the ADA is not violated by prison’s failure to attend to medical needs 22 23 1 A Snellen test, also known as a visual acuity test, is defined as: 24 [t]he visual acuity test is used to determine the smallest letters you can read on a standardized chart (Snellen chart
How later courts described this case
- the ADA is not violated by prison’s failure to attend to medical needs 22 23 1 A Snellen test, also known as a visual acuity test, is defined as: 24 [t]he visual acuity test is used to determine the smallest letters you can read on a standardized chart (Snellen chart
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SEAN TAYLOR MAYS, No. 2:23-cv-2339 KJN P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 STANTON CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY,
15
Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff is a Solano County jail inmate, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff
18 seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court pursuant to
19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is now before the
20 court.
21 Plaintiff’s allegations are essentially the same as he pled in his original complaint. As
22 discussed below, plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed, and plaintiff is granted one final
23 opportunity to file a pleading that states a cognizable civil rights claims.
24 Screening Standards
25 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
26 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
27 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
28 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
2 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
3 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
4 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an
5 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
6 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully
7 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th
8 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
9 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
10 which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
11 support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467
12 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt
13 Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under
14 this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp.
15 Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light
16 most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v.
17 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
18 The Civil Rights Act
19 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts that demonstrate: (1) the
20 violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by
21 a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v.
22 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil
23 rights claim unless the facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional
24 deprivation or a causal connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged
25 constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v.
26 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the
27 theory that the official is liable for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates.
28 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The requisite causal connection between a
1 supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the violation of the prisoner’s constitutional rights can be
2 established in several ways, including by demonstrating that a supervisor’s own culpable action
3 or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates was a cause of plaintiff’s
4 injury. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011).
5 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
6 Despite the court’s screening order, plaintiff again names only the Stanton Correctional
7 Facility as a defendant and raises only a putative claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act
8 (“ADA”), based solely on his claim that he has been unable to obtain new prescription eyeglasses.
9 Plaintiff proved he had a prescription for eyeglasses, but it has expired. Medical will not send
10 plaintiff to an eye doctor to get a new prescription because plaintiff passed their Snellen test.1
11 Plaintiff objects that his eyesight was tested twice, but the ladies were standing too close to get an
12 accurate reading. Plaintiff now claims that medical will not provide plaintiff with the names of
13 the ladies who performed the test.
14 Discussion
15 ADA Claim
16 As the court previously explained (ECF No. 6 at 4-5), plaintiff cannot state a cognizable
17 ADA claim because he does not claim that the failure to provide him with a new eyeglass
18 prescription was because of a disability. Even presuming the need for eyeglasses constitutes a
19 disability, which plaintiff also fails to demonstrate, “[t]he ADA prohibits discrimination because
20 of disability, not inadequate treatment for disability.” Simmons v. Navajo Cty., Ariz., 609 F.3d
21 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) (the ADA is not violated by prison’s failure to attend to medical needs
22
23 1 A Snellen test, also known as a visual acuity test, is defined as:
24 [t]he visual acuity test is used to determine the smallest letters you
can read on a standardized chart (Snellen chart) or a card held 20 feet
25 (6 meters) away. Special charts are used when testing at distances
shorter than 20 feet (6 meters). Some Snellen charts are actually
26 video monitors showing letters or images.
27
UCSF Health, “Medical Tests - Visual Acuity Test,” < https://www.ucsfhealth.org/medical-
28 tests/visual-acuity-test> (accessed Feb. 5, 2024).
1 of disabled prisoners), overruled on other grounds by Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d
2 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). In other words, “[i]nadequate treatment or lack of treatment for
3 [p]laintiff’s medical condition does not in itself suffice to create liability under [the] statutory
4 scheme.” Tandel v. Cty. of Sacramento, 2015 WL 1291377, at *18 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015).
5 “Inadequate medical care does not provide a basis for an ADA claim unless medical services are
6 withheld by reason of a disability.” Marlor v. Madison Cty., Idaho, 50 F. App’x 872, 873 (9th
7 Cir. 2002). Because plaintiff fails to allege facts demonstrating that the failure to provide proper
8 treatment was due to a disability within the meaning of the ADA, plaintiff’s complaint fails to
9 state a cognizable ADA claim. Therefore, plaintiff’s ADA claim is dismissed without leave to
10 amend.
11 Medical
12 Plaintiff does not clarify his status in the amended complaint, but the Solano County
13 Sheriff’s website confirms that plaintiff has not yet been sentenced.2 Thus, plaintiff is a pretrial
14 detainee.
15 A pretrial detainee’s medical claim arises under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process
16 Clause and is governed by an objective deliberate-indifference standard rather than the subjective
17 one that applies to a state prisoner’s claim.
18 [T]he elements of a pretrial detainee’s medical care claim against an
individual defendant under the due process clause of the Fourteenth
19 Amendment are: (i) the defendant made an intentional decision with
respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii)
20 those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering
serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable available
21 measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable official in the
circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk
22 involved -- making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct
obvious; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant caused
23 the plaintiff’s injuries.
24 Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018). For the third element, the
25 defendant’s conduct must be objectively unreasonable, “a test that will necessarily ‘turn[ ] on the
26 facts and circumstances of each particular case.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Castro v.
27
2 Solano County California Sheriff In-Custody website,
28 https://shfinmatesearch.solanocounty.com/bookingcharges> accessed Feb. 5, 2024.
1 County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016)). “[T]he plaintiff must ‘prove more
2 than negligence but less than subjective intent -- something akin to reckless disregard.” Id.
3 (quoting Castro, 833 F.3d at 1071).
4 To the extent plaintiff is trying to obtain a new prescription for eyeglasses, he must bring
5 his claim, if at all, under the Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 6 at 6-7.) Plaintiff again does
6 not state whether he is currently wearing his old glasses or has no eyeglasses at all. Plaintiff’s
7 amended complaint also does not address whether plaintiff sought medical care to confirm the
8 physical injuries he alleges or to determine whether his symptoms could be the result of
9 something other than an expired eyeglass prescription. Plaintiff appended a note dated August
10 15, 2023, responding to plaintiff’s August 6, 2021 request slip concerning a request for
11 prescription glasses, which stated that he was seen by medical staff twice in the past week and
12 plaintiff did not mention anything regarding blurry vision or headache. (ECF No. 8 at 13.)
13 Plaintiff was advised that if his symptoms persist, he should “fill out a ‘green’ medical slip and
14 submit to medical” so plaintiff can be put on the sick call list. (Id.) The failure to treat a medical
15 condition is not objectively unreasonable if medical staff are not informed of plaintiff’s symptoms
16 and provided an opportunity to address them.
17 In addition, it is unclear that plaintiff’s alleged injuries demonstrate a substantial risk of
18 suffering serious harm. Although addressed in the Eighth Amendment context,
19 “[w]hile severe eye injuries or legal blindness may constitute a
serious medical need,” the same is not true, for example, with regard
20 to “reading glasses.” Canell v. Multnomah County, 141 F. Supp. 2d
1046, 1057 (D. Or. 2001), citing Franklin v. State of Oregon, 662
21 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir. 1981); McMillen v. Fairman, 1997 WL 603853
*3 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (some discomfort suffered as a result of broken
22 eyeglasses not being replaced insufficient to demonstrate a serious
medical need); see also Morales v. California Forensic Med. Grp.,
23 Inc., No. CIV S 09-3610 GGH P, 2010 WL 1404762, at *2 (E.D. Cal.
Apr. 6, 2010) (dismissing prisoner's claims of “blurry vision and
24 irritation of un-focused sight” due to lack of corrective eyewear for
failing to state an Eighth Amendment claim under § 1915A(b)).
25
See Bernardino v. Sandoval, 2017 WL 4391705, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017), aff'd, 727 F.
26
App'x 451 (9th Cir. 2018).
27
////
28
1 Further, it appears some jails require inmates to seek prescription glasses from outside
2 sources. In Silva v. Sanders, 2022 WL 2392197, at *4 (W.D. Wash. July 1, 2022), jail “staff
3 repeatedly advised [Silva] that he could ask his family, friends, or legal counsel for prescription
4 glasses.” Id. Plaintiff could do so as well. Plaintiff could ask appointed counsel or raise an
5 objection with the judge at the next hearing on plaintiff’s underlying criminal charges.
6 In Silva, the inmate came to jail without his glasses and complained of severe pain in his
7 eyes. Id., 2022 WL 2392197, at *1. The district court granted the defendant qualified immunity,
8 finding that the law was not sufficiently definite that defendant would have known whether he
9 was violating it. Id. at *4, quoting Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778-79 (2014). In Silva,
10 the court distinguished Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2014), because the prisoner
11 in Colwell had cataracts that made him blind in one eye, and the resulting monocular blindness
12 caused him to twice run his hand through a sewing machine while working, split his head open
13 when he ran into a concrete block, regularly hit his head on his cell’s upper bunk, and triggered
14 fights with other inmates by bumping into them. Silva, 2022 WL 2392197, at *4.3 In the instant
15 case, plaintiff does not claim any such serious injuries.
16 Finally, plaintiff is required to name the person responsible for violating plaintiff’s rights
17 under Gordon. If it is the “ladies” to whom plaintiff refers, plaintiff must seek the names of such
18 ladies through the grievance process, or he may seek to review his medical records to obtain their
19 names from his medical file. Plaintiff may decide to name such individuals as “Jane Does” and
20
3 The court in Silva also cited non-binding cases: See Dorlette v. Wu, 2019 WL 1284812, at *7–
21 9 (D. Conn. Mar. 20, 2019) (granting summary judgment for the defendants when the plaintiff
experienced an eight-month delay in receiving prescription glasses despite complaining of pain,
22
eye strain, and headaches during that time because he provided no evidence that the delay had a
23 serious effect on his health); Davidson v. Desai, 817 F. Supp. 2d 166, 187-88 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)
(granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment where “although Plaintiff maintains that
24 his inability to obtain proper eyeglasses required Plaintiff rely on his outdated prescription lenses,
resulting in eyestrain and headaches, . . . Plaintiff fails to allege that such symptoms impaired
25
Plaintiff's daily activities,” and where the plaintiff was not prevented from obtaining glasses from
“an outside source”); Weatherspoon v. Dallas Cnty. Med. Dep't, 2006 WL 1234825, at *11 (N.D.
26
Tex. May 9, 2006) (“The Court finds that an objectively reasonable official considering the law as
27 it existed at the time would not have believed that he was violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights
by failing to provide Plaintiff with prescription eyeglasses at UTMB's expense.”). Silva, 2022
28 WL 2392197, at *4.
1 seek their identities through discovery. But plaintiff must identify the individual or individuals
2 who he claims violated his constitutional rights because the court is unable to serve unidentified
3 parties. Plaintiff cannot simply name the jail as a defendant because plaintiff cannot ascertain the
4 names of the medical staff who allegedly violated his rights.
5 Leave to Amend
6 As currently written, plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a cognizable civil rights
7 claim. Thus, the amended complaint must be dismissed. The court, however, grants leave to file
8 a second amended complaint. However, plaintiff is granted leave solely to raise a claim under the
9 Fourteenth Amendment. He is not granted leave to file another ADA claim based on the failure
10 to provide new prescription eyeglasses.
11 If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how
12 the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or
13 statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the second amended
14 complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no
15 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a
16 defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v.
17 Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.
18 1978). Furthermore, vague, and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights
19 violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
20 An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading.
21 Local Rule 220; See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015)
22 (“an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-
23 existent.’” (internal citation omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original or
24 prior pleading is superseded. That said, plaintiff may request that the court append his prior
25 exhibits (ECF No. 8 at 7-14) to the second amended complaint so he is not required to duplicate
26 his exhibits.
27 ////
28 ////
1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2 1. Plaintiffs amended complaint (ECF No. 8) is dismissed; and
3 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second
4 || amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the instant order, the Civil Rights Act,
5 | the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the second amended
6 || complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended
7 || Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the second amended complaint.
8 Failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a
9 || recommendation that this action be dismissed.
10 || Dated: February 7, 2024
Aectl Aharon
12 KENDALL J.NE
3 /mays2339.14amd UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28