Novak v. Hall, 14 C 801

139 F.Supp.3d 901

Michael Novak, Plaintiff,

v.Sophia H. Hall, in her Official Capacity as Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois; Timothy C. Evans, in his Official Capacity as Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois; Michael J. Tardy, in his Official Capacity as Director of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts ; and Cook County, Illinois, Defendants.

No. 14 C 801

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed September 30, 2015

Michael J. Novak, Chicago, IL, pro se.

Shirley Ruth Calloway, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Sunil Shashikant Bhave, Illinois Attorney General, Michael L. Gallagher, Burke, Wise, Morrissey & Kaveny, Chicago, IL, Brenden Rae Bryant, Patrick F. Russell, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

REBECCA R. PALLMEYER, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Michael Novak has a hearing impairment that interferes with his ability to represent himself in state court proceedings. To accommodate him, the court provides real-time court reporting and follows up with an official transcript, e-mailed to him a few days later at no charge. Novak believes these accommodations are inadequate. On February 5, 2014, Novak initiated this lawsuit against two Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County and the Director of Administrative Office of Illinois Courts, in their official capacities ("State Defendants"), and Cook County, Illinois. He alleges that Defendants have violated his rights under Title II of the American with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by failing to make necessary and reasonable accommodations for his hearing deficiency.¹ Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated the law by failing to provide him with (a) unedited electronic transcripts from each of his state court proceedings in a timely manner, (b) Communication Access Real Time Translation ("CART") Services or Certified Real-time Reporter ("CRR") services, (c) a quiet courtroom without delays, or (d) extensions of time to meet filing and other deadlines. Since filing his initial complaint on February 5, 2014, Plaintiff has filed two amended complaints. In the most recent of these, Plaintiff's second amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against State Defendants Judge Sophia H. Hall, Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans, and Michael J. Tardy, in their official capacities, and Defendant Cook County. Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the motions [35, 42] are granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Novak is a pro se litigant in a state case pending before Judge Sophia H. Hall of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Since childhood, Plaintiff has had a "severe-to-profound bilateral sensorineural hearing impairment." (Pl.'s 2nd Am. Compl. [32] ¶ 14.) To communicate, he relies on "speech-reading, his residual hearing, reading non-verbal cues, and considerable guessing." (Id. ¶ 15.) On September 19, 2013, Plaintiff requested, as an accommodation under the ADA, that the Circuit Court of Cook County provide him with "CART" transcription services to assist him with communicating in the courtroom. (Id. ¶ 18.) Although Plaintiff has not defined the term, the court understands that CART, an acronym for "Communication Access Real-time Translation," is a transcript service in real time, which displays words on a computer screen as they are spoken.² The day after his request, Plaintiff began receiving CART services in his state court proceedings, and continued to receive those services for approximately three months. (Id. ) Due to budget cuts, however, Plaintiff stopped receiving CART services in December 2013 and was instead provided with translation services by real-time reporters, as well as official court transcripts, at no charge. (Id. ¶¶ 26 n. 18, 33, 36, 39.) Real-time reporters and CART providers use the same equipment and software, but real-time reporting, unlike CART, is not specifically designed to assist individuals who have difficulty hearing.³ Plaintiff claims Defendants' failure to furnish him with "unedited CART transcripts in a timely manner," and other accommodations violate his rights under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. (Id. at 2, ¶¶ 69, 72–73.)

FACTS

Plaintiff specifically alleges the following facts, which the court assumes as true for purposes of Defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiff made his first two appearances before Defendant Judge Hall as a pro se litigant in April 2008. (Pl.'s 2nd Am. Compl. ¶ 17.) Because no CART providers were present for those hearings, Plaintiff was "forced to retain an attorney at considerable expense." (Id. ) On September 19, 2013, Plaintiff made a request for CART services with the Circuit Court of Cook County for an emergency hearing scheduled to take place the following morning (the court is uncertain whether this arose in the case pending in 2008, or another matter). (Id. ¶ 18.) Coleen Hogan, who was at that time in charge of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Access Office of Interpreter Services, advised Plaintiff that he needed to provide more notice for CART services, but that the court would provide CART services for Plaintiff the next morning. (Id. )

The following morning, September 20, 2013, during the emergency hearing, Plaintiff's attorney appeared and informed Judge Hall that he intended to seek leave to withdraw prior to the next status hearing, set for September 30, 2013. (Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff asked for additional time to oppose the motion and, he alleges, Judge Hall told him he would not need to respond at the next status hearing. (Id. ) After the hearing, the CART provider (who had produced the simultaneous translation of the proceedings) informed Plaintiff that "there would be no [CART] transcript available." (Id. ) Shocked by this news, Plaintiff immediately e-mailed the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Access Office of Interpreter Services, asking for information about obtaining a transcript. (Id. ) In a letter that Plaintiff received on September 24, 2013, Milissa Pacelli, the Disability Coordinator at the Office of the Chief Judge, explained that the court did not provide transcripts for hearings at which CART services are made available as an ADA accommodation, but that Plaintiff was free to hire a court reporter on his own if he wished. (Id. ¶ 21.) Then on September 30, 2013, Judge Hall granted Plaintiff's attorney's motion for leave to withdraw, despite Plaintiff's reminding her that she had assured him he would not need to respond to that motion at the September 30 hearing. (Id. ¶ 22.)

On November 1, 2013, Judge Hall entered a court order permitting Plaintiff to receive CART transcripts at his own expense. (Id. ¶ 24.) In response, Plaintiff made an e-mail request to Ms. Hogan and Ms. Pacelli asking that he be provided, instead, with unedited electronic CART transcripts. (Id. ¶¶ 24, 27.) Ms. Pacelli responded that the court's obligation was "to provide effective communication" for Plaintiff while he is in court, an obligation met by the CART service, and that copies of CART translations do not exist because, when CART is provided as an ADA accommodation, the translation is not stored and saved. (Id. ¶¶ 26, 28.) Ms. Pacelli's November 21, 2013 e-mail message asked Plaintiff what "additional auxiliary aid" might help, if CART services were insufficient for him. (Id. ¶ 28.) Plaintiff responded by saying that he had received CART transcripts in the past and that CART services alone, without the transcripts, are insufficient. (Id. ) In addition to CART services and transcripts, Plaintiff asked that his case be called last on Judge Hall's court call so that the courtroom is quieter. (Id. ) He explained, further, that he might need "procedural appropriate accommodations," such as additional time to "organize his thoughts." (Id. ) The following day, Ms. Pacelli granted Plaintiff's request: she informed him on November 22, 2013 that he would receive, by e-mail, an electronic version of the CART translation notes after each court appearance before Judge Hall. (Id. ¶ 29.) A further difficulty arose on November 25, 2013, when the CART services provider refused to include a reference to the identity of the speakers in his/her transcription; when she learned of this, Judge Hall immediately took action and the CART provider did identify the speakers. (Id. ¶ 30.)

Later that day, Plaintiff complained to Ms. Pacelli and Ms. Hogan that he had not yet received the electronic CART transcript from that morning's proceeding, and advised that he would again need CART services on January 3, 2014. (Id. ¶ 31.) When Ms. Pacelli told Plaintiff that she would "get back to [him] next week," Plaintiff filed an emergency motion to obtain the missing CART transcript. (Id. ) At the December 2, 2013 hearing on that emergency motion, Plaintiff notified Judge Hall that he had not yet received the CART transcript from the November 25, 2013 court appearance, and that he had experienced numerous "misunderstandings" and "problems" with the CART providers. (Id. ¶ 32.)

Again, the response was swift: On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff received a letter from Ms. Pacelli stating that he would be receiving an unedited CART translation from the November 25 court date and that, beginning on December 6, 2013, he would begin receiving "real-time translation" as an ADA accommodation. (Id. ¶ 33.) The letter explained that Plaintiff could pick up the certified official transcript of the hearing scheduled for December 6 the following Tuesday, December 10, 2013, at an office across the street from the courthouse. (Id. ) Again unsatisfied, Plaintiff e-mailed back, stating that he "[did not] want an official certified transcript" but instead wanted the "UNEDITED copy being sent electronically" that had been offered to him earlier. (Id. (emphasis original).)

In December 2013 and early...