Updike v. Multnomah County, No. 15-35254 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, who has been deaf since birth and uses American Sign Language (ASL) as his primary language, filed suit against the State and County, alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101–12213, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. 701–796I, negligence, and false arrest. Plaintiff alleged that defendants did not provide him with an ASL interpreter at his arraignment on criminal charges, and that the County did not provide him with an ASL interpreter and other auxiliary aids in order for plaintiff to effectively communicate while he was in pretrial detainment and under pretrial supervision. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the State; affirmed the district court's conclusion that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue his claims for injunctive relief; reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the County on plaintiff's ADA and Section 504 claims for compensatory damages; and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Americans With Disabilities Act / Rehabilitation Act. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment orders, and remanded, in a case in which David Updike, who has been deaf since birth, alleged that the State of Oregon and Multnomah County did not provide him with an American Sign Language interpreter at his arraignment on criminal charges, and that the County did not provide him with an ASL interpreter and other auxiliary aids in order for Updike to effectively communicate while he was in pretrial detainment and under pretrial supervision, in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The panel held that Updike lacks standing to pursue his claims for injunctive relief against the State because it is no more than speculation and conjecture that the State will not provide an ASL interpreter and auxiliary aids if Updike makes an appearance as a pretrial detainee again, and lacks standing to pursue his claims for injunctive relief against the County because the possibility of recurring injury remains speculative. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the State on Updike’s claims under the ADA and § 504 because there is no evidence that the State’s failure to provide an ASL interpreter was the result of deliberate indifference.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.