Morris v. State of California

Background

Morris, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants included the State of California, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials and entities, and Pelican Bay medical and prison officials. His claims included claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Eighth Amendment.

The court previously dismissed Morris’s ADA claims with prejudice, reasoning that his requests for a wheelchair, wheelchair-accessible housing, and housing at a prison with certain medical specialists were requests for medical treatment rather than requests involving the prison’s services, programs, or activities. The court later screened an amended complaint and allowed two Eighth Amendment claims to proceed. On May 26, 2021, it granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants, nurse Sue Risenhoover and doctor Nancy Adams, on those Eighth Amendment claims and entered judgment for the defendants.

Ninth Circuit proceedings

Morris appealed. On July 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit held that this court had erred in treating the wheelchair and wheelchair-ramp requests exclusively as requests for medical treatment. The Ninth Circuit nevertheless affirmed dismissal of the ADA claims because the complaint did not allege that Morris had been excluded from a service, program, or activity, or that his disability caused the exclusion, beyond a speculative level. It concluded that the dismissal should not have been with prejudice because Morris could correct the deficiencies by identifying the services, programs, or activities involved and explaining the connection to his disabilities. The Ninth Circuit reversed and sent the matter back for further proceedings.

Current order

Following the Ninth Circuit’s decision, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. vacated the May 26, 2021 judgment and vacated the portion of the April 30, 2020 order that had dismissed Morris’s ADA claims with prejudice. The court reopened the action and granted Morris leave to amend his ADA claim.

The court ordered Morris to file a second amended complaint within 28 days. The new complaint had to use the specified case caption and number and include the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. It had to include all claims and defendants Morris wished to pursue, could not incorporate earlier complaints by reference, and could not add new unrelated claims. The order also barred Morris from reasserting the Eighth Amendment claims against Risenhoover and Adams because the court had already granted summary judgment on those claims.

The order did not decide whether Morris would ultimately prevail on the ADA claim. It warned that failing to file the required amended complaint on time would result in dismissal of the action without further notice for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order.