FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT DE CEM B ER 1 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NOT P UB L I S H] I N TH E U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12766 N on - A r gu m e n t C al e n d ar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 1 8 3 0 - C V- OR L - 2 2 - DA B R A M O N B A D I L L O , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J A N E T T H O R P E , J u d g e , O r a n g e C o u n ty C ir c u it C o u r t, S T A T E O F F L O R I D A , D e f e n d a n ts , C O U R T A D M I N I S T R A T O R O F F I C E R , O r a n g e C o u n ty C ir c u it C o u r t, D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A p p eal fr om th e U n i te d S tate s D i st ri ct C ou rt f o r t he M i ddl e D i s t r i c t o f Fl o r i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 1, 2005)2

B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H a n d W IL S O N , C i rcu i t J u d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R a m on B a di l l o, pr oc e e di ng p ro se , appeal s the di sm i ss al of hi s c l ai m s, base d u p o n th e A m e r ic a n s w ith D is ab ilitie s A c t ( “A D A ” ) , 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 0 1 , e t . s e q. , th e R e h a b ilita tio n A c t o f 1 9 7 4 ( “R A ” ) , 2 9 U .S .C . § 7 0 1 , e t . s e q. , a n d 4 2 U .S .C . § 19 83 , agai nstC i rc ui tC ou rtJudg e J anetT ho rpe a nd C ou rtA dm i ni stra t or O ff i ce r M a tt B e n e f

ie l. A lth o u g h B a d illo m a k e s n o s p e c if ic a r g u m e n ts o n ap p e a l, g iv e n h is p ro se s t a tus a nd a l i be r a l c ons truc t i on of hi s pl e a di ngs , w e a ddr e s s w he the rthe di stri ctcourterre d b y ( 1) grant i ng the defendant s’ m ot i on t o d i sm i ss w i th res pect t o B ad i l l o ’ s A D A an d R A cl ai m s ag ai n stT h o rp e an d h i s § 1 9 8 3 cl ai m s ag ai n st b o th d e f e n d a n ts , a n d ( 2 ) g r a n tin g B e n e f ie l’s m o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w ith r e s p e c t to th e A D A a n d R A c la im s a g a in s t h im in h is o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity . See McB r i de v . Shar

pe , 25 F . 3d 96 2, 97 1 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ) ( st at i ng thatw e c on strue p ro se bri ef s l i bera l l y) . I . Ba c k g r o und B adi l l o i s ahear i ng -i m pai re d i nd i vi du al w ho w as i nv ol ved as a p ro se l i t i ganti n an u nrel at ed ci vi l ca se pend i ng i n the C i rc ui tC ou rtof the N i nth Jud i ci al C i r c ui t , i n a nd f

orO r a nge C ounty , F l or i da . U pon r e c e i vi ng not i c e of a he a r i ng, he se nta l ett ert o the C ou rtA dm i ni stra t or’ s O ff i ce , st at i ng thathe i s hea ri ng -i m pai re dT h er e are two ty p es o f i nt er

p re t er s th atas s i s tth e h eari n g-i mp ai re d . A s i gnl an gu age 1 interpreter employ s sign languag e to facilitate communication with the hea ring -impaired indivi du al, whil ean o ral interp reter s ilently mouthswo rd s tothehe aring -impaire d p e rs on in order to allo w him o r h e r to re ly up on lipre a ding . Wh ilethereis s omec on fu sio n in thepa rtie s’ briefs a s to whether a

sign la nguag e interpreter

or an oral interpreter wa s provided, it seems cle ar from the record that a sign languag e interpreter was pre sent at the he aring . Badillo st ated, “ Well, Iuse lip reading, but sometimes if the pe ople, they don’t talk too 2 loud, Ican he ar them. L ike it’s very easy for me, I ’m very

close, I understand you very

easy ; but if I ’m more than f

our fe et . . ..” 3 a n d r e q u e s t i n g “ a n i n t e rp r e t e ra s s p e c i a l a c c o m m o d a t i o n t o p a r t i c i p a t e [ s i c ] . ” At th e h e a r in g , a s ig n la n g u a g e in te rp r e te rw a s p r e s e n t , b u t B a d illo s ta te d th a t h e d id 1 n o t k n o w s ig n la n g u a g e a n d in s te a d r e lie d o n a n in f r a r e d a s s is tiv e lis te n in g d e v ic e . J udge T horpe r e pl i e d, “ W e don’ tha ve tha t . ” T horpe di s m i s s e d the i nt e rpr e t e ra nd s e a te d B a d illo w ith in f

o u rf e e t o f h e r s e lf a n d in s tru c te d a ll p a r tie s to p r o je c t th e ir v o ic e s a n d s p e a k lo u d ly . T h e in te rp r e te ra d v is e d th a t p r o je c tin g w o u ld n o t h e lp B adi l l o b ec ause he had t o rel y on l i ne of si gh t . T ho rpe a sked B adi l l o i f he r ea d l i ps , a nd B a di l l o s t a t e d tha the us e d l i p r e a di ng a nd c oul d unde r s t a nd pe opl e w ho w e r e s ta n d in g c lo s e b y . A t th e h e a r in g , T h o rp e d is m is s e d B a d illo ’s c a s e w ith 2 prej ud i ce for l ac k o f s t andi ng . In di stri ctcourt , and n ow on appeal , B adi l l o argues tha tthe f a i l ur e t o pos tpone the he a r i ng orpr ovi de the i nf r a r e d a s s i s t i ve l i s t e ni ng de vi c e vi ol a t e d hi s r i ght s unde rthe A D A , R A , a nd § 1983. I I . G r an t of

M ot i on t o D i s m i s s C l ai m s u n d e r A D A , R A , an d § 1983 We r e v i e w de no vo a d is m is s a l f o rla c k o f

s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n .The Rooker-Feldman do c trineis de rive d f ro m Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 2 63 U. S. 3 413 (1923) a

nd District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Fe ldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 4 W i l l i am s v . B e s t

B uy , 2 6 9 F .3 d 1 3 1 6 , 1 3 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) .

A. AD A a n d RA H er e, B adi l l o sued b oth T ho rpe a nd B enef i el i n thei r off

i ci al and i nd i vi du al c apa c i t i e s , f

orm one y da m a ge s a nd i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f , unde rthe A D A a nd R A . T he di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed the A D A and R A cl ai m s i n b oth o ff i ci al and i nd i vi du al capaci ty a gai nstT ho rpe bas ed up on the R ooke r - Fe ldm an do ctri ne as w el l as 3 ab so l u t e j u d i ci al i m m u n i ty, an d i n i n d i v i d u al cap aci ty ag ai n stB en efi el b ecau se the r e i s no i ndi vi dua l c apa c i ty l i a bi l i ty unde rT i t l e I I of the A D A orR A . W e now af fi rm , al tho ug h i n so h ol di ng w e do n otfi nd i tnece ss ary t o add re ss the R o o kerFe ldm an do ctri ne. B a di l l o’ s c l a i m f

orm one y da m a ge s a ga i ns tT horpe ba s e d upon the A D A a nd R A is b a rr e d b y th e d o c tr in e o f a b s o lu te ju d ic ia l im m u n ity . Se e D u v a ll v . C o u n ty of Ki t s ap , 26 0 F . 3d 11 24 , 11 33 (9th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ho l di ng thatst at e tri al j ud ge w as e nt i t l e d t o j udi c i a l i m m uni ty a ga i ns ta c c om m oda t i on c l a i m s br oughtby he a r i ng i m pa i r e d l i t i ga nt ) . H ow e ve r , “ j udi c i a l i m m uni ty i s nota ba rt o pr os pe c t i ve i nj un ct i ve re l i ef

agai nsta j ud i ci al offi ce r a ct i ng i n h erj ud i ci al capaci ty. ” P ul l i am v. A l l en , 46 6 U . S . 52 2, 54 1-42 , 10 4 S . C t . 19 70 , 19 81 , 80 L . E d. 2d 56 5 (19 84 ). N e v e r th e le s s , s im p ly b e c a u s e in ju n c tiv e r e lie f

is a v a ilab le d o e s n o t m e a n itIn his complaint, Badillo re quests an order re quiringthe 4 defendants to prepa

re a nd present a plan to this Court to affirmatively and publicly educate users of

the Judicial System to assure that the 12%of the ha rd of he aringof

the42 mil lio n disa

ble d p e op le[sic ] in o ur

demot ra tic [sic ] natio n who wo rk

and pa y taxes a repa rtic ipatingin all l e g al daily activities so they

may enjoy life and c ontribute to our prosperity and s e c uri ty. In fac t, Badillo provides a document indicating that infrare d assistive listening devic es 5 areavaila bleup on re qu e st. 5 i s app ropri at e. In thi s c as e, B adi l l o’ s r equestfor i nj un ct i ve re l i ef i s notprop eras t o e i the rT horpe orB e ne f i e l . “ A l though pa s tw r ongs a r e e vi de nc e be a r i ng on w h e th e rth e r e is a r e a l a n d im m e d ia te th r e a t o f r e p e a te d in

ju ry , [ p ]a s t e x p o s u r e to i l l e ga l c onduc tdoe s noti n i t s e l f s how a pr e s e ntc a s e orc ontr ove r s y r e ga r di ng i nj un ct i ve re l i ef

. . . i f unaccom pani ed by any c on t i nu i ng , pres entadvers e e ff ec t s. ” W oode n v . B d. of

R ege nt s of U ni v . Sys . of

G a. , 24 7 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 84 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed) ( al t er at i on s i n o ri gi nal ). B adi l l o d oes notse ek t o e nj oi n T horpe orB e ne f i e l f r om r e f us i ng t o a c c om m oda t e hi s di s abi l i ty i n the f utur e , nordoe s he s ugge s ttha tthe de f e nda nt s ’ a l l e ge d f

a i l ur e t o do s o i s a ny thi ng 4 m ore than an i sol at ed occurre nce. B ec ause B adi l l o d oes notal l ege thathe fa ce s 5 a n i m m e d i a t e th r e a tth a tT h o rp e o rB e n e f i e l wi l l a g a i n v i o l a t e h i s r i g h t s , we di s c e rn no e rr ori n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

unde rthe A D A a nd R A . T o th e e x te n t th a t B a d illo s e e k s to h o ld B e n e f ie l p e r s o n a lly liab le , th e r e isB y its own term s, theEl e venth Am e ndment a ff

ords state s immunity

from s uit s, bo th 6 leg al and e quitable. Ex Parte Young , 2 09 U. S. 1 23 (1 90 8) , re c ognize s a n e xcepti on

“ fo r s uit s aga i n s ts t at e o ff

i ce rs s ee ki n g prospectiveequitable relief to end continuing violations of federal law.” Summit Medic al Assocs, P.C. v. Pryor , 1 80 F .3 d 1 32 6, 13 36 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 9) (emph a sis in orig inal). However, a s already noted, B adillo has made no alleg ations of an “ ong oing a nd continuous violation.” 6 n o in d iv id u a l c ap a c ity liab ility u n d e rT itle I I o f th e A D A o rR A . See G arci a v. S. U . N . Y . H eal th Scis. C tr. O

f B rookl yn , 28 0 F . 3d 98 , 10 7 (2n d C i r. 20 01 ). F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , we a f f i r m th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l o f B a d i l l o ’ s AD A and R A cl ai m s a gai nstT ho rpe i n h eroffi ci al and i nd i vi du al capaci t i es , as w el l as th e A D A an d R A cl ai m s ag ai n stB en efi el i n h i s i n d i v i d u al cap aci ty. B . § 1983 1. O ff i ci al C ap aci ty L i ab i l i ty I n th is c a s e , E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity ap p lie s to b a rB a d illo ’s c la im f o rm o n e y d a m a g e s a n d in ju n c tiv e r e lie f

a g a in s t T h o rp e a n d B e n e f ie l in th e ir o f f ic ia l c ap a c itie s . T h e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t “p r o te c ts a S ta te f r o m b e in g s u e d in 6 fe dera l courtw i tho utthe S t at e’ s c on se nt . ” M an ders v. L ee , 338 F . 3d 1304, 1308 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 12 4 S . C t . 10 61 (200 4). M a n ders i dent i fi ed four fac t ors t o b e c on si dere d i n d et erm i ni ng w hether a de f e nda nti s a n “ a r m of

the s t a t e ” f

orE l e ve nth A m e ndm e ntpurpos e s : “ ( 1) how s t a t e l a w de f

i ne s the e nt i ty ; ( 2) w ha tde gr e e of c ontr ol the S t a t e m a i nt a i ns ove rthe e nt i ty ; ( 3) w he r e the e nt i ty de r i ve s i t s f unds ; a nd ( 4) w ho i s r e s pons i bl e f or7

j ud gm ent s a gai nstthe ent i ty. ” M a n ders , 338 F . 3d a t1309. T h e f ir s t M a n ders f a c t ora ddr e s s e s the m a nne ri n w hi c h the s t a t e de f i ne s the e n tity . A r tic le V , S e c tio n 1 o f th e F lo r id a C o n s titu tio n p r o v id e s , in p a r t: T h e ju d ic ia l p o w e rs h a ll b e v e s te d in a s u p r e m e c o u r t, d is tr ic t c o u r ts of appe a l , c i r c ui tc our t s a nd c ounty c our t s . N o othe rc our t s m a y be e s tab lis h e d b y th e s ta te , a n y p o litic a l s u b d iv is io n o ra n y m u n ic ip a lity . T h e le g is la tu r e s h a ll, b y g e n e r a l la w , d iv id e th e s ta te in to ap p e lla te co u rtd i stri ct s an d j u d i ci al ci rcu i t s fo l l o w i n g co u n ty l i n es. F l o ri d a S t atu t e § 2 6 . 0 1 d i v i d es th e st at e i n t o 2 0 j u d i ci al ci rcu i t s. A d d i t i o n al l y, A r tic le V , S e c tio n 5 e s tab lis h e s th e o r g a n iz a tio n a n d ju r is d ic tio n o f th e c ir c u it co u rt s, an d A rt i cl e V , S ect i o n 8 set s fo rth th e el i g i b i l i ty cri t eri a fo r st at e j u d g es, i n cl u d i n g ci rcu i tj u d g es. F l o ri d a S t atu t e § 1 1 1 . 0 7 1 (3 ) ad d resses th e p aym en to f j u d g m en t s ag ai n st c e r ta in p u b lic o f

f ic e r s o re m p lo y e e s a n d d e f in e s “a g e n c y o f

th e s ta te ” o r“s ta te a ge nc y ” a s i nc l udi ng the j udi c i a l br a nc h. F ur the r , F l or i da S t a tut e § 25. 382( 1) pr ovi de s tha t“ ‘ s t a t e c our t s s y s t e m ’ m e a ns a l l of f i c e r s , e m pl oy e e s , a nd di vi s i ons of

. . . circu itco u rts[ .] ” B as ed up on the foregoi ng , i ti s c l ea r thatF l ori da ci rc ui tcourtj ud ges a re st at e off i ci al s a nd courtadm i ni stra t ors a re partof the st at e c ou rt s s ys t em , w hi ch, as a c o m p o n e n t o f

th e ju d ic ia l b r a n c h , is a s ta te a g e n c y . T h u s , th e f ir s t M a n ders fact o r w ei g h s i n fav o r o f E l ev en th A m en d m en ti m m u n i ty.8

T he s e c ond M

a n ders f a c t ora s ks w ha tde gr e e of c ontr ol the s t a t e m a i nt a i ns o v e rth e e n tity . T h e S ta te o f F lo r id a e x e r c is e s s u b s ta n tia l c o n tr o l o v e rb o th c ir c u it c our tj udge s a nd c i r c ui tc our ta dm i ni s tr a t or s . T he F l or i da C ons t i tut i on ve s t s the F l or i da S upr e m e C our tw i th the pow e rt o di s c i pl i ne orr e m ove c i r c ui tj udge s f or m i sc on du ctor un fi tness . F l a. C on st . A rt . V , § 1 2(c) . T he F l ori da L egi sl ature po ss es se s i m peac hm entautho ri ty over c i rc ui tj ud ges “ for m i sdem ea no r i n o ff i ce . ” Id ., A r t. I I I , § 1 7 . T h e G o v e rn o rf ills ju d ic ia l v a c a n c ie s o n th e c ir c u it c o u r t. Id ., A r t. V , § 1 1 . A d d itio n a lly , th e F lo r id a S u p r e m e C o u r t f u r th e rr e g u la te s c ir c u it ju d g e s th r o u g h th e F lo r id a R u le s o f J u d ic ia l A d m in is tr a tio n . T he S t at e of F l ori da al so exer ci se s s ub st ant i al cont rol ov erst at e c ou rt adm i ni stra t ors. A s pre vi ou sl y not ed, the po si t i on of st at e c ou rtadm i ni stra t or w as c r e a te d p u r s u a n t to th e g e n e r a l ru le m a k in g a u th o r ity o f F lo r id a ’s S u p r e m e C o u r t. In ac cordance w i th F l ori da R ul e of J ud i ci al A dm i ni stra t i on 2. 05 0(d), st at e c ou rt a d m in is tr a to r s a r e ap p o in te d a n d te r m in a te d b y th e C h ie f J u d g e o f th e C ir c u it C ou rt , a s t at e off

i ce r. B enef

i el ’ s s al ary i s pai d excl usi vel y by the S t at e of F l ori da, h e p a r tic ip a te s in th e S ta te ’s r e tir e m e n t f u n d , a n d th e C h ie f

J u d g e e x c lu s iv e ly p r o v id e s B e n e f

ie l w ith in s tru c tio n s f

o rf u lf illin g h is r o le a s c o u r t a d m in is tr a to r . A c c or di ngl y , the s e c ond M a n ders fact o r fav o rs E l ev en th A m en d m en ti m m u n i ty. T he thi r d M

a n ders f a c to ra s k s f

r o m w h e r e th e e n tity d e r iv e s its f u n d s .9

C ir c u it c o u r t ju d g e s r e c e iv e th e irs a la r ie s f r o m th e S ta te o f

F lo r id a . F la . C o n s t. A r t . V , § 14( a ) ; F l a . S t a t . § 26. 51. B e ne f i e l l i ke w i s e r e c e i ve s hi s s a l a ry f r om the S t at e of F l ori da and p art i ci pat es i n the st at e r et i re m entsy st em . T here fore , the thi rd fact o r l i k ew i se fav o rs E l ev en th A m en d m en ti m m u n i ty. T h e f in a l M a n ders fact o r co n cern s w h o i s resp o n si b l e fo r j u d g m en t s ag ai n st th e e n tity . “[ T ]h e p r e s e n c e o f a s ta te tr e a s u ry d r a in a lo n e m a y tr ig g e rE le v e n th A m endm enti m m un i ty a nd m ake c on si dera t i on of the ot her f ac t ors unn ec es sa ry . ” M a n ders , 338 F . 3d a t1327 n. 51. I n thi s c a s e , the S t a t e w oul d be r e s pons i bl e f orpa y i ng a ny m one y j udgm e nt i m pos e d a ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt s i n the i rof

f i c i a l c apa c i t i e s . F l or i da S t a tut e § 284. 30 e s t a bl i s he d a “ s t a t e s e l f

- i ns ur a nc e f

und, de s i gna t e d a s the ‘ S t a t e R i s k M a na ge m e nt T rustF un d, ’ . . . t o p rovi de i nsurance . . . for . . . fe dera l ci vi l ri gh t s a ct i on s und er 42 U . S . C . § 1983 ors i m i l a rf e de r a l s t a tut e s [ . ] ” A s pr e vi ous l y not e d, j udge s a nd adm i ni stra t ors of the ci rc ui tcourtar e s t at e off i ci al s, and as s uch, they a re covered by the S t at e R i sk M anagem entT rustF un d. T here fore , i ti s c l ea r thatany m on ey j ud gm entent er ed agai nstT ho rpe or B enef i el w ou l d d i re ct l y i m pl i ca t e the tre as ury o f th e S ta te o f

F lo r id a . T h is f

a c to rc o u n s e ls h e a v ily in f a v o ro f E le v e n th A m en d m en ti m m u n i ty. B as ed up on the appl i ca t i on of the four M a n ders f a c t o r s t o th i s c a s e , weWe note that the same c onclusion was re ache d in Sa ntiago v. Garc ia , 70 F.Supp.2d 84, 7 90 (D.P.R. 1999), a c ase in whic h Badillo sued a trial judg e and other territorial officials for the alle g e d f ailureto ac c omm odatehishe aringimp air ment d uringtrial. Although Holbrook

concerned a

n employee-plaintiff’s claims ag ainst an employer, w e 8 believe theanalysis applies with equal force to the f acts of theinstant case. 10 a gr e e w i th the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c onc l us i on tha tT horpe a nd B e ne f i e l a r e a r m s of

the s t a t e f orE l e ve nth A m e ndm e ntpurpos e s a nd the r e f or e e nj oy i m m uni ty f

r om l i abi l i ty on B adi l l o’ s § 19 83 cl ai m s, bo th l egal and equ i t abl e. 7 2. In d i vi d u al C ap aci ty L i ab i l i ty T o th e e x te n t th a t B a d illo s e e k s to h o ld T h o rp e a n d B e n e f ie l in d iv id u a lly l i abl e und er§ 1 98 3, “ a pl ai nt i ff ca nn otm ai nt ai n a se ct i on 19 83 ac t i on i n l i eu of - or i n add i t i on t o - a R ehabi l i t at i on A ctor A D A cause of a ct i on i f the on l y a l l eged de pr i va t i on i s the [ pl a i nt i f f’ s ] r i ght s c r e a t e d by the R e habi l i t a t i on A c ta nd the A D A .” H

olbr ook v . C i t y of A l phar e t ta, G a. , 11 2 F . 3d 15 22 , 15 31 (11t h C i r. 8 1 9 9 7 ) . Th e r e f

o r e , w e a f

f i r m th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f th e § 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms ag ai n stT h o rp e an d B en efi el i n th ei r i n d i v i d u al cap aci t i es. II I. G ran t of S u m m ary Ju d gm en t on A D A an d R A C l ai m s aga i n st B en ef i el A f t e rthe i ni t i a l di s tr i c tc our tor de rgr a nt i ng T horpe ’ s a nd B e ne f i e l ’ s m ot i ons t o d i s mi s s , th e o n l y c l a i ms o f Ba d i l l o ’ s th a tr e ma i n e d w e r e h i s A D A a n d RA c la im s a g a in s t B e n e f

ie l in h is o f

f ic ia l c ap a c ity . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s u b s e q u e n tly g ran t ed B en efi el ’ s m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss th ese cl ai m s.11

We r e v i e w de no vo a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rg r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t,

“ appl yi ng the sa m e l egal st andards as the di stri ctcourt . ” C hapm an v . A I T r ans p. , 22 9 F . 3d 10 12 , 10 23 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( e n banc ) . S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is appr opr i a t e “ i f

the pl e a di ngs , de pos i t i ons , a ns w e r s t o i nt e rr oga t or i e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on f

i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f

f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how tha tthe r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny m a t e r i a l f a c ta nd tha tthe m ovi ng pa r ty i s e nt i t l e d t o a ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte ro f la w .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 ( c ) . “I n m a k in g th is det erm i nat i on , the courtm ustvi ew al l evi dence and m ake a l l re as on abl e i nfer ence s i n favor of the party opp osi ng sum m ary j ud gm ent . ” Ha v e s v . C i t y o f Mi a mi , 52 F . 3d 91 8, 92 1 (11 th C i r. 19 95 ).

“ T o st at e acl ai m un der T i t l e I I of the A D A , a pl ai nt i ff m ustal l ege: (1) that he i s a qua l i f

i e d i ndi vi dua l w i th a di s abi l i ty ; ( 2) tha the w a s e xc l ude d f r om pa r t i c i pa t i on i n or. . . de ni e d the be ne f i t s of the s e r vi c e s , pr ogr a m s , ora c t i vi t i e s of a publ i c e nt i ty orothe rw i s e di s c r i m i na t e d [ a ga i ns t ] by s uc h e nt i ty ; ( 3) by r e a s on of such di sabi l i ty. ” Sh ot

z v . C at es , 25 6 F . 3d 10 77 , 10 79 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot es om i tt ed) ( al t er at i on s i n o ri gi nal ). In order t o rec ov ercom pensat ory da m a ge s unde rthe R A , a pl a i nt i f f m us tde m ons tr a t e “ i nt e nt i ona l di s c r i m i na t i on or bad fai th. ” W

o o d v . P r e s ide n t & T

rs . o f S p r in gHill C o ll. in C ity o f Mo b ile , 978 F . 2d 1214, 1219 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . I n othe rw or ds , “ good f a i th a tt e m pt s t o pur s ueIt is puzzlin gthat B a dil lo w ould h avere qu e ste d e ith e r t y peof int e rp reter, g iven h is 9 statement at the he aringthat he does not understand sign languag e and his subsequent statement that hedo e s n ot re a d lips . 12 l egi t i m at e e nd s a re no tsuff i ci entt o sup po rtan aw ar d o f c om pensat ory dam ages un der [ the R A ] . ” Id . W i th the e xc e pt i on of i t s f e de r a l f undi ng r e qui r e m e nt , the R A uses the sa m e s t andards as the A D A , and t here fore , ca se s i nt erpret i ng ei ther a re ap p lic a b le a n d in te r c h a n g e ab le . Se e , e .g ., C a s h v . Sm ith , 231 F . 3d 1301, 1305 & n. 2 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ). T he f a c t s of thi s c a s e do nots uppor ta s how i ng of i nt e nt i ona l di s c r i m i na t i on o rb a d f a ith . B a d illo r e q u e s te d a n in te rp r e te r , a n d o n e w a s p r o v id e d . B a d illo d id no tspec i fy w hether he r equi re d an o ra l i nt erpret eror a s i gn l angu age i nt erpret er , 9 a nd onl y a tthe he a r i ng di d he s t a t e tha the r e l i e d upon a n i nf r a r e d a s s i s t i ve l i s t e ni ng de vi c e . B e ne f i e l a c t e d r e a s ona bl y i n a tt e m pt i ng t o a c c om m oda t e B a di l l o, pa r t i c ul a r l y i n l i ghtof

the f a c ttha the ha d no know l e dge of B a di l l o’ s s ubs e que nt re q u es t fo r th e in fr ar ed d ev ice. T h er ef o re , w e a g re e w ith th e d istrict co u rt’s fi nd i ng thatB enef

i el di d n oti nt ent i on al l y di sc ri m i nat e a gai nstB adi l l o o r a cti n b ad fa i th, and w e a ff

i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof B enef i el ’ s m ot i on for s um m ary ju d g m e n t. I V . C on c l u s i on Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we13

d i s c e rn n o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r . Fo rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , w e a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.