This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
ADA
Due Process Clause

Rondel Delbert Gardner v. Gavin Newsom, et al.

Published: Feb. 12, 2021 | Result Date: Jan. 8, 2021 | Filing Date: Feb. 13, 2019 |

Case number: 1:20-cv-00240-NONE-SAB Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Dale A. Drozd

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Sarah E. Kozal
(Buchalter APC)

Bryan L. Hawkins
(Stoel Rives LLP)

Jason R. Crockford
(Law Office of Jason Crockford)


Defendant

Arthur B. Mark III
(Office of the Attorney General)


Facts

Rondel Delbert Gardner was serving a 25-to-life sentence as a Third Striker. Gardner, aged 60 at the time of his incarceration at California State Prison Sacramento, had vision problems that required him to walk with a cane. Gardner was then transferred to to California State Prison-Corcoran and assigned work as a "porter." Gardner was issued Rules Violation Reports (RVR) for failure to appear at his work assignment and to meet the assignment expectations and was subsequently informed that he could not report to work because of his status under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Another RVR was issued because Gardner did not attend Substance Abuse Program meetings. Gardner then initiated a 42 U.S.C. 1942 action against the prison and officials.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that he was not allowed to complete his work assignments because he qualified as ADA elderly. He was turned away from his duties because of his age and poor vision, which Plaintiff contended constituted a violation of the Equal Protection since he was not provided the necessary ADA accommodations to complete his tasks. Moreover, plaintiff used certain prohibited substances as part of his treatment and therefore contended the RVR for his failure to attend the Substance Abuse Program meetings was a violation of his due process rights.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that plaintiff could not sue the state under section 1983 because no individual was identified therefore, the claim should fail because the government could not be sued for damages. Moreover, in addition to plaintiff's failure to identify an established right that had been violated, the due process claim was moot because plaintiff was transferred to a facility in Los Angeles.

Result

Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice.


#136552

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390