623 F. App'x 990
11th Cir.2015Background
- Lonergan, a pro se Florida prisoner, sues under the ADA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief; no damages.
- He was treated for actinic keratosis; ordered sun protection, hat, and a sun-exposure limit due to security concerns.
- He sought transfer to a self-contained facility; warden denied; he was transferred to a second non-self-contained prison for unrelated reasons.
- After transfer, new skin growths appeared; ADA accommodation and medical evaluation requests were denied; sun limits were revoked.
- Plaintiff alleges mandatory sun exposure for basic activities and seeks ADA relief; district court dismissed claims except possibly Count 1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper party and prospective relief under ADA | Seeks declaratory/injunctive relief against FDOC Secretary as proper official capacity defendant. | Not clearly contested on appeal; district court addressed other points. | Count 1 against FDOC/Secretary viable; remanded for further proceedings. |
| Whether Lonergan is a qualified individual with a disability | Plaintiff is substantially limited in major life activities without mitigating measures. | Not explicitly supported that impairment qualifies as disability at this stage. | Plaintiff plausibly substantially limits major life activities without mitigation. |
| Reasonable transfer as an ADA accommodation for prisoners | Transfer to a self-contained facility could be a reasonable accommodation. | Prisoner transfers are not a valid ADA accommodation as a matter of law. | Footnote misinterpreted; transfer may be relevant to reasonable accommodation; not decided on pleadings. |
| Disagreement with medical treatment as ADA claim | Failure to follow dermatologist's sun-avoidance order constitutes ADA failure to accommodate. | ADA claims cannot rest on mere medical disagreement. | Plaintiff pleads a prima facie ADA claim by seeking dermatologist-prescribed treatment. |
| Exclusion from programs or activities as basis for ADA claim | Disability causes exclusion from prison programs and activities. | Exclusion must be shown to be due to disability; otherwise not actionable. | Court declines to require exclusion as sole basis and allows ADA claim to proceed on pleadings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2008) (liberal pleading for pro se plaintiffs; de novo review of dismissal)
- Bircoll v. Miami-Dade County, 480 F.3d 1072 (11th Cir. 2007) (ADA Title II standard for disability and discrimination)
- Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2008) (reasonableness of accommodations; major life activities)
- Miller v. King, 384 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2004) (footnote about right to transfer not absolute; ADA context)
- Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1983) (prisoner custody and transfer considerations; state prison discretion)
- Ellard v. Alabama Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 824 F.2d 937 (11th Cir. 1987) (prisoner rights and institutional discretion)