Craig v. CDCR

Background

Kent Craig, a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act (RA). The court had previously dismissed his original complaint while allowing him to amend it. The amended complaint was before the court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and Craig also asked the court to appoint counsel.

Craig alleged that he has intervertebral spinal disc syndrome and received a lower-bunk accommodation. He alleged that, on April 26, 2019, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) officials ordered him to move to another bunk even though the accommodation had not been rescinded. He also alleged that the lower bunk was then assigned to a Hispanic inmate after Craig, who is African-American, was moved.

Screening and Claims

Under § 1915A, the court screened the amended complaint to identify claims that were legally sufficient and to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court construed Craig’s allegations liberally because he was proceeding without a lawyer.

The court explained that the ADA and RA prohibit disability discrimination in the programs, services, or activities of a public entity and may require reasonable modifications to avoid disability discrimination. It concluded that, liberally construed, Craig’s amended complaint stated a cognizable ADA and RA claim against CDCR based on prison officials’ refusal to allow him to remain in a lower bunk in April 2019.

The court rejected Craig’s equal-protection claim under § 1983. The fact that an inmate of a different race received the bunk did not, by itself, suggest that officials intentionally discriminated against Craig because of his race. The court found that Craig alleged no facts suggesting such discriminatory intent or purpose and stated that further leave to amend would not be granted because amendment would be futile.

The court also dismissed Craig’s due-process claim without leave to amend. It rejected the theory that a violation of state housing regulations automatically violates due process. The court further stated that § 1983 cannot be used against a state official in an individual capacity to enforce rights created by Title II of the ADA or section 504 of the RA.

Appointment of Counsel

The court denied Craig’s request for appointed counsel. It explained that appointment for an indigent civil litigant requires exceptional circumstances, evaluated by considering the likelihood of success and the person’s ability to explain the claims in light of the legal issues. The court found no exceptional circumstances because Craig appeared to have a low likelihood of success on the merits and had adequately explained his claims without a lawyer.

Disposition and Next Steps

The court stated that the amended complaint, liberally construed, stated a cognizable ADA and RA claim against CDCR. It dismissed all other defendants and claims. The clerk was directed to issue a summons, and the United States Marshal was directed to serve CDCR without requiring prepayment of fees.

The court set deadlines for CDCR to file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion, for Craig to respond, and for any reply. It also authorized discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and warned Craig about the evidence needed to oppose a future summary-judgment motion. The court separately denied the request for appointment of counsel.