Source: https://m.openjurist.org/170/f3d/850
Timestamp: 2019-12-08 09:29:34
Document Index: 589271583

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1292', '§ 12131', '§ 12131', '§ 12131', '§ 794', '§ 794', '§ 12131', '§ 476', '§ 476', '§ 476', '§ 3626']

170 F. 3d 850 - Randolph v. Rodgers
170 F3d 850 Randolph v. Rodgers
170 F.3d 850
Ronnie RANDOLPH, Appellee,
Bill RODGERS, Don Roper, Paul Delo, Michael Bowersox, Dora
Schriro, individually and in their official
capacities, and the Missouri Department
of Corrections, Appellants.
On an appeal from an injunction, however, the issues the Court may review are limited. In Fogie v. THORN Americas, Inc., 95 F.3d 645 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1166, 117 S.Ct. 1427, 137 L.Ed.2d 536 (1997), this Court explained the parameters of its jurisdiction to review interlocutory appeals of injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a):
We review the district court's issuance of a permanent injunction for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., F.D.I.C. v. Bell, 106 F.3d 258, 262-63 (8th Cir.1997); Baker Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Chaske, 28 F.3d 1466, 1472 (8th Cir.1994); ILQ Investments, Inc. v. City of Rochester, 25 F.3d 1413, 1416 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1017, 115 S.Ct. 578, 130 L.Ed.2d 493 (1994). "Abuse of discretion occurs if the district court reaches its conclusion by applying erroneous legal principles or relying on clearly erroneous factual findings." See, e.g., Fogie, 95 F.3d at 649. To the extent we examine the district court's summary judgment decision, the standard of review is de novo. Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Rifkin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 78 F.3d 1277, 1280 (8th Cir.1996).
A claim for equitable relief is moot "absent a showing of irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again." City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). The defendants rely on Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir.1985), to support their mootness argument. In Martin, this Court held that once an inmate is transferred to another institution, his claim for injunctive relief against the warden of the first prison to improve the former prison's conditions is moot. Id. at 1337. Martin is readily distinguished from this case and does not control. In Martin, the injunction sought could not address future wrongs the plaintiff was likely to suffer because the first warden had no control over the second prison. The same cannot be said in Randolph's action. Randolph asserts claims directly against the Missouri Department of Corrections, and alleges the Department of Corrections violated his rights under the ADA, the RA and under Missouri state law by failing to provide him with a sign language interpreter. Thus, unlike the plaintiff in Martin, Randolph has claimed he is exposed to an actual future threat under the control of the Department of Corrections--that he will not be provided an interpreter. Moreover, the injunction was issued against Missouri's Department of Corrections, which controls both prisons and the funding necessary to provide the sign language interpreter requested by Randolph. Accordingly, Randolph's claims for injunctive relief are not moot.
B. The ADA and RA Claims
The Department of Corrections next argues that the district court abused its discretion by issuing an injunction to enforce Randolph's ADA and RA claims. The standard for determining whether a permanent injunction should issue is essentially the same as the familiar standard for a preliminary injunction. See Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987). In a preliminary injunction, a district court must balance four factors to determine whether injunctive relief is merited: 1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; 2) the balance between this harm and the harm to the nonmoving party should the injunction issue; 3) the likelihood of success on the merits; and 4) the public interest. See Fogie v. THORN Americas, Inc., 95 F.3d 645, 654 (8th Cir.1996) (citing Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir.1981). "The standard is the same for a permanent injunction except that the movant must show actual success on the merits." Amoco Production Co., 480 U.S. at 546 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1396.
Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., prohibits qualified individuals with disabilities from being excluded from participation in or the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity. A qualified individual with a disability is defined as any person who "meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2). The term "public entity" is defined as "any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government." 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). The Supreme Court recently held that Title II of the ADA applies to state prisons. See Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 118 S.Ct. 1952, 141 L.Ed.2d 215 (1998).
The RA provides that no otherwise qualified individual with a disability shall be "excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The RA defines "program or activity" to include "all of the operations of a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government." 29 U.S.C. § 794(b). The ADA and the RA are "similar in substance" and, with the exception of the RA's federal funding requirement, "cases interpreting either are applicable and interchangeable." See Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907, 912 (8th Cir.1998) (citing Allison v. Department of Corrections, 94 F.3d 494, 497 (8th Cir.1996)); see also Wooten v. Farmland Foods, 58 F.3d 382, 385 n. 2 (8th Cir.1995).
The Department of Corrections first argues that Randolph failed to state a prima facie case under either the ADA or the RA. To state a prima facie claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must show: 1) he is a person with a disability as defined by statute; 2) he is otherwise qualified for the benefit in question; and 3) he was excluded from the benefit due to discrimination based upon disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.; see also Gorman, 152 F.3d at 911-12; Doe v. University of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 50 F.3d 1261, 1265 (4th Cir.1995). The RA contains the additional requirement that the plaintiff show the program or activity from which he is excluded receives federal financial assistance. See Gorman, 152 F.3d at 911; Thomlison v. City of Omaha, 63 F.3d 786, 788 (8th Cir.1995). As an affirmative defense, a defendant may demonstrate that the requested accommodation would constitute an undue burden. See Gorman, 152 F.3d at 911.
We agree with the district court's analysis. The Department of Corrections argues strenuously that Randolph was not excluded from prison services, programs, and activities. It is true that Randolph could physically attend activities. However, the ADA and RA require that otherwise qualified individuals receive "meaningful access" to programs and activities. See Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559, 561 (9th Cir.1988) (quoting Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301, 105 S.Ct. 712, 83 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985)). The record does not contain credible evidence to support a finding that Randolph enjoyed meaningful access to the prison's internal disciplinary process, even if he was capable of limited participation.
The Department of Corrections also claims that Randolph failed to make a timely request for a sign language interpreter and it cannot be found liable for failing to provide unsolicited accommodations. See Lue v. Moore, 43 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir.1994); Wynne v. Tufts Univ. School of Med., 976 F.2d 791, 795 (1st Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1030, 113 S.Ct. 1845, 123 L.Ed.2d 470 (1993). The Department of Corrections alleges that Randolph originally made a request for an interpreter in 1989, and then failed to repeat that request until after he was found guilty in the disciplinary proceedings. While it is true Randolph did not request an interpreter for the February 1994 disciplinary proceedings until after he was found guilty, Randolph did ask for an interpreter in his March 14, 1994 IRR and appeal. When Randolph received his July 1994 conduct violations, the Department of Corrections was on notice that Randolph claimed he could not fully participate in disciplinary proceedings without an interpreter. This is particularly true given the Department of Corrections' response to Randolph's March requests for an interpreter. The Department of Corrections told Randolph that his "[r]equest for an interperator is a separate subject and will not be discussed." After receiving this response, it is not surprising that Randolph did not ask for an interpreter at the July disciplinary proceeding. While it is true that public entities are not required to guess at what accommodations they should provide, the requirement does not narrow the ADA or RA so much that the Department of Corrections may claim Randolph failed to request an accommodation when it declined to discuss the issue with him.
We disagree with the district court's conclusion that Missouri Statute § 476.750 alone establishes the Department of Corrections' liability under the ADA and RA. The Missouri statute creates rights and duties under Missouri state law, but cannot be used to definitively establish rights and duties under federal law. The defendants presented substantial evidence that Randolph's request for an interpreter created safety and security issues, as well as placed a financial burden on the prison. The Department of Corrections is entitled to have its evidence considered by the fact-finder in this case. See, e.g., Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447, 456 (9th Cir.1996) (whether deaf plaintiff required registered sign language interpreter was fact question).
C. Missouri State Law Claim
The Eleventh Amendment precludes a federal court from ordering a state, including its agencies or officials, to conform their conduct to state law. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Treleven v. University of Minn., 73 F.3d 816, 819 n. 4 (8th Cir.1996). A state may, of course, waive its Pennhurst immunity. However, waiver will be found only based upon "the most express language" or other "overwhelming implications from the text as will leave no room for any other reasonable construction." See Welch v. Texas Dep't of Hwys. & Public Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 472, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987), cited in Barnes v. Missouri, 960 F.2d 63, 64-65 (8th Cir.1992). Randolph does not argue, nor does the record reflect, that Missouri has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to claims under Mo.Stat. § 476.753. Thus, we must reverse the district court's order granting Randolph's motion for summary judgment against the Department of Corrections on his claim under Mo.Stat. § 476.750, and vacate the injunction.
The capable of repetition yet evading review rule is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the mootness doctrine. It applies when (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation the complaining party will be subject to the same action again. See, e.g., Hickman v. Missouri, 144 F.3d 1141, 1143 (8th Cir.1998) (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 118 S.Ct. 978, 988, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998)). Randolph was transferred once prior to his litigation and once after commencing his litigation. Nothing in this case suggests that the Department of Corrections has transferred or will transfer Randolph in an attempt to moot his claim. Had Randolph's claims been moot, we doubt the mere possibility of a transfer would have been sufficient to support application of this exception
The defendants also argue that the district court abused its discretion by issuing a permanent injunction without considering the Prison Litigation Reform Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3626. Defendants failed to raise this issue below, and have thus waived the argument on appeal. See, e.g., Manypenny v. U.S., 948 F.2d 1057, 1062 (8th Cir.1991) ("we do not consider issues not passed on by the lower court")