82 F.4th 217
3d Cir.2023Background
- Plaintiff Tremayne Durham, an NJSP inmate, was diagnosed with lumbar stenosis and prescribed a cane in November 2019.
- On May 22, 2020, while placed in a quarantine unit, prison officials confiscated his cane and repeatedly denied requests for the cane, a shower chair, and medical attention.
- On May 31, 2020, Durham fell in the shower after being denied his cane and shower accommodations; he was treated at the prison clinic thereafter.
- Durham sued prison officials (individual and official capacities) under the Eighth Amendment (deliberate indifference), Title II of the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act seeking damages and injunctive relief; the District Court dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim and barred official-capacity damages under the Eleventh Amendment.
- The Third Circuit vacated and remanded: it held Durham sufficiently pleaded ADA/RA claims and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference, and rejected the District Court’s cursory sovereign-immunity conclusion as to RA/Title II damages tied to an actual constitutional violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA/RA pleading on the merits | Durham: diagnosed with lumbar stenosis, prescribed cane, denied cane/shower → disabled, denied access, alleged deliberate indifference | District Court: complaint did not allege he was a qualified individual or that denial was by reason of disability | Reversed — pleadings sufficient: medical diagnosis + prescription cane + repeated denials of accessible showers state ADA/RA claims and deliberate-indifference theory for damages |
| Sovereign immunity for money damages under RA/ADA | Durham: damages available under RA and Title II where appropriate | District Court/State: Eleventh Amendment bars money damages against state officials | RA: waiver via acceptance of federal funds permits damages; Title II: abrogation appropriate where Title II enforces Fourteenth Amendment rights for conduct that actually violates those rights (per U.S. v. Georgia); thus sovereign immunity not dispositive here |
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference (individual capacity) | Durham: officials knew he needed cane, repeatedly denied it and shower accommodation, causing fall and harm | District Court: plaintiff failed to plausibly allege officials were subjectively aware of substantial risk | Reversed — allegations (prescription cane, repeated complaints, refusal, fall/injury, and nonmedical reasons for denial) suffice to plead deliberate indifference |
| §1983 official-capacity damages | Durham: sought damages against named officers | State: official-capacity damages against state actors barred under §1983 | Affirmed in part: damages under §1983 against officials in their official capacities are barred; but individual-capacity claims and statutory remedies (RA/Title II) remain viable where permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn. Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (Supreme Court holding prisoners are covered by the ADA)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (Title II validly abrogates Eleventh Amendment when conduct also violates the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (framework for §5 congruence-and-proportionality analysis and Title II abrogation in specific contexts)
- Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (Eleventh Amendment bars money damages for Title I ADA claims)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (subjective knowledge standard for prison officials’ deliberate indifference)
- Furgess v. Penn. Dep’t of Corr., 933 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2019) (prison showers are services covered by the ADA; accessible facilities required)