Burns v. Humboldt Recovery Center, Inc.

Background

Dwayne Brian Burns, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, sued Humboldt Recovery Center, Inc. (referred to as HRC), HRC director Arlette Large, HRC lead counselor John Remen, and Does 1–10. He alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq., and related state law.

Burns alleged that he began substance-abuse treatment at HRC on July 7, 2021. On or about August 16, 2021, Remen told him that energy drinks were not permitted under any circumstances, even with a doctor’s note. On August 30, 2021, Large told Burns to leave HRC and end treatment immediately, stating that his dissatisfaction with the energy-drink policy was one reason for the decision. Burns alleged that he had to leave the program 35 days early. He sought statutory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and exemplary damages.

Screening and claims

Because Burns was incarcerated and sought relief from a governmental entity or its employees, the court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint provide enough facts to give defendants fair notice of the claims.

The court explained that a Title II ADA claim requires allegations that the plaintiff has a disability, is otherwise qualified for a public entity’s services or programs, was excluded from or denied those services or otherwise discriminated against, and experienced that treatment because of the disability.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that Burns failed to state an ADA claim. First, his statement that he belonged to a protected class under the ADA did not adequately identify a disability covered by the statute. Second, the complaint alleged that he was removed from the treatment program because he wanted to bring energy drinks despite HRC’s policy, rather than because of his disability. The court therefore found that Burns had not adequately alleged discrimination because of a disability.

The court also held that Burns failed to state a related state-law claim because it was unclear what state law, if any, made an ADA violation a state-law violation.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim, stating that the ADA and related state-law claims could not be cured by alleging additional facts. The court denied Burns’s request for appointment of counsel as moot. The conclusion states that judgment was entered in favor of the defendants and against Burns and that the case was closed.

The opinion text’s final conclusion is partially truncated after the words “DENIES all,” so the complete disposition of any other matter referenced there is unclear.