Boone v. Gomez

Background

Velton Lamont Boone, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against six officials at California Training Facility. He voluntarily dismissed his claims against D. Mulhern. The remaining defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party.

Boone worked in a furniture factory overseen by the California Prison Industries Authority. His medical conditions included degenerative disc disease requiring a chair with lumbar support, a knee replacement requiring use of a cane, and shoulder arthritis limiting him to lifting 19 pounds. He alleged that defendants failed to accommodate these conditions by replacing his adjustable chair with a stationary chair and failing to provide a lower work table. He also alleged retaliation for requesting accommodations, including transfer to the tool room, replacing other inmates’ chairs, giving him a poor performance evaluation, and issuing a Rules Violation Report.

Exhaustion ruling

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to properly complete available administrative remedies before bringing a federal action about prison conditions. The court found no factual dispute that Boone filed no grievances naming Gomez or Deditius, and did not name Flores in a grievance concerning the retaliation claims asserted against her. The court therefore granted summary judgment on all claims against Deditius, Gomez, and Flores.

The court also found that Boone had not filed grievances concerning three alleged retaliation events: replacing other inmates’ chairs, giving him a poor performance evaluation, and issuing the allegedly false Rules Violation Report. The court granted summary judgment to Blades and Micheli on those retaliation claims on exhaustion grounds. The court stated that the grievance system was available to Boone and that no exception excused the exhaustion requirement.

The claims remaining for decision were Boone’s disability-accommodation claims against Blades and Micheli concerning the chair and lower table, and his retaliation claim concerning his transfer to the tool room.

Disability-accommodation claims

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits a public entity from denying a qualified person with a disability the benefits of its services, programs, or activities because of the disability. Because Boone sought money damages, the court explained that he also had to show deliberate indifference: knowledge that a violation of his federally protected rights was substantially likely and a failure to act on that likelihood.

The court granted summary judgment on the chair claim. Defendants provided an adjustable chair within five days after Boone reported that his back condition made the original chair unsuitable. When defendants replaced that chair with a stationary chair, they stated that they believed the wheeled chair was unsafe because of Boone’s mobility limitations. After Boone said the replacement chair was too low, defendants returned the adjustable chair within days. The court found no evidence that defendants knowingly denied him a reasonable accommodation.

The court also granted summary judgment on the lower-table claim. Even assuming Boone was not provided a lower table, the court found that his transfer to the tool room was a more suitable accommodation because the position did not require lifting more than his 19-pound medical limit. The tool-room position had the same pay, hours, and advancement opportunities as the drawer-taping position. The court concluded that the ADA required access to the prison work program, not access to Boone’s preferred job position, and that no reasonable fact-finder could find an intentional denial of access to the program.

Retaliation claim

For a prison-retaliation claim, Boone had to show that officials took adverse action because he engaged in protected conduct, that the action chilled his exercise of constitutional rights, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. The court granted summary judgment on the claim that Blades and Micheli transferred Boone to the tool room because he requested accommodations.

The court found no evidence that Boone’s accommodation requests motivated the transfer or that there was a connection between the requests and the transfer. The court identified the position’s lifting limit and Boone’s poor performance evaluation as legitimate correctional reasons for the transfer. The timing of the transfer, by itself, was insufficient to establish retaliation.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The claims found unexhausted were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a new action after proper exhaustion. The court granted summary judgment on the remaining claims, directed the clerk to enter judgment, and ordered the file closed. Judge Jeffrey White signed the order.