Opinion ID: 2772677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Access to Prison Library Services

Text: To establish a violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 43 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. (“ADA”), a plaintiff must prove: “(1) that he is a ‘qualified individual’ with a disability; (2) that he was excluded from participation in a public entity’s services . . . ; and (3) that such exclusion or discrimination was due to his disability.” Hargrave v. Vermont, 340 F.3d 27, 34-35 (2d Cir. 2003). A state prison’s law library constitutes a public service under the ADA. See generally Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210-11 (1998). Exclusion may be demonstrated by showing that the defendants failed to provide an “otherwise qualified plaintiff with disabilities ‘meaningful access’ to the program or services sought.” Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 282-83 (2d Cir. 2003). The district court stated that there were no facts in dispute with respect to the issue of Perez’s access to prison library services, and denied him relief based on its acceptance of the defendants’ contention that they had already adequately accommodated Perez’s disability in this regard. However, Perez has identified disputed issues of fact that require a remand for an 3 evidentiary hearing. See Fengler v. Numismatic Americana, Inc., 832 F.2d 745, 747-48 (2d Cir. 1987) (remanding for evidentiary hearing). Perez provided evidence that the defendants deprived him of a computer, word processing programs for the visually impaired, adequate writing tools, envelopes for the blind, and an electronic magnifier. He also provided evidence that the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) deprived him of large print texts despite DOC regulations requiring that these materials be made available, and disputed the DOC’s assertion, in response to Perez’s preliminary injunction motion, that it had provided an electronic magnifier. Although the defendants provided evidence that they were working on providing word processing programs, there are factual issues as to whether the programs have been, or even could be, made meaningfully available to Perez. Nor does the defendants’ attempt to cure moot the claim. Reforms taken under the pressure of litigation do not moot claims for injunctive relief unless “subsequent events make it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 719 (2007) (quotation and alteration omitted). “The existence of [these] factual disputes necessitates an evidentiary hearing . . . .” Kern, 331 F.3d at 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order in part and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of Perez’s access to prison library services.