Dounce Al Dey v. Eye Express Optical

Background

Oliver-Vaughn Dounce Al Dey proceeded without a lawyer and sought to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that he went to Eye Express Optical on February 2, 2022, to obtain replacement lenses for his eyeglasses. An employee, Nicole, told him that he had to wear a mask in the store and said that police or security would be called to remove him if he did not wear one. Dey alleged that he could not breathe while wearing a mask and described having heart disease, breathing issues, and difficulty seeing without glasses.

Dey sent Eye Express Optical a notice threatening a lawsuit if it did not replace his lenses by March 9, 2022. Eye Express Optical responded that it no longer wished to provide services to him. In an earlier order, the court dismissed claims under several federal statutes, including claims based on state action, conspiracy, federal criminal statutes, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court allowed Dey 30 days to amend to state a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which applies to disability discrimination by private places of public accommodation.

Prior Filing Restriction

The court stated that Dey was subject to a prior order under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 barring him from filing new actions without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained court permission. The court said he had not filed the required permission motion or attached a copy of that order. The court explained that it could revoke his filing-fee waiver and dismiss the action for that reason, but dismissed the amended complaint on the grounds discussed below even apart from the filing restriction.

Title III Disability Claim

Title III prohibits disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of a place of public accommodation. To state a claim, Dey had to allege facts showing that he had a disability under the statute, that Eye Express Optical operated a place of public accommodation, and that the business discriminated against him because of his disability. A claim could be based on intentional discrimination or on a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The court held that the amended complaint did not adequately allege a statutory disability. Dey identified heart disease, breathing issues, and vision problems, but did not explain the underlying condition causing his impaired breathing or allege facts showing that his heart or vision conditions substantially limited a major life activity. The court also noted that he did not explain how those conditions related to the denial of service.

The court further held that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege intentional disability discrimination. The allegations indicated that Dey was denied service because he refused to wear a mask, rather than because of a disability. To the extent he claimed that the denial was disability-based, the court found those allegations conclusory.

The court also found that Dey did not allege that he requested a reasonable accommodation. Instead, his notice demanded replacement lenses and threatened a lawsuit seeking money damages. The court had previously told him that Title III does not provide money damages and instructed him to identify the injunctive relief he sought, but the amended complaint again requested compensatory and punitive damages.

The court therefore dismissed the Title III claim for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Other Claims and Final Rulings

To the extent the amended complaint repeated federal claims other than the Title III claim, the court dismissed them for the reasons stated in its earlier order. Because all claims within the court’s original federal jurisdiction had been dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

The court denied further leave to amend because Dey had already been given an opportunity to amend and the defects could not be cured by another amendment. The action was dismissed, judgment was directed to be entered, and the court maintained the restriction requiring Dey to seek permission before filing a new action without paying the filing fee. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied filing-fee-waiver status for an appeal.