Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:17-cv-01127_de18> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01127_de18 RegisterActionDate "2017-06-28" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01127_de18 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 6/28/2017. Plaintiff's motion to reconsider Merit Review Order 14 is DENIED. "The ADA precludes discrimination by public entities, and therefore, the proper defendant in an ADA suit is an appropriate state official in his or her official capacity." Daniels v. Tolson, 2015 WL 7007984, * 2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2015). Contrary to Plaintiff's belief, the Pontiac Correctional Center is not a state department or agency which is the proper defendant in an ADA suit. Wallace v. Lawrence Corr. Ctr., 2017 WL 2242962, * 3 (S.D. Ill. E671AD2 22, 2017). Nevertheless, "a warden sued in his official capacity is, in effect, a suit against the government entity and is an appropriate defendant in an ADA action." Prado v. Swarthout, 2017 WL 1106007, * 4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2017). Plaintiff has named Warden E671AD2 as a defendant, and Warden E671AD2 (in his official capacity) E671AD2 serve as the proper defendant to his ADA claim. The Pontiac Correctional Center, however, is a building and is not a proper defendant in either an ADA suit or a section 1983 suit. (JMB, ilcd) (Entered: 06/28/2017)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01127_de18 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01127_de18 hasJudgeReference SJ001500 @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01127_de18 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01127_de17 @default.