Whitall v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Background

Raymond Richard Whitall, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a complaint without a lawyer against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and psychiatric technicians and nurses at the prison. He sought damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (RA), based on problems involving his hearing aids.

Whitall alleged that his hearing-aid batteries died on September 13, 2017, and that he received new batteries on September 21, 2017, after filing a grievance. He claimed that, during the eight-day period, he could not fully participate in prison programs and activities. He also alleged that his left hearing aid stopped working on December 11, 2017, but that nurses could not provide a temporary replacement; audiology provided new hearing aids on February 23, 2018. Finally, he alleged that his left hearing aid broke on April 10, 2018, and that audiology provided a replacement left hearing aid on June 14, 2018 and a matching right hearing aid on July 11, 2018. He claimed that the periods without two fully working hearing aids interfered with his participation in prison programs and activities.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to dismiss a prisoner’s complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from that relief.

As to the individual psychiatric technicians and nurses, the court held that they could not be sued for damages in their individual capacities under Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the RA. The court therefore considered the damages claims against those defendants only under § 1983, based on an alleged Eighth Amendment violation.

For an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim, the prisoner must show a sufficiently serious deprivation and that the official acted with deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference requires knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm and failure to take reasonable steps to address it; negligence or gross negligence is not enough. The court found that the allegations concerning the delays in obtaining batteries and replacement hearing aids amounted to, at most, negligence or gross negligence. The court noted that Whitall received new batteries less than two days after filing the grievance requesting them.

The court also rejected the damages claims against CDCR. It held that CDCR was immune from damages under § 1983. It further held that damages under Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the RA require intentional discrimination, shown in this context by deliberate indifference. The court concluded that CDCR’s alleged failure to keep temporary or permanent replacement hearing aids available, or to provide them immediately, amounted to possible negligence rather than deliberate indifference.

Disposition

The court dismissed Whitall’s complaint for damages under § 1983, Title II of the ADA, and Section 504 of the RA under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Judge Charles R. Breyer signed the order on June 29, 2020.