Court Opinion

ID: 9392077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 00:00:33.052475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:44.360430
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50305        Document: 00516736708             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/03/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                     May 3, 2023
                                        No. 22-50305                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk

   Anisha H. Ituah, by her Guardian, Angela McKay, on behalf of
   herself and those similarly situated,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Austin State Hospital; Catherine Nottebart; Stacey
   Thompson,

                                                                 Defendants—Appellees.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 1:18-CV-11

   Before Graves, Ho, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Anish Ituah, an intellectually disabled woman, claimed she was
   sexually assaulted by a geriatric male patient, A.M., in the late evening or
   early morning of January 7–8, 2016, while in her room at the Austin State
   Hospital (“ASH”), where she was involuntarily committed. A report by the
   Texas Department of Family and Protective Services concluded A.M.

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50305        Document: 00516736708             Page: 2      Date Filed: 05/03/2023

                                        No. 22-50305

   mistakenly entered Ituah’s room in his wheelchair—believing the room to be
   his and mistaking Ituah for his wife—climbed onto the bed, sat on Ituah’s
   legs while remaining clothed, but then left when Ituah cried out. Ituah sued
   ASH and two hospital superintendents in federal court under various legal
   theories, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act
   (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), and also sought class certification.
   See 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
           Following extensive pretrial litigation and discovery, the district court
   denied class certification, leaving only two categories of claims: (1) Ituah’s
   ADA/RA claims against ASH, and (2) Ituah’s § 1983 claims against the
   superintendents. After summary judgment motions were filed by all
   defendants,     the    district    court     adopted     the    magistrate      judge’s
   recommendation to dismiss all of Ituah’s claims with prejudice. Ituah now
   appeals only the summary judgment dismissal of her ADA/RA claims, which
   we review de novo. See James v. Cleveland Sch. Dist., 45 F.4th 860, 864 (5th
   Cir. 2022); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
           Ituah presses three ADA/RA 1 theories on appeal. First, she argues
   ASH is liable for harassment by a fellow patient under our court’s decision in
   Estate of Lance v. Lewisville Independent School District, 743 F.3d 982 (5th Cir.
   2014). Among other things, Lance explained that a plaintiff must show she
   was harassed based on her disability. Id. at 996. Here, the district court
   concluded Ituah failed to show this element, and her appellate brief states
   that she “is not claiming that she was assaulted because she has a disability.”
   Ituah reiterated this concession at oral argument. Accordingly, we affirm the
   summary judgment on this ground.
           Second, Ituah claims ASH discriminated against her by failing to
   follow the hospital’s internal policies concerning sexual assault claims. But a

           1
              Cases interpreting the ADA are generally applicable to the RA, and vice versa.
   See, e.g., Cadena v. El Paso Cnty., 946 F.3d 717, 723 (5th Cir. 2020).

                                              2
Case: 22-50305         Document: 00516736708           Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/03/2023

                                        No. 22-50305

   discrimination claim under the ADA/RA requires showing discrimination
   based on the plaintiff’s disability. See, e.g., Cadena v. El Paso Cnty., 946 F.3d
   717, 723 (5th Cir. 2020) (requiring “that such exclusion, denial of benefits,
   or discrimination is by reason of [plaintiff’s] disability” (quoting Melton v.
   Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 391 F.3d 669, 671–72 (5th Cir. 2004))). Ituah
   points to no such evidence. Even viewed most favorably to her, Ituah’s
   evidence shows that hospital staff neglected to follow all relevant policies,
   such as by failing to order a “rape kit.” Perhaps this is evidence of negligence,
   but it is not evidence of discrimination based on Ituah’s disability. We
   therefore affirm the summary judgment on this ground as well.
          Finally, Ituah presses a failure-to-accommodate claim. That requires
   showing,    inter     alia,   that    ASH     “failed    to   make   ‘reasonable
   accommodations’” for Ituah’s known disability. Amedee v. Shell Chem., L.P.,
   953 F.3d 831, 837 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Ituah did not raise a
   genuine dispute on this issue, however. For example, her expert opined that
   poor “sightlines” prevented nurses from observing the door to Ituah’s room.
   But unrebutted evidence showed “sightlines” played no role in patient
   monitoring; instead, ASH staff is trained to personally and directly monitor
   patient areas at regular intervals. Ituah’s expert also suggested patient doors
   should have been lockable from the inside. But no evidence suggested this
   would have been a reasonable measure. To the contrary, ASH’s unrebutted
   evidence detailed its policies and procedures designed to protect patients and
   also explained why internal door locks would have been “unwise and unsafe”
   for psychiatric patients. Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment on
   this ground as well.
                                                                     AFFIRMED.

                                             3