Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 7, 2025

Reeves v. Sanchez

Judge
Thomas Hixson
Docket
3:25-cv-02962
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
ADA / DisabilityCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Reeves v. Sanchez, Judge Hixson ordered an amended complaint naming Alameda County because ADA damages claims cannot target individuals.

Who this affects

Linda Joyce Reeves must amend her complaint and identify County of Alameda as the defendant; County of Alameda is the entity the court directed to be served.

What happened

In Reeves v. Sanchez, Linda Joyce Reeves sued Yesenia Sanchez under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging injuries while housed at Santa Rita Jail. Reeves also asked to proceed without paying filing fees, and the court approved that request and ordered service of the lawsuit.

Because the County of Alameda would not accept service when only Sheriff Sanchez was named, the court treated the claim as against the County through Sanchez in her official capacity. The court explained that the Americans with Disabilities Act allows damages claims against public entities or employees acting in their official capacities, but not against individuals in their personal capacities.

Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered Reeves to file a first amended complaint by August 28, 2025, naming County of Alameda as the defendant. After that filing, the clerk must issue a revised summons, and the U.S. Marshal must serve the County without requiring Reeves to pay service fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Reeves v. Sanchez · No. 3:25-cv-02962
Judge
Thomas Hixson
Date
Aug. 7, 2025

Background

Linda Joyce Reeves filed a complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that she suffered injuries while housed at Santa Rita Jail. She named Yesenia Sanchez as the sole defendant and applied to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court granted that application, directed the clerk to issue a summons, and directed the U.S. Marshal to serve Sanchez.

When the Marshal attempted service, the County of Alameda said it would not accept service for Sanchez because the County was not a named party. Because Reeves was representing herself, the court construed her claim as one against County of Alameda, through Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez in her official capacity. The court issued a revised summons using that description, but the County again refused service because Sanchez remained the only party listed in the complaint.

Legal basis

The court explained that the ADA applies to discrimination against people detained in county jails. It also explained that the ADA permits private citizens to seek money damages from public entities that violate the statute. A plaintiff may sue a public entity or an employee acting in an official capacity for damages under the ADA, but may not sue an individual for an ADA violation. The court therefore identified County of Alameda, rather than Sanchez individually, as the proper defendant for the claim described in the complaint.

Order

The court ordered Reeves to file a First Amended Complaint by August 28, 2025, naming “County of Alameda” as the defendant. After the amended complaint is filed, the clerk must issue a revised summons addressed to County of Alameda, and the U.S. Marshal must serve the amended complaint, attachments, Reeves’s affidavit, and the court’s orders without prepayment of fees. The order did not decide whether Reeves will ultimately prevail on the ADA claim.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.