Dominguez v. Bachofer

Background

Elijah Dominguez was proceeding without a lawyer and brought the case against Mark Bachofer, Kerry Kip, and others. His original complaint asserted retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In an earlier screening order, the court dismissed that complaint with permission to amend because it did not adequately allege that Dominguez was a qualified person with a disability or explain what complaint he made to the library and when he made it.

The amended complaint alleged that Dominguez had limited mobility and several medical conditions, including autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, Asperger’s syndrome, Tourette’s syndrome, attention deficit disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. It alleged that library employees suspended him for smelling strongly of marijuana, swearing, singing explicit lyrics, and telling librarians that he intended to sue over alleged civil-rights and disability-law violations. The amended complaint also added constitutional claims, a sexual harassment claim, a malicious prosecution claim, and criminal allegations against other defendants.

Screening standard

Because Dominguez was proceeding without a lawyer and had received permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. At this stage, the court treated factual allegations as true but required enough factual and legal detail to give each defendant fair notice of the claims. The court also read the complaint liberally because Dominguez was not represented by a lawyer.

ADA claims

The court found that the amended complaint stated claims against Kip and Bachofer under Title III and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title III addresses disability discrimination in public accommodations, including libraries, and Title V prohibits retaliation for protected conduct under Title III.

The court concluded that Dominguez plausibly alleged that his disabilities might cause unwanted or offensive sounds and that Kip and Bachofer failed to make reasonable changes to library policies after learning about his disabilities. The court noted that the defendants might later show that accommodating the alleged disabilities would fundamentally change the nature of library services, but said that issue was not before the court at the screening stage. The court also found a retaliation claim adequately stated because Dominguez alleged that he was suspended again after telling the librarians he intended to sue the library for violating his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Other claims

The court dismissed the First Amendment claims with permission to amend. It explained that libraries are generally treated as limited public forums, where the government may impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral limits on expressive activity. The amended complaint did not explain why the library’s rules against noise and profanity were unreasonable or viewpoint-based.

The court also dismissed the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims and the sexual harassment claim against Annie Russell with permission to amend. The court found that the amended complaint did not provide specific facts connecting Kip, Bachofer, or Russell to each alleged violation. The allegation that Russell believed Dominguez was propositioning her did not itself allege that Russell sexually harassed Dominguez.

The court dismissed without permission to amend the claims against Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore and Monika Cooper, as well as the malicious prosecution claim. The court stated that the criminal provisions Dominguez cited, including mail fraud, hate crimes, and obstruction of justice, did not create a basis for civil liability. It also held that Judge Westmore was protected by absolute judicial immunity for actions related to the judicial process, including decisions about accepting items for filing. The court found the malicious prosecution claim deficient because Dominguez did not allege that the proceeding was frivolous and the workplace restraining order was ultimately issued.

Disposition

The court found that the amended complaint stated Americans with Disabilities Act claims against Kip and Bachofer but failed to state the other claims. Dominguez could file another amended complaint by May 2, 2025, addressing the constitutional and sexual harassment claims, or submit a statement choosing to proceed only on the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. If he chose that option, or did not timely amend, the court would ask the United States Marshal to serve the amended complaint. The order also stated that the defendants could later file a motion to dismiss the Americans with Disabilities Act claim.