Sims v. Marano

WILLIAM T. SIMS, Plaintiff, v. BARRY MARANO, MELVIN DAVIS,CHRISTOPHER LOVERN, and HENRY PONTON, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-00014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION

February 6, 2020

By: Elizabeth K. Dillon United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

William T. Sims, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action alleging that the defendants violated his rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). On March 31, 2019, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss and directing the remaining defendants—Barry Marano, Melvin Davis, Christopher Lovern, and Harry Ponton—to file a motion for summary judgment within sixty days. (Dkt. Nos. 43, 44.)¹ That motion has been filed and is now before the court for resolution. (Dkt. No. 46.)

What remains in this lawsuit are Sims' claims for compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief against Marano, Davis, Lovern, and Ponton, in their official capacities, as to the denial of access to showers, toilets, and exercise equipment. Sims v. Clarke, Civil Action No.7:18-cv-00014, 2019 WL 1447484, at *6 (W.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2019).² For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as to those claims.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Sims' Complaint Allegations

Sims is an inmate within the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) and is currently housed at Green Rock Correctional Center (Green Rock). Henry Ponton is the Regional Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) and is "legally responsible for the overall operation of all prisons in the western region [of Virginia], including Green Rock []." Melvin Davis is the Warden of Green Rock and is "legally responsible for the operation of the prison and for the welfare of all inmates in that facility." Barry Marano is the ADA Coordinator of the VDOC and is "legally responsible for the welfare of all inmates with a disability in the Department." Christopher Lovern is a Unit Manager and the on-site ADA Facilitator for A-Unit at Green Rock and is "legally responsible for the welfare of all inmates with disabilities in that prison." Sims sues each defendant in their official and individual capacities (as noted, the individual capacity claims have been dismissed). As relief, Sims seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as punitive and compensatory damages. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44-47, Dkt. No. 21.)

Prior to arriving at Green Rock on August 25, 2016, Sims suffered multiple injuries which caused him to have one leg amputated at the thigh and caused his confinement to a wheelchair. Sims claims that on or about December 1, 2016, he went on a hunger strike after he had been denied "access to reasonable cell accommodations, exercise equipment, prostheses, andunencumbered wheelchair accessible showers." Consequently, Sims was placed in Green Rock's segregation unit. Sims alleges that the cell in which he was placed was not "handicapped equipped or accessible" because it did not have appropriate hand rails or "adequate spacing." Sims fell and injured himself attempting to get back into his wheelchair after using the toilet because there was no hand rail to balance himself. Sims was then placed in a medical segregation unit that did have a handicap rail near the toilet, but due to the positioning of the bed near the toilet, the toilet was still inaccessible. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17-20, 22-23, 39, Dkt. No. 21.) Sims was in segregation from December 5-7, 2016. Plaintiff ended the hunger strike in exchange for an agreement to hold a meeting to address his ADA and medical grievances. (Id. ¶ 24.)

In addition to the issues that arose during his segregation, Sims argues that, as an amputee and wheelchair user, he has been denied a cell of "reasonable size," accessibility, and with adequate safety rails to accommodate his disability. He also argues that the defendants have failed to properly install or maintain exercise equipment for disabled offenders who are wheelchair users, while "similarly situated offenders at Deerfield Correctional Center," a facility where Sims is not housed, have access to "state of the art exercise equipment for the disabled." Finally, defendants have failed to make "reasonable accommodations" for Sims to be "granted a prosthetic leg," and he is the only amputee housed at Green Rock who does not have a prosthetic limb. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 36-40, Dkt. No. 21.)

B. Toilets, Showers, and Exercise Equipment

Sims is housed in a handicap-accessible cell, and except for the times Sims alleges he was in segregation or the medical department from approximately December 5, 2016, to December 7, 2016, has been assigned to this cell since August 25, 2016. (Id. ¶ 11.) Sims' cellhas a toilet and sink inside of it, and it also has wall-mounted assist bars to assist people with mobility impairments in accessing the toilet or sink in the cell. The cell is designed to house an offender in a wheelchair. (Id. ¶ 12.)

Sims' pod has centrally located showers for offenders to use. In his pod, there is a handicap-accessible shower stall. The shower stall is designed so that an offender in a wheelchair can roll himself up to the shower stall and transfer himself into the shower using wall-mounted assist bars. There is also a pull-down bench in the shower stall for an offender with mobility issues to sit upon while he is using the shower. (Id. ¶ 13.)

Sims also has access to exercise and recreational equipment. (Id. ¶ 14.) Green Rock has a paved outdoor track for offenders to walk or jog on. This track is accessible to offenders in wheelchairs, and Lovern has seen Sims on the track in his wheelchair. (Id. ¶ 15.) Green Rock also has an outdoor area that contains weights, weight benches, pull up bars, dumb bells, a machine for completing "curls," and some free weights. This area is also accessible to someone in a wheelchair. The gated area around the weights has a doorway that is wide enough for a wheelchair. Though the area can be crowded for offenders with or without disabilities during a busy time, this area is accessible to Sims. (Id. ¶ 16.)

Sims and others in wheelchairs also have access to an indoor gym. In the gym, offenders play basketball or volleyball. There is also a punching bag and a corn hole set. Offenders sometimes play handball. The gym at Green Rock is accessible to offenders in wheelchairs. Lovern has seen other offenders in wheelchairs using the gym, but not Sims. (Id. ¶ 17.)

Sims' pod contains recreation items, such as games and a corn hole set to use during recreation times. (Id. ¶ 18.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment should be granted if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A material fact is one that "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 242 F.3d 179, 183 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). A dispute of material fact is "genuine" if sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party exists for the trier of fact to return a verdict for that party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49.

The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party makes this showing, however, the opposing party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but rather must, by affidavits or other means permitted by the Rule, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), 56(e). All inferences must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, but the nonmovant "cannot create a genuine issue of material fact through mere speculation or the building of one inference upon another." Beale v. Hardy, 769 F.2d 213, 214 (4th Cir. 1985).

B. ADA

Title II of the ADA states that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of 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 discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. A state prison is a "public entity" within the meaning of the ADA, and, assuch, Title II of the ADA is applicable to state prisons. Pa. Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998); see also United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 154 (2006). To state a claim for violation of the ADA, the plaintiff must allege that (1) he has a disability, (2) he is otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program, or activity, and (3) he was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of such service, program, or activity, or otherwise discriminated against, on the basis of his disability. Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 498 (4th Cir. 2005).

Defendants concede that Sims has a disability within the meaning of the ADA and that he is "otherwise qualified" to receive the benefits of the toilets, showers, and exercise facilities at Green Rock. The third prong of the inquiry—whether Sims was excluded from or denied the benefits of these services—requires "a more fact-intensive and case-specific inquiry." Sims, 2019 WL 1447484, at *4. "[A]n otherwise qualified handicapped individual must be provided with meaningful access to the benefit that the grantee offers . . . . [T]o assure meaningful access, reasonable accommodations in the grantee's program or benefit may have to be made." Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301 (1985).

Under federal regulations, a public entity may not, on the basis of disability, deny a qualified individual the opportunity to participate in or benefit from an aid, benefit, or service. 28...