Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Raymond Richard WHITALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Raymond Richard Whitall appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We reverse and remand.
The district court dismissed Whitall's ADA and RA claims against defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) for failure to state a claim. However, Whitall alleged that the CDCR knew of Whitall's need for a functional hearing aid, and on three separate occasions failed to provide a functional hearing aid in a timely manner despite multiple requests for replacement devices and batteries. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth elements of an ADA and RA failure-to-accommodate claim; to recover monetary damages under the ADA and RA, a plaintiff must show intentional discrimination; intentional discrimination can be demonstrated if defendant had notice of the need for accommodation and failed to take necessary action despite repeated requests). The district court also dismissed Whitall's deliberate indifference claims against the individual defendants for failure to state a claim. However, Whitall alleged that these defendants ignored repeated requests to provide him with replacement batteries for his hearing aid, resulting in him being unable to function while in administrative segregation. See Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1123 (unnecessary delay in implementing prescribed treatment sufficient to plead deliberate indifference). The allegations against the CDCR and the individual defendants, liberally construed, are “sufficient to warrant ordering [the defendants] to file an answer” as to these claims. Id. at 1116. We reverse the judgment, and remand for further proceedings on these claims only.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-16415
Decided: July 26, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)