Craig v. CDCR

Background

Kent Craig filed a self-represented civil-rights action concerning his relocation from a lower bunk to an upper bunk at the Correctional Training Facility. The court had previously determined that his amended complaint stated claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA) based on that relocation, while finding his other claims not cognizable.

Craig had received disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for intervertebral disc syndrome since at least 2007. In January 2018, he requested a lower-bunk accommodation because of lower-back pain. The facility’s Reasonable Accommodations Panel granted a temporary lower-bunk accommodation while Craig awaited medical evaluation. After a nurse visit and a physician visit, the physician prescribed acetaminophen but did not assign Craig to a lower bunk. Defendants argued that the temporary accommodation expired when the physician did not impose housing restrictions. Craig nevertheless remained in a lower bunk for about another year, until April 26, 2019, when he was required to give it up.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A genuine dispute exists when the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to decide for the nonmoving party. The court must not weigh conflicting evidence or decide witness credibility at this stage, and it must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party’s favor. The court also treated Craig’s verified complaint as evidence because it was made under penalty of perjury and was based on matters within his personal knowledge.

Court’s analysis

Defendants argued that Craig was not a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA or a person with a disability under the RA. They also argued that he had offered only conclusory allegations about his disability and need for a lower bunk.

The court concluded that defendants had not carried their summary-judgment burden. The record showed that the Veterans Affairs Department had found Craig sufficiently disabled to receive compensation, and that defendants knew of that conclusion because the related letter had been reviewed by the facility’s accommodations panel. Defendants did not explain how Craig could qualify for disability compensation without qualifying as disabled under the ADA or RA, or whether the relevant standards differed.

The court also found that defendants had not adequately explained why the temporary nature of Craig’s accommodation resolved the claims. The motion did not explain why the accommodations panel’s failure to grant a permanent accommodation was not an error, whether defendants could rely on that failure without further inquiry, or why they would not be responsible for an error by the panel if Craig was protected by the ADA or RA.

Ruling and next steps

Judge Edward M. Chen denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The introduction stated that the motion was denied without prejudice to renewal with additional evidence or explanation; the conclusion stated that the motion was “DENIED.” The court said the motion contained only two pages of argument and that defendants might be able to show, through a more complete motion, that no disputed facts existed or that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court found that the case was not ready for trial and that referring it to mediation would be premature. It allowed defendants to file a second summary-judgment motion or another dispositive motion and set deadlines for defendants’ filing, Craig’s response, and any reply. The order disposed of Docket No. 29.