Albert Hayes v. M. Voong
709 F. App'x 494
9th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Albert Hayes, a California state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the processing of his administrative grievances and alleging ADA and Rehabilitation Act violations.
- Hayes proceeded pro se and filed a Third Amended Complaint naming state officials.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim and denied leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint.
- The district court also denied Hayes’ motions for appointment of counsel.
- Hayes appealed; the Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and review of discretionary denials for abuse of discretion.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA and RA claims may proceed against state officials in their individual capacities | Hayes sought relief against named state officials under ADA and RA | State officials argued those statutes do not authorize individual-capacity suits | Dismissed: ADA Title II and Section 504 claims cannot be pursued against state officials in their individual capacities (affirmed) |
| Whether ADA and RA claims may proceed against officials in their official capacities without alleging a state policy or custom | Hayes alleged statutory violations tied to grievance processing but did not identify a state policy or custom | Defendants argued official-capacity suits require an underlying policy/custom causing the violation | Dismissed: Official-capacity claims fail because Hayes did not plead a policy or custom of the State causing the violation (affirmed) |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted after multiple amendments | Hayes sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to cure defects | Defendants argued further amendment would be futile after prior opportunities to amend | Denied: Court did not abuse discretion in denying leave because amendment would be futile |
| Whether appointment of counsel was required | Hayes moved for appointed counsel asserting need for assistance | Defendants opposed, noting absence of exceptional circumstances | Denied: No exceptional circumstances shown; denial not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard for reviewing dismissals under § 1915A)
- Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2002) (Title II and § 504 do not permit individual-capacity suits under § 1983)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (official-capacity suits implicate the governmental entity and require a policy or custom causing the violation)
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal without leave to amend permissible when amendment would be futile)
- Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court’s broad discretion when plaintiff previously granted leave to amend)
- Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2009) (standards for appointment of counsel in civil cases)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (argument forfeiture for issues not raised in opening brief)