

ilger v. De

p’t of Pensions &Sec. for State of Ala. , 593 F.2d 12, 13 ( 5th Cir. 1979) (af

firmingdismiss al of suit but remandingfor plaintiff to a dd additional defe ndants); Petrus v. Bowen , 833 F.2d 581, 583 ( 5th Cir. 1987) (same) . 1 3