Ronald L. Brown v. King County Department of Adult Corrections

1998 WL 1120381

U.S. Dist (W.D. Wa)

A late-deafened former prisoner sued the director of a county correctional facility in his official capacity seeking compensatory damages for violation of the ADA, 504 and 1983 state law.  Plaintiff alleged he was denied access to a TTY for the first 45 days of his incarceration and to TV for 5 months due to lack of closed caption decoding; denied full visitation rights because he was required to remain seated during visits, thereby impairing his ability to communicate; denied interpreters during medical exams; not identified as a deaf person which lead to unnecessary physical restraint; handcuffed during transportation and unable to communicate with the guards; missed court appointments and many activities because of the failure of the facility to provide necessary communication access for aurally delivered announcements.  Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his 504, 1983 and state law claims.  Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.  Plaintiff’s motion was denied and defendants’ motion granted in part:  There was no 504 violation because defendants received no federal financial assistance for the operation of the jail facility.  Therefore plaintiff’s claim under 504 must fail.  There was no state law violation because plaintiff has failed to establish that a county correctional facility may be considered a place of “public accommodation”, his claim under Washington State anti-discrimination statutes likewise must fail.  Plaintiff’s ADA claim regarding being handcuffed failed because plaintiff, who speaks well, could verbally communicate requests or questions to the guards and so did have an available means of communication during transportation.  Also, there is an enhanced need for security during the transportation of prison inmates justifying the use of restrictive measures for this limited purpose.  However, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether plaintiff’s rights under the ADA were violated, whether any such violations were “intentional,” and whether the alleged violation of plaintiff’s rights under the ADA was related to a “policy or custom” in place at the jail facility.  As to plaintiff’s claims under the ADA and 1983, there are also genuine issues of material fact as to whether any policies or practices that allegedly violated plaintiff’s rights were reasonably related to the legitimate interests of prison administration.