Wainwright v. Medical Department Cuyahoga County Correctional Center et al, No. 1:2017cv01621 - Document 50 (N.D. Ohio 2018)
Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/23/18. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, grants the Cuyahoga County Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is therefore moot. (Related Docs. 47 and 49 ) (D,MA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wainwright v. Medical Department Cuyahoga County Correctional Center et al Doc. 50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ----------------------------------------------------------------------: : : : : : : : : : : : : JONATHAN L. WAINWRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL DEPARTMENT CUYAHOGA COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al., Defendants. CASE NO. 1:17-CV-1621 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Docs. 47, 49] ----------------------------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Plaintiff Jonathan L. Wainwright, pro se, brings this suit after he slipped and fell in a shower while incarcerated at the Cuyahoga County Correctional Center.1 The Court previously dismissed several o‘ Pla“nt“‘‘ s cla“ms a’a“nst the Cuyaho’a County De‘endants.2 The County Defendants have now moved for renewed judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment on Pla“nt“‘‘ s sole surviving Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims.3 Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to either motion. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion for judgment on the pleadings on Pla“nt“‘‘ s ADA cla“ms. De‘endants mot“on ‘or summary judgment is therefore MOOT. I. BACKGROUND On May 4, 2018, the Court ’ranted the MetroHealth De‘endants 4 and the Cuyahoga County De‘endants mot“ons ‘or ”ud’ment on the plead“n’s on several o‘ Pla“nt“‘‘ s cla“ms. Because the 1 Doc. 30. The Cuyahoga County Defendants include the Medical Department at Cuyahoga County Correctional Center; the Cuyahoga County Medical Director; the Cuyahoga County Correctional Center Director; Warden Ivy; and various John Does. Id. at 1. 3 Docs. 47, 49. 4 The MetroHealth De‘endants “nclude MetroHealth Systems ( MetroHealth ); Dr. Thomas Tallman; and Marcus Harr“s. Doc. 30 at 1. 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 1:17-CV-1621 Gwin, J. County Defendants did not move ‘or ”ud’ment on the plead“n’s on Pla“nt“‘‘ s ADA cla“ms a’a“nst “t, those claims survived. On May 11, 2018, the County Defendants moved to file a supplemental motion for judgment on the plead“n’s on Pla“nt“‘‘ s ADA cla“ms a’a“nst them.5 The Court granted that motion and gave Plaintiff until July 4, 2018, to oppose.6 Plaintiff has failed to file any opposition by that time.7 In cons“der“n’ the County De‘endants mot“on ‘or ”ud’ment on the plead“n’s, the Court re‘ers to its previous description of Pla“nt“‘‘ s alle’at“ons “n “ts May 4 op“n“on and order.8 II. LEGAL STANDARD Although federal courts are obligated to construe pro se complaints liberally,9 such principles are not without limits.10 Plaintiffs proceeding pro se must still meet basic pleading standards, and courts are not requ“red to con”ure alle’at“ons on [the“r] behal‘. 11 On a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), the Court employs the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6).12 Thus, [‘]or purposes o‘ a mot“on ‘or ”ud’ment on the pleadings, all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be ’ranted only “‘ the mov“n’ party “s nevertheless clearly ent“tled to ”ud’ment. 13 The plaintiff need not try to prove his case in the complaint. But there must be more than a sheer poss“b“l“ty that the de‘endant has acted unlaw‘ully. 14 5 Doc. 47. Doc. 48. 7 On June 18, 2018, the County Defendants also moved for summary judgment. Doc. 49. Plaintiff also failed to file an opposition to that motion by the July 2, 2018, deadline. Because the Court ’rants De‘endants mot“on ‘or ”ud’ment on the pleadings, the Court does not recite facts presented by Defendants in that summary judgment motion. 8 See Doc. 46 at 1-2. 9 See Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011). 10 Young Bok Song v. Gipson, 423 F. App x 506, 509-10 (6th Cir. 2011). 11 Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App x 579, 580 (6th C“r. 2001) (citations omitted). 12 See Tucker v. Middleburg–Legacy Place, 539 F.3d 545, 549 (6th Cir. 2008). 6 13 14 Id. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). -2- Case No. 1:17-CV-1621 Gwin, J. III. ANALYSIS The Court d“sm“sses Pla“nt“‘‘ s ADA cla“ms against the County Defendants.15 The Court l“berally construes Pla“nt“‘‘ s complaint as asserting ADA claims under Title II, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 against the County Defendants. As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not lack standing to bring his ADA claims. The County Defendants argue that Plaintiff lacks standing because he did not specifically request handicap shower access or medical pod housing.16 This argument appears to assert that Pla“nt“‘‘ s “n”ur“es are not d“rectly traceable to the County De‘endants den“al o‘ accommodat“on “‘ Plaintiff never requested any such accommodation in the first place. To establish Article III standing, Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show: (1) an “n”ury-in‘act, wh“ch “s concrete and part“cular“zed and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothet“cal; (2) the “n”ury “s ‘a“rly traceable to the challen’ed act“on o‘ the de‘endant; and (3) “t “s l“kely, as opposed to merely speculat“ve, that the “n”ury w“ll be redressed by a ‘avorable dec“s“on. 17 Plaintiff Wainwright alleged those requirements. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered physical injuries when he slipped in the prison shower, and that those injuries were a result of the County De‘endants den“al o‘ h“s two requests ‘or a shower seat.18 Plaintiff alleges that damages will redress his injuries.19 Even so, Pla“nt“‘‘ s alle’at“ons ‘a“l to establ“sh an ADA cla“m as a matter o‘ law. F“rst, Pla“nt“‘‘ s request ‘or “n”unct“ve rel“e‘ under T“tle II “s moot. Because Pla“nt“‘‘ Wainwright has been transferred out of the County facility, he is not sufficiently likely to suffer further 15 As the Court explained in its May 4 opinion and order, the Medical Department at Cuyahoga County Correctional Center is not a proper Defendant. See Doc. 46 at 3. The Court w“ll there‘ore l“berally construe Pla“nt“‘‘ s ADA cla“ms a’a“nst the Medical Department at Cuyahoga County Correctional Center as against Cuyahoga County. 16 Doc. 47 at 4. 17 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt'l Servs. (TOC), Inc. , 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). 18 Doc. 30 at 2-3. 19 Id. at 6. -3- Case No. 1:17-CV-1621 Gwin, J. injury there, thereby mooting his request for injunctive relief. 20 However, because Title II permits claimants to seek monetary damages,21 Pla“nt“‘‘ s request ‘or dama’es22 is not moot.23 Second, Plaintiff cannot bring Title II damages claims against the individual County Defendants in their individual capacities. Under Title II of the ADA, Plaintiff can only bring his ADA claims against a publ“c ent“ty, and there‘ore only a’a“nst the County and the individual County Defendants in their official capacities.24 Lastly, with respect to the remaining official capacity ADA claims for damages, Plaintiff has failed to identify what discriminatory actions the County took based on Pla“nt“‘‘ s d“sab“l“ty. Title II of the ADA prov“des that no qual“‘“ed “nd“v“dual w“th a d“sab“l“ty shall, by reason o‘ such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discriminat“on by any such ent“ty. 25 Allegations of isolated instances of failing to accommodate a d“sabled pr“soner s condition do not state a claim under the ADA. 26 Plaintiff was housed in a pod that did not contain a handicap- accessible shower.27 While the County Defendants gave him a shower seat in one instance, they allegedly denied his two later requests for a shower seat.28 Plaintiff Wainwright admits, however, that the County Defendants later let him use a handicap-accessible shower.29 Without further alle’at“ons o‘ the County s actions due to his disability, Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the ADA. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Pla“nt“‘‘ s ADA cla“ms a’a“nst the County Defendants. 20 See Abdur-Rahman v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 65 F.3d 489, 491 (6th Cir. 1995). Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 137 S. Ct. 743, 749-50 (2017). 22 See Doc. 30 at 3-4, 6. The Court l“berally construes Pla“nt“‘‘ s compla“nt as seek“n’ dama’es ‘or phys“cal “n”ur“es to h“s 21 back and pelvis that he suffered from his slip and fall. 23 See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 364 (1982). 24 See Lee v. Michigan Parole Bd., 104 F. App x 490, 492-93 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)). The Court there‘ore does not address the County De‘endants ar’ument that County De‘endants are ent“tled to qual“‘“ed “mmun“ty ‘or the ADA claims brought against them in their individual capacities. See Doc. 47 at 6-8. 25 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 26 McCord v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., No. 1:10 CV 2355, 2011 WL 768079, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 28, 2011) (citing Moore v. Curtis, 68 F. App x 561 (6th Cir. 2003)). 27 See Doc. 30 at 2. 28 Id. at 2-3. 29 Id. at 3. -4- Case No. 1:17-CV-1621 Gwin, J. IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the County De‘endants motion for judgment on the pleadings. The County De‘endants mot“on ‘or summary ”ud’ment “s MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 23, 2018 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -5-
]]>
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.
