367 F. Supp. 3d 39
S.D. Ill.2019Background
- Pro se plaintiff, legally blind, detained at Rikers Island facilities (OBCC then NIC) in Jan–Aug 2017; alleges injuries and request for accommodations (mobility aid, sighted guide, assistive devices in law library, handicapped housing, para-van transport, blind postage).
- Plaintiff filed multiple grievances and supplementals; attached grievance forms show requests for law-library assistive devices and mobility assistance; law-library officer allegedly denied access to devices.
- Plaintiff brings claims under Title II of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state-law claims; seeks injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds; Plaintiff has since been transferred out of DOC custody (mooting injunctive/declaratory relief against those facilities).
- Court: dismisses many federal constitutional and several ADA/Rehab Act claims but allows ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims to proceed insofar as they challenge denial of law‑library assistive devices and certain housing/mobility accommodations (sighted guide/change of housing). Other claims dismissed with prejudice; supplemental jurisdiction retained for some state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing/mootness for injunctive/declaratory relief after transfer | Walker seeks injunctive/declaratory relief for Rikers conditions | Transfer moots relief against transferring facility | Moot: claims for injunctive/declaratory relief dismissed (transfer moots) |
| ADA claim for law‑library assistive devices | Walker requested devices and was denied, impairing access to legal materials | Defendants argue plaintiff did not request specific accommodations or show lack of meaningful access | Denied dismissal: ADA/Rehab Act claim survives as plaintiff plausibly alleged requests and meaningful denial |
| ADA claims for housing, mobility guide, cane size, transport, mail | Walker contends he requested mobility guide, handicapped housing, para‑van transport, and other accommodations | Defendants: plaintiff failed to request many accommodations and did not allege denial caused loss of program access | Mixed: claims based on mobility guide and housing survive; claims re: cane size, many other services, and transport dismissed |
| § 1983 (access to courts, medical care, failure to protect, retaliation) | Walker alleges law‑library denial impeded legal claims, delayed medical care, exposed him to threats, and defendants retaliated for grievances | Defendants argue no actual injury to court access (represented by counsel; state court denied relief on merits), no deliberate indifference or specific threats, and retaliation claims are conclusory | Dismissed: § 1983 claims for access to courts, Fourteenth Amendment medical/failure‑to‑protect, and retaliation are dismissed (no plausible constitutional injury or mens rea alleged) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (statutory‑pleading standard and plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Wright v. New York State Dep't of Corr., 831 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2016) (prisoners’ ADA: meaningful access and individualized accommodations)
- Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 2003) (elements of Title II ADA claim)
- Pa. Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (prison services fall within ADA coverage)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (right of access to courts requires showing of actual injury)
- Bourdon v. Loughren, 386 F.3d 88 (appointment of counsel can satisfy access‑to‑courts obligation)
- Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (pretrial detainee deliberate‑indifference standard under Fourteenth Amendment)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (inadvertent failure to provide care does not state Eighth Amendment claim)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (failure‑to‑protect standard: deliberate indifference)