Arce v. Louisiana
226 F. Supp. 3d 643
E.D. La.2016Background
- Plaintiff Nelson Arce is profoundly deaf, primarily uses ASL, and has limited written English; his father Lazaro assisted him.
- After pleading guilty in state court, Nelson was placed on probation with conditions including in-house substance treatment and meetings with a probation officer.
- Plaintiffs allege probation officers and JPCC staff failed to provide qualified ASL interpreters: Lazaro was forced to interpret or notes were exchanged; Nelson signed transfer papers and violated probation terms without understanding conditions.
- Nelson was jailed at Jefferson Parish Correction Center (JPCC) for 90 days; plaintiffs allege inadequate access to communication accommodations (no video phones at JPCC; limited access to a TTY machine; no ASL interpreter to explain the inmate handbook) resulting in disciplinary penalties and impaired telephonic communication.
- Plaintiffs sued under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, seeking damages and injunctive relief against Jefferson Parish and others.
- Jefferson Parish moved to dismiss claims against it, arguing operational control of the jail lies with the sheriff and that the Parish’s responsibilities are limited to funding and physical maintenance; Parish challenged any requirement to install video phones.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jefferson Parish can be liable for ADA/RA claims arising from jail conditions | Parish implicated because JPCC lacks video phones and failed to accommodate Nelson's disability | Parish lacks operational control over jail operations and personnel; liability limited to funding/physical facility defects | Dismissed: Parish not liable here because allegations do not show Parish’s funding/physical-facility duties were implicated |
| Whether failure to provide video phones (vs. TTY) violates ADA as a denial of meaningful access | Video phone necessary for effective communication; lack denied meaningful access | Video phones are not required by ADA; TTYs are an available accommodation and video conferencing is not mandated | Dismissed: ADA does not require video phones; TTY use (and access levels) do not establish a Parish facility defect |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded an ADA-qualifying deprivation (disparate treatment vs. failure to accommodate) | Failure to accommodate: restricted TTY access and no interpreters denied meaningful access compared to non-disabled inmates | Evidence shows parity in telephone access; issue is operational (sheriff), not Parish facility defect | Dismissed: plaintiffs alleged failure-to-accommodate, but that does not implicate the Parish’s financing/physical-maintenance role here |
| Whether the Parish’s omission (not installing video phones) can be the basis for relief under ADA/RA | Parish’s failure to equip facility with video phones is a physical-facility deficiency the Parish is responsible for | Even if no video phones, ADA requires reasonable not preferred accommodations; TTY suffices and installation is not mandated | Dismissed: plaintiffs cannot force Parish to install video phones; no ADA violation shown against Parish |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Delano-Pyle v. Victoria Cty., Tex., 302 F.3d 567 (ADA and RA analyzed under same legal standards)
- Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492 (elements required to state an ADA claim)
- Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Cmty. Sch., 100 F.3d 1281 (distinguishes disparate treatment from failure-to-accommodate theories)
- Douglas v. Gusman, 567 F. Supp. 2d 877 (discusses communication accommodations for deaf inmates and adequacy of TTY access)