Iceberg v. State of Washington DSHS/DVR
2:15-cv-01232
W.D. Wash.Jan 30, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Scott Francis Iceberg (in forma pauperis) sued DVR/DSHS employees alleging disability and religious discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, disparate impact, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; he filed multiple amended complaints (five iterations) with the third amended complaint as the operative pleading.
- Allegations: Iceberg said he is disabled, receives Social Security Disability, repeatedly requested email as an accommodation (October 2014–August 2016), was ignored, had services closed, and that a DVR employee disparaged his Christian Science beliefs and demanded psychiatric evaluation inconsistent with his religion.
- Defendants (Quigley, Lashway, Aguirre, Martin, Wilson) moved to dismiss the third amended complaint; Iceberg sought leave to file a fourth amended complaint adding individual-capacity claims and more legal conclusions.
- Court: applied Iqbal/Twombly pleading standards to a pro se plaintiff (liberally construed but not excusing missing essential elements); limited review to the operative TAC when deciding the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- Rulings: federal claims under Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were dismissed with prejudice; leave to further amend federal claims was denied; the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims (dismissed without prejudice); motions for protective order and scheduling extension were denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of disability pleadings under ADA/Rehab Act | Iceberg alleges he is disabled and receives Social Security Disability; claims disparate impact and failure to accommodate | Allegations are conclusory and lack factual specificity showing an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity | Dismissed: "is disabled" and SSA benefits alone insufficient; federal disability claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Retaliation damages available under ADA/Rehab Act | Iceberg seeks $1,000,000 in compensatory damages for retaliation | ADA/§12203 and circuit law preclude compensatory/punitive damages for ADA retaliation; only prospective relief may be available | Dismissed: retaliation claims dismissed because compensatory damages are not available; no injunctive relief pled |
| Use of § 1983 to vindicate ADA/Rehab or Free Exercise rights; official/supervisory liability | Iceberg asserts § 1983 claims for disability and religious discrimination against officials in official and personal capacities | § 1983 cannot be used as a substitute for statutory ADA/Rehab remedies; Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity suits; supervisors not liable on respondeat superior theory; plaintiff fails to plead intentional discrimination | Dismissed: § 1983 disability claims dismissed with prejudice; official-capacity § 1983 claims barred by sovereign immunity; supervisory claims dismissed; religious § 1983 claims dismissed for lack of plausible facts showing intent (and insufficient allegations against some defendants) |
| Leave to amend & supplemental jurisdiction | Iceberg moved to file a fourth amended complaint to cure defects | Defendants opposed, arguing proposed amendment adds legal conclusions and not facts; court previously afforded multiple amendment opportunities | Denied: further amendment would be futile given repeated failures to cure; federal claims dismissed with prejudice; state-law claims dismissed without prejudice (court declines supplemental jurisdiction) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim, not mere labels or conclusions)
- Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2002) (Section 1983 not a vehicle to vindicate ADA statutory rights)
- Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (prospective injunctive relief against state officials may be available)
- Alvarado v. Cajun Operating Co., 588 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (compensatory/punitive damages not available for ADA retaliation claims)
- McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (repeated failure to cure pleading defects can justify dismissal without leave to amend)