Manuel v. The State of New York

Background

Elizabeth Manuel proceeded without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees. She sued the State of New York and Correction Officers Kenneth Maine and Anthony Lorenzo, alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The defendants filed an unopposed motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court stated that it had federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Manuel alleged that she drove to Sing Sing Correctional Facility to visit her incarcerated husband. She said that she could not find an available visitor handicapped parking space, and that Officer Maine refused to let her use an available handicapped space reserved for employees even after she showed him her handicapped parking permit. She then parked at the top of a hill and tried to descend stairs because there was no ramp. She alleged that her legs became numb, Officer Lorenzo told her to continue, and she fell. She further alleged that a nurse examined her, that she shortened her visit because of back pain, and that she was later hospitalized for five days and required surgery for a spinal injury.

Money Damages and State Immunity

The court held that Manuel’s ADA claim for money damages was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. A private party generally cannot sue a state in federal court unless the state waived its immunity or Congress validly removed it. Under the standard applied by the court, a Title II ADA damages claim against a state requires allegations that the violation was motivated by disability-based discriminatory hostility or ill will. The court also noted that some decisions recognize another possible basis involving violation of a fundamental right.

The court found no allegations supporting either basis. Manuel alleged that the facility lacked adequate handicapped parking for visitors, did not ensure that spaces were used only by permit holders, and lacked a ramp beside the stairs. But she did not allege facts showing that these actions were taken because of hostility or ill will based on her disability, or that there was no legitimate government reason for reserving spaces for employees or not installing a ramp. The court also stated that ADA Title II does not permit claims against state officials in their individual capacities and that official-capacity damages claims are treated as claims against the State. The court therefore dismissed the ADA damages claim.

Injunctive Relief

The court interpreted Manuel’s complaint to request injunctive relief—that is, a court order requiring future action—under Title II of the ADA. To state such a claim, she had to plausibly allege that she was a qualified person with a disability, that the defendants were covered by the ADA, and that she was denied the opportunity to benefit from public services or programs, or otherwise discriminated against because of her disability. The court explained that a public entity must provide meaningful access and reasonable accommodations, but need not provide every modification a person requests.

The court dismissed the request for injunctive relief because the complaint did not plausibly show that Manuel was denied meaningful access to Sing Sing. She alleged that she could not find a visitor handicapped parking space, but she also alleged that she entered the facility and visited her husband. The complaint did not provide facts about the total number of visitor spaces, the number of available spaces, or the proportion reserved for handicapped visitors. The court also found that being denied an employee handicapped space did not itself show denial of meaningful access to the facility.

The allegation that the State failed to prevent misuse of handicapped spaces was considered conclusory because Manuel did not allege facts showing that spaces were unavailable because of a failure to require or enforce permits. The court likewise found the absence of a ramp beside the stairs insufficient because the complaint appeared to indicate that disabled visitors could use a lower-level parking lot that did not require the stairs. The court therefore dismissed the ADA claim for injunctive relief.

The court also stated that, if the complaint were read to assert a claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, that claim failed as pleaded as well. Section 504 requires a connection to a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, and the complaint did not plausibly allege a claim or name the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision as a defendant.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court stated that amendment would be futile for the ADA damages claims because of Eleventh Amendment immunity. However, because Manuel had not previously amended her complaint, the court granted her leave to file an amended complaint asserting, if she could do so plausibly, claims for injunctive relief under Title II of the ADA or claims under Section 504 against the State or the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

The amended complaint had to describe the relevant events and facts, provide more information about the facility’s parking and access points, explain how requested accommodations would provide access, and identify which entity Manuel was suing. It would replace rather than supplement the original complaint. The court ordered her to file it by November 30, 2020, or request additional time; otherwise, the court stated it would deem the case abandoned, enter judgment for the defendants, and close the case.

Order

The court granted the motion to dismiss and granted leave to amend under the stated instructions. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.