BENNY RIVERA V. J. SHEPPARD, No. 20-17477 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 17 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BENNY G. RIVERA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-17477 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01255-JAT-DMF MEMORANDUM* J. ADAM SHEPPARD, Sheriff, Gila County; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Pretrial detainee Benny G. Rivera appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging violations under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We reverse and remand. The district court dismissed Rivera’s ADA claim because Rivera failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was a qualified individual with a disability and that defendants intentionally discriminated against him because of his disability. However, in his original complaint, Rivera alleged that he has a spine impairment, and in his second amended complaint, Rivera alleged that he was limited in his ability to perform major life activities, such as using the toilet and shower unaided, and that defendants discriminated against him by denying him the required accommodations. Liberally construed, these allegations “are sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012); Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds by Castro v. County of Los Angles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (setting forth the elements of an ADA Title II claim); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A) (“The term ‘disability’ means . . . a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual[.]”); Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that physical barriers that denied disabled inmates access to prison facilities, such as bathrooms, showers, and other common areas, violated the ADA). REVERSED and REMANDED. 2 20-17477
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.
