Burns v. Humboldt Recovery Center, Inc.

Background

Dwayne Brian Burns, an inmate who represented himself, sued Humboldt Recovery Center, Inc. (HRC), and certain HRC employees. He alleged that they violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law by requiring him to leave an HRC treatment program because he refused to follow a rule against energy drinks.

On March 1, 2022, the court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state claims that could proceed. It found that Burns’s allegation that he had a disability was conclusory and that, under his complaint, he was denied continued access to the program because he wanted to bring energy drinks, not because of his disability. The court also found that the state-law claim was unclear. Judgment was entered for the defendants.

Request to Undo the Judgment

Burns sought relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), which permits a court to provide relief from a final judgment for a legally sufficient reason. He argued that the court had applied the wrong screening statute and that he should have been allowed to amend his complaint. He also argued that he stated claims under Title III of the ADA and California’s Unruh Act.

The court agreed that 28 U.S.C. § 1915A did not apply to this action, but held that it properly screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal of an action filed without prepaying fees when it fails to state a claim.

The court again concluded that Burns failed to state an ADA claim. For purposes of its analysis, it assumed that HRC was a place of public accommodation and that Burns was disabled under the ADA. Even so, the court found that allowing energy drinks was not a necessary modification needed to provide HRC’s services to people with severe depression. It also noted that the energy-drink prohibition applied to all participants, not only people with depression, and therefore did not discriminate against people with that disability. Because all federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the potential state-law claim.

The court found no clear error in its earlier dismissal and denied Burns’s request for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). The order did not change the earlier dismissal with prejudice.

Extension of Time to Appeal

Burns separately requested an additional 30 days to file a notice of appeal. He stated that he received the dismissal order and judgment on March 15, 2022, was in medical isolation from March 16 through March 28 because he had been exposed to COVID-19, and had only limited access to the law library during March. The court found good cause and that the request was timely.

The court granted Burns’s request for an extension of time through April 30, 2022. Because Burns filed his notice of appeal on April 27, 2022, the court deemed the notice timely filed. The order terminated Docket Nos. 15 and 16.