United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff
Jeffrey Smith filed this action pursuant to the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the Rehabilitation
Act ("RA"), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds
pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is
incarcerated in the Grimes Unit of the Arkansas Department of
Correction ("ADC"). The case was filed in the
Eastern District of Arkansas and transferred to this Court by
order entered on March 8, 2019. The Plaintiff names as
Defendant Ozark Mountain Alcohol Residential Treatment, Inc.
("OMART").
The
case is before the Court for preservice screening under the
provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
("PLRA"). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a
prisoner seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must determine whether the
Amended Complaint should be served on Dr. Lee.
I.
BACKGROUND
According
to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 2), Plaintiff
became eligible for parole on February 21, 2018. Since that
time, he has sent three applications to OMART for admission
into the residential treatment program. Each application has
been denied.
Plaintiff
maintains he has been discriminated against based on his
disability in violation of his rights under the ADA, the RA,
and the United States Constitution. Plaintiff states the
Social Security Administration has "diagnosed" him
as having a homicidal/suicidal personality disorder and
post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"). Plaintiff
indicates he also has physical disabilities.
Plaintiff
acknowledges that the first page of OMART's application
for admission states that it does not accept violent
offenders. Plaintiff maintains this is a "blatantly
obvious violation of [his] psychological diagnosis." He
states his being on medication to control, or help him
control, his psychological disability causes him to be
eligible for admittance. According to the ADC website,
Plaintiff was convicted of murder in the first degree and
terroristic threatening in the first degree.[1] Plaintiff
indicates he is currently in the ADC because he violated the
terms of his parole.
As
relief, Plaintiff asks for an award of punitive damages in
the amount of $150, 000 and admission into OMART.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under
the PLRA, the Court is obliged to screen the case prior to
service of process being issued. The Court must dismiss a
complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that:
(1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or (2) seek monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28U.S.C.
§1915A(b).
A claim
is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in
law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted if it does not allege "enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombiy, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). "In evaluating whether a pro
se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a
claim, we hold 'a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded ... to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Jackson
v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
However,
mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual
averments are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief
can be based. Allen v. Purkett, 5 F.3d 1151, 1153
(8th Cir. 1993); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914
(8th Cir. 2004). "[A] pro se plaintiff requires no
special legal training to recount the facts surrounding his
alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the court
is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which relief
can be granted." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).
III.
DISCUSSION
Title
II of the ADA provides 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." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The term "public
entity" is defined as "any department, agency,
special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State
or States or local government."[2] 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1).
The term "qualified individual with a disability"
is defined to mean "an individual with a disability who,
with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies,
or practices, . . . meets the essential eligibility
requirements for the receipt of services or the participation
in programs or activities provided by a public entity."
42 U.S.C. § 12131 (2). To state a claim, Plaintiff must
show: "1) he is a person with a disability as defined by
the statute; 2) he is otherwise qualified ...