Morris v. State of California

Background

Tairay Taqwain Morris, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that he had a right-knee meniscal tear, knee osteoarthritis, tinea pedis, and foot ulcers. According to Morris, prison officials denied his requests for a wheelchair, housing in a building with a wheelchair ramp, and transfer to a prison with on-site orthopedist and podiatrist services.

The original complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Eighth Amendment. Morris sought $3 million in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages. The court’s earlier screening order had allowed an ADA claim for compensatory damages to proceed against certain defendants and had allowed Morris an opportunity to add facts supporting an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim against RN Waddell, Dr. Risenhoover, and Dr. Adams. Morris did not timely amend then, and the court dismissed Risenhoover, Adams, and Waddell from the action.

Motion to Dismiss the ADA Claim

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. They argued that Morris was challenging the adequacy of his medical treatment rather than alleging discrimination under the ADA, that his conditions did not substantially limit major life activities, and that he had not identified a public service denied because of his disability. They also argued that his damages claim failed because he had not shown deliberate indifference and that California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS) was not a separate legal entity.

The court assumed, for purposes of the motion, that Morris’s medical conditions substantially limited a major life activity. It nevertheless held that his requests were requests for medical treatment, not requests for prison services, programs, or activities covered by Title II of the ADA. The court explained that the ADA prohibits discrimination because of a disability but does not provide a remedy for inadequate medical treatment.

The court therefore granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the ADA claim and dismissed the ADA claim with prejudice because amendment would be futile. The court did not decide the defendants’ separate arguments about the availability of monetary damages or whether CCHCS should be dismissed.

Leave to Amend and Screening

Morris later requested permission to file an amended complaint. The proposed amendment added Pelican Bay State Prison as a defendant and alleged that, despite repeated requests, Dr. Risenhoover did not treat swelling in Morris’s right leg from October 16, 2015, through October 22, 2016. It also alleged that, despite numerous sick-call complaints, Dr. Adams did not see or treat Morris for knee osteoarthritis from May 8, 2017, through November 26, 2018.

The court granted Morris leave to file the proposed amended complaint. Applying the prisoner-screening requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court found that the allegations of a complete failure to treat a serious medical need stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Risenhoover and Adams in their individual capacities. The court distinguished those allegations from Morris’s claims that he should have received an MRI, a wheelchair, wheelchair-accessible housing, or immediate referrals to specialists; the court treated those allegations as disagreements over medical treatment, which did not establish deliberate indifference.

The court dismissed RN Waddell because the amended complaint showed that she had taken steps to address Morris’s foot infection and did not allege that she knew of a serious medical need and failed to respond reasonably. The court also dismissed Pelican Bay State Prison because the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state and its agencies. The court reaffirmed its prior dismissals with prejudice of the ADA claims, the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CCHCS, Secretary Diaz, Warden Robertson, official-capacity claims against individual defendants, and the remaining claims previously dismissed.

Disposition

The order granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the ADA claim and dismissed that claim with prejudice. It granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Sue Risenhoover and Nancy Adams, and the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve them. The court dismissed the other identified defendants and claims with prejudice and set a briefing schedule for a possible summary-judgment or other dispositive motion. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.