Brooks v. Colo. Dept. of Corrections
715 Fed.Appx. 814
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jason Brooks, a Colorado state prisoner with ulcerative colitis (and a painful tooth), sued Colorado DOC, the private prison owner (Corrections Corporation of America), and multiple individual employees under Title II of the ADA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Eighth Amendment) for denial of accommodations, inadequate medical/dental care, limited meal access, and restricted toilet paper.
- District court struck Brooks’s late requests for partial summary judgment under the local rule and dismissed his Title II claims and granted summary judgment to most defendants on § 1983 claims; Brooks appealed pro se.
- Brooks sought a special meal pass and extra toilet paper as ADA accommodations (he was given adult undergarments instead); he alleged prior receipt of a temporary special meal pass and denial of later requests via grievance denials.
- On Eighth Amendment claims, Brooks alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (ulcerative colitis and a decaying tooth); defendants argued they provided reasonable medical judgments or lacked personal involvement.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed striking Brooks’s late partial-summary-judgment requests, reversed dismissal of Title II claims against the Colorado DOC and officials sued in their official capacities, affirmed several § 1983 summary judgment rulings, and reversed summary judgment for two medical/administrative defendants (Ms. Russell and Dr. Blake).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to strike Brooks’s late requests for partial summary judgment | Brooks sought partial summary judgment in responses to defendants’ motions | Defendants argued requests were late and violated local rule barring motions within response briefs | Strike affirmed — district court properly enforced local rule |
| Title II liability: individual-capacity v. official-capacity and state liability | Brooks alleged ADA Title II violation for failure to accommodate (meal pass, extra TP) by DOC and individual officials (official and individual capacities) | Defendants: Title II does not create individual liability; Brooks failed to plead disability or denial of services | Individual-capacity claims dismissed (Title II creates no individual liability); dismissal reversed for official-capacity claims and Colorado DOC as complaint plausibly alleged disability and denial of meaningful access (meal pass) |
| ADA accommodation scope (meal pass / toilet paper) | Meal pass and extra toilet paper necessary to permit meaningful access to programs/activities because of unpredictable bathroom needs | Defendants: adult undergarments sufficed; meal pass would pose security/undue burden; ADA not a remedy for medical care | On Rule 12(b)(6) review, complaint plausibly alleged failure to provide meaningful access (adult undergarments may be insufficient; prior temporary meal pass alleged). Title II claims proceed against DOC and officials in official capacities |
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference: summary judgment for individual defendants | Brooks alleged deliberate indifference by multiple staff (failure/refusal to provide gluten-free diet/Ensure, denial of meal pass, delayed dental care) | Defendants argued lack of subjective knowledge, reasonable medical judgment, noninvolvement, or no serious medical need | Affirmed summary judgment for Corrections Corp., Sicotte, Tessiere, Dr. Oba, Turner. Reversed summary judgment as to Ms. Russell (denial of grievance linked to deprivation; genuine dispute on authority/knowledge) and Dr. Blake (evidence of prolonged dental neglect creating triable Eighth Amendment claim). |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. City of Prairie Village, Kan., 172 F.3d 736 (10th Cir. 1999) (Title II does not create individual-capacity liability)
- Colby v. Herrick, 849 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2017) (pleading standard on review—credit well-pleaded allegations)
- Robertson v. Las Animas Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 500 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2007) (ADA Title II requires exclusion from services or meaningful access denial)
- Jojola v. Chavez, 55 F.3d 488 (10th Cir. 1995) (limitations on consideration at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2010) (medical mistakes or differences in treatment do not alone establish Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)
- Serna v. Colo. Dep’t of Corrs., 455 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2006) (§ 1983 liability requires personal participation, control, or direction)
- Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2009) (denial of grievance alone does not establish personal participation absent a link to the constitutional violation)
- Harrison v. Barkley, 219 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2000) (untreated dental problems can amount to serious medical need under the Eighth Amendment)
- Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 1980) (dental care is an important medical need for inmates)