Abdus-Sabur v. Corrections Corporation of America
221 F. Supp. 3d 3
D.D.C.2016Background
- Plaintiff Jason Abdus‑Sabur, a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair, was placed in Hope Village (a BOP‑contracted halfway house) for pre‑release and later transferred to the Correctional Treatment Facility; he suffered falls and injuries allegedly caused by inaccessible showers and lack of reasonable accommodations.
- Plaintiff sued Hope Village, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), and the District of Columbia asserting violations of Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the D.C. Human Rights Act. He amended his complaint and the private defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- CCA moved to dismiss the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and D.C. Human Rights Act claims against it, arguing it is not a “public entity,” does not receive federal financial assistance as a subsidy, and that certain D.C. Human Rights Act provisions must be enforced against the District, not private entities.
- Hope Village moved to dismiss the Rehabilitation Act, Fair Housing Act, and D.C. Human Rights Act claims, arguing it does not receive federal financial assistance that qualifies as a subsidy, that plaintiff was not a renter/buyer so FHA protections do not apply, and that the halfway house is not a place of public accommodation under the D.C. statute.
- The court applied the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard and dismissed all claims against CCA and Hope Village for failure to state plausible claims: CCA not a Title II public entity; neither defendant plausibly alleged to receive federal ‘‘subsidies’’ for Rehabilitation Act liability; FHA and parallel D.C. claims failed because plaintiff was not a buyer/renter; Hope Village not a public accommodation under the D.C. Act; section 2‑1402.67 claims properly directed at the District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCA is liable under Title II of the ADA | Abdus‑Sabur alleged discrimination in a program serving inmates at a facility operated by CCA | CCA is a private company, not a "public entity" under Title II | Dismissed — CCA is not a Title II public entity; Title II does not directly cover private prison companies |
| Whether CCA/Hope Village are subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act | Plaintiff alleges defendants receive federal financial assistance (e.g., Medicare/Medicaid, BOP contract subsidies) | Defendants argue payments compensate for services and do not constitute federal "financial assistance"/subsidies that trigger §504 | Dismissed — allegations fail to plausibly show defendants received federal subsidies as required by §504 |
| Whether Hope Village violated the Fair Housing Act (§3604) | Hope Village functions as a dwelling and discriminated by failing to accommodate plaintiff's disability | Hope Village says plaintiff was not a renter/buyer and residents are placed by BOP, so FHA does not apply | Dismissed — Hope Village is a dwelling but plaintiff was not a buyer/renter; §3604 claims fail |
| Whether D.C. Human Rights Act claims (including §2‑1402.67 and public accommodation provisions) lie against private defendants | Plaintiff invokes D.C. Human Rights Act provisions paralleling FHA and public‑accommodation law | Defendants argue statutory text and structure limit enforcement to the District or exclude private halfway houses from public accommodation coverage | Dismissed — §2‑1402.67 enforcement lies against the District, not private entity; Hope Village is not a public accommodation under D.C. law; other D.C. Human Rights Act claims fail for same reasons as FHA claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Lee v. Corr. Corp. of Am./Corr. Treatment Facility, 61 F. Supp. 3d 139 (D.D.C. 2014) (private prison company not directly liable under Title II)
- U.S. Dep’t of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans of Am., 477 U.S. 597 (scope of §504 limited to recipients of federal financial assistance/subsidies)
- Edison v. Douberly, 604 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.) (contracting with the State does not alone make a private contractor a Title II public entity)
- Hunter ex rel. A.H. v. District of Columbia, 64 F. Supp. 3d 158 (D.D.C. 2014) (treatment of FHA/Human Rights Act analogues and §504 analysis)
- United States v. Jones, 752 F.3d 1039 (5th Cir.) (community corrections facilities are distinct from jails)
- Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (Fair Housing Act construed broadly for standing and coverage)