Reeves v. Sanchez

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02962
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LINDA JOYCE REEVES, Case No. 25-cv-02962-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR CLERK OF COURT TO 9 v. ISSUE REVISED SUMMONS AND FOR U.S. MARSHAL TO SERVE THE 10 YESENIA SANCHEZ, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff Linda Joyce Reeves initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint (ECF No. 1) and 14 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff brings a claim under the 15 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging she suffered injuries while housed at Santa Rita 16 Jail. Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff names County of Alameda Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez as the sole 17 defendant. On April 14, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application, directed 18 the Clerk of Court to issue the summons, and directed the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendant. ECF 19 No. 4. However, when the U.S. Marshal attempted service, the County of Alameda stated it 20 would not accept service on behalf of Sheriff Sanchez because it was not a named party. ECF No. 21 8. 22 The ADA “prohibit[s] discrimination on the basis of disability.” Lovell v. Chandler, 303 23 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). “This provision extends to discrimination against inmates 24 detained in a county jail.” Updike v. Multnomah Cnty., 870 F.3d 939, 949 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 25 Penn. Dep’t of Corrs. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1998)). The ADA “authorizes suits by private 26 citizens for money damages against public entities that violate § 12132.” United States v. 27 Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 154 (2006) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12133). Plaintiff may sue the public entity 1 violation of the ADA. Eason vy. Clark County School Dist., 303 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir. 2002) 2 (citing Garcia v. §.U.N.Y. Health, 280 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2001)); see also Caesar v. Horel, 3 || 2010 WL 4393894, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct.29, 2010) (“Plaintiff cannot bring an ADA .. . action 4 against individual prison officials, because the proper defendant in such actions is the public entity 5 responsible for the alleged discrimination. ... The proper defendants to Plaintiff’s disability 6 || discrimination claims are the public entities that allegedly denied him equal access to their 7 programs.”); Ellington v. Clark, 2010 WL 2303333, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2010) (because 8 || correctional facilities are “public entities” within the meaning of the ADA, the correctional 9 facility, not prison officials or the State of California, is the proper defendant with respect to 10 || plaintiff's ADA claim). 11 Given Plaintiffs pro se status, the Court construes her claim as one brought against County 12 || of Alameda, by and through Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez in her official capacity. Accordingly, the 5 13 || Court ORDERS as follows: 14 1) The Clerk of Court shall issue a revised summons addressed to the defendant as 3 15 “County of Alameda, by and through Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez in her official capacity,” a 16 at 1221 Oak Street, Oakland, CA 94612. 3 17 2) The U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California shall serve, without S 18 prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint and any attachments thereto, Plaintiff’ s 19 affidavit, and the Court’s orders upon Defendant. 20 As Defendant has not been served, the July 3, 2025 case management conference is 21 VACATED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: June 20, 2025 25 TAA. | □ — THOMAS S. HIXSON 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28