Moralez v. Davis

Background

Rudolph Moralez, identified as a state prisoner, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. He alleged that the defendants failed to distribute facemasks and that he consequently contracted Coronavirus. He sought money damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner complaint seeking relief from governmental entities or employees. At this stage, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek relief from an immune defendant.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires allegations that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by someone acting under state law. The court also described the standard for an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim: the prisoner must have a serious medical need, and the defendant must know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm by failing to take reasonable steps to address it.

The court concluded that Moralez failed to state a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He did not describe a benefit or service that was denied to him because of a disability. The court stated that, construing the complaint liberally, Moralez might be able to proceed with a civil-rights claim under § 1983.

The court directed Moralez not to include the Americans with Disabilities Act claim in an amended complaint. It instructed him to identify specific amendments under the stated legal standard, describe the medical condition that resulted from his Coronavirus infection, and identify the defendant or defendants who denied his requests for a facemask. Merely naming a prison warden or the secretary of the prison system without describing that person’s conduct would be insufficient.

The opinion also noted that the docket appeared to contain a motion concerning certain Americans with Disabilities Act records and that the filing might be a copy of a motion from another case. The court said Moralez should explain how that filing related to this case.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The amended complaint had to be filed within 28 days after service of the order, use the existing caption and civil case number, and state “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court explained that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint and must include all claims Moralez wished to pursue; he could not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The court warned that failing to amend within the specified period could result in dismissal of the case. Judge Robert M. Illman also stated that failing to comply with court orders or to keep the court informed of an address change could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.