William Barker v. Osemwingie
20-15503
| 9th Cir. | Nov 29, 2021Background
- Plaintiff William Barker, a wheelchair user, sued California, CDCR, and two CDCR employees after a failed attempt to transfer him from his wheelchair to a toilet using a Hoyer lift.
- Claims: Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title II and Title V of the ADA; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
- District court: dismissed Title II/RA claims with prejudice, dismissed Title V for improper joinder, and granted summary judgment for defendants on the Eighth Amendment claim; excluded certain hearsay statements (Nurse Coloma).
- Defendants relied on unrebutted expert evidence that use of the lift was medically appropriate; district court found no triable issue of deliberate indifference for the Eighth Amendment claim.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit: affirmed summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim and award of costs; vacated dismissal of Title II, RA, and Title V claims and remanded with instructions to grant Barker leave to amend those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment — inadequate medical care | Use of Hoyer lift and resulting harm demonstrate deliberate indifference to serious medical needs | Use of lift was medically appropriate; no deliberate indifference; hearsay excluded | Affirmed: no genuine dispute of deliberate indifference; summary judgment for defendants |
| Title II and Section 504 RA — dismissed w/o leave | Failure to provide safe transfer to toilet is denial of access to toileting services because of disability | Claims are barred as challenges to medical treatment (Simmons) | Vacated dismissal; transfer to toilet is an access accommodation (Armstrong); remand with leave to amend |
| Title II damages standard — pleading requirement | Seeks monetary damages under Title II for denial of toileting access | Must plead defendants acted with deliberate indifference under Duvall | Court requires pleading deliberate indifference under Duvall for Title II damages; leave to amend because not clearly futile |
| Title V retaliation and joinder | Retaliation claim against State/CDCR for protected activity | Joinder improper after dismissal of Title II/RA; dismissal warranted | Vacated joinder dismissal as abuse of discretion; allegations lack plausible causal link but grant leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference standard for prison medical-care § 1983 claims)
- Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) (assistance to access toileting is an access accommodation under Title II)
- Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of medical treatment cannot form the basis of an ADA claim)
- Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (deliberate indifference standard for Title II damages claims)
- T.B. ex rel. Brenneise v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 806 F.3d 451 (9th Cir. 2015) (causation standard for retaliation claims)