Lewis v. Segura

Background

Chauncey T. Lewis, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at Salinas Valley State Prison and named Joel Marshall, a doctor at Natividad Medical Center, as a defendant in an amended complaint. The court reviewed the second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires early review of a prisoner’s lawsuit against a governmental entity or employee and requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek damages from an immune defendant.

Lewis’s earlier complaints had been dismissed because they did not adequately identify a federal constitutional or statutory violation and did not clearly explain what the defendants did. The court had given him opportunities to amend. In the second amended complaint, Lewis alleged that Moreno or Marshall lacked evidence to support a disciplinary charge involving gassing a non-inmate. He also alleged that he was placed in non-ADA cells, held in administrative segregation for more than three months, and placed on a 180 yard for three years. He sought compensatory and punitive damages.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the second amended complaint was again difficult to follow. It did not make clear what happened, how the defendants were involved, whether either defendant was the subject of the disciplinary charge, or who issued the charge or ordered the placement in administrative segregation. The allegations also did not explain what disability-related accommodations Lewis required, how the cell was not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, or how long he was held there.

The court concluded that the complaint did not state a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It did not explain how Lewis was a qualified person with a disability, how placement in the cell excluded him from or denied him access to prison services, programs, or activities, or how the placement constituted discrimination. The court also stated that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to public entities, not individual defendants.

The court further concluded that the allegation that there was no evidence supporting the disciplinary charge was too conclusory to state a due-process claim. A disciplinary finding requires some evidence and some reliable basis for the information supporting the disciplinary action. The court also found it unclear why the alleged three-month administrative-segregation placement or the three-year placement on a 180 yard violated the Constitution. It noted that Lewis was in administrative segregation for less than 120 days and that the complaint alleged some type of review or hearing during that period.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim. It stated that the dismissal was with prejudice because Lewis had twice been given leave to amend and had failed to cure the deficiencies. The court also DISMISSED the action with prejudice and ordered the case closed.