David Updike v. Multnomah County
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16761
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- David Updike, deaf and primarily ASL‑dependent, was arrested January 14, 2013, booked in Multnomah County facilities, and repeatedly requested ASL interpreters and TTY/TDD access that were not provided during booking, medical intake, holding, and early pretrial supervision.
- Updike appeared by videoconference at a January 15 arraignment without an interpreter; the judge postponed the arraignment to the next day when an interpreter was available, and Updike was released January 16 after receiving a TTY and interpreter.
- County staff documented his deafness but often relied on written notes or believed written English sufficed; some staff lacked training or did not seek interpreters despite a County contract for interpreting services.
- Updike sued the State of Oregon and Multnomah County under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (also pleaded negligence and false arrest, which he did not appeal).
- District court granted summary judgment to the State and County; on appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part: affirmed judgments for the State and denial of injunctive relief; reversed summary judgment for the County on compensatory ADA/§504 claims and remanded for trial on disputed issues of deliberate indifference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for injunctive relief | Updike argued future risk of denial of interpreters is real based on past bookings and policies. | State/County argued corrective procedures reduce recurrence; risk speculative. | Court: No standing for injunctive relief against State or County (threat speculative). |
| State liability for failure to provide interpreter at arraignment | Updike: State failed to secure interpreter, causing extra night detained. | State: OJD relied on booking register (which lacked notice); failure was bureaucratic error, not deliberate. | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for State — negligence/bureaucratic slippage, not deliberate indifference. |
| County liability for failing to provide auxiliary aids while detained/supervised | Updike: County repeatedly denied interpreters, TTY, captioning, and failed to investigate accommodation needs, showing deliberate indifference. | County: Staff believed written communication was sufficient; alleged lack of notice or actual exclusion of services. | Court: Reversed summary judgment for County on compensatory ADA/§504 claims — material factual disputes (notice, investigation, and deliberate indifference) require trial. |
| Requirement to investigate and give primary consideration to requested aids | Updike: Regulations require giving primary consideration to the disabled person's choice and a fact‑specific inquiry. | County: Contended alternative communication was effective; argued absence of proof of deliberate indifference for damages. | Court: Emphasized duty to investigate and give deference; failure to do so can support deliberate indifference; remanded to resolve factual disputes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (injunctive relief requires real/immediate threat)
- Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir.) (Title II/§504 deliberate indifference standard)
- Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (Title II covers state prisons/jails)
- Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922 (9th Cir.) (public entity liability for deliberate indifference)
- Wong v. Regents of the University of California, 192 F.3d 807 (9th Cir.) (duty to explore accommodations)
- Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir.) (systemic practice can establish standing/classwide relief)
- Robertson v. Las Animas County Sheriff’s Department, 500 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir.) (cases involving deaf litigants and court access)