Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110826_0011891.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-06-24 22:34:24
Document Index: 279534846

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 12132', '§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 12132', '§ 1983', '§ 504', '§ 12132']

| Lawrence Marsh v. Jerry Brown
Lawrence Marsh v. Jerry Brown
LAWRENCE MARSH,PLAINTIFF,v.JERRY BROWN, ET AL.,DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. . The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
The events at issue in this action occurred at the California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi (CCI), where Plaintiff was housed at the time of the events complained of. Plaintiff styles his complaint as an action for relief under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that, despite his inmate grievances, he has been denied minimum security classification. Plaintiff contends that he should be housed at "fire camp" instead of at CCI. Plaintiff seeks an "emergency recalculation" of his release date. Plaintiff claims that the denial of his reclassification was done in violation of the ADA.
Plaintiff alleges that he is being housed "with very violent maximum security inmates" in overcrowded and understaffed conditions. Plaintiff alleges that he was sexually assaulted by another inmate. Plaintiff also alleges that he suffered a diabetic stroke due to lockdowns denying him exercise. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered these deprivations as a result of "government officials" that violated the ADA. Plaintiff alleges that officials have violated the ADA by "retaliating against and coercing to have his remaining teeth all pulled or denying adequate dental care for serious dental needs for over seven years causing extreme pain and mental suffering." Plaintiff alleges that his rights under the ADA were also violated by "causing nutritional value to be limited to cornmeal mush, mashed potatoes and noodles," all of which cause "blood sugar spikes."
Plaintiff alleges that government officials have violated his rights by coercing plaintiff to participate in federally funded DPO (a program designed for people who intermittent wheelchair users) in effort to impact his placement at PVSP for the purpose of generating illegal monetary gain and punishing plaintiff at the same time with deliberate indifference to additional strain on taxpayers dollars or to public interest for approximately two years and six months.
(Compl. ¶ 19.)
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA) "both prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability." Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). Title II of the ADA provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subject to discrimination by such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132; seealsoLowell, 303 F.3d at 1052 (to establish violation of Title II of ADA, Plaintiff must show that (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against with regard to a public entity's services, programs, or activities, and (3) such exclusion or discrimination was by reason of his disability), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1105 (2003).
The Court finds Plaintiff's allegations to be vague. Plaintiff references his intermittent use of a wheelchair, but does not specifically allege facts indicting that he is a qualified individual with a disability, or what specific service, program or activity he is denied based upon that disability. Plaintiff lists numerous complaints regarding the conditions of his confinement, and imputes to correctional officials the intent to retaliate ...