Valdovinos-Blanco v. Vaughn

3 Citing cases

  1. Spikes v. Car Toys, Inc.

    Civil Action 21-cv-00681-PAB-KAS (D. Colo. Sep. 10, 2024)

    cf. Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 2008) (noting the magistrate judge had declined to analyze federal prisoner's claim against private detention facility under § 1983 because § 1983 “provides a right of action to remedy unconstitutional state, not federal, conduct”); Manuel v. Hanson, 2022 WL 405258, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 9, 2022); Valdovinos-Blanco v. Vaughn, 2012 WL 13076554, at *3 (D.N.M. Apr. 12, 2012); see also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 87 (2005) (Scalia, J., concurring) (“federal prisoners['] . . . custodians are not acting under color of state law and hence cannot be sued under § 1983”).

  2. Manuel v. Hanson

    No. CIV-20-168-SLP (W.D. Okla. Feb. 9, 2022)

    “[T]he ADA does not apply to private correctional facilities housing federal prisoners.” Valdovinos-Blanco v. Vaughn, No. CV-11-0436-MCA/WPL, 2012 WL 13076554 at *5 (D. N.M. Apr. 12, 2012) (unpublished op.) (addressing ADA claim by federal prisoner who used a wheelchair and alleged correctional center was not handicap accessible); see also Phillips v. Tiona, 508 Fed.Appx. 737, 753 (10th Cir. 2013) (“Title II of the ADA does not apply to federal prisoners in federal prisons, including those privately managed by corporations such as CCA. That is so because Title II covers only states and defined appendages thereof.”); Montez v. Romer, 32 F.Supp.2d 1235, 1241 (D. Colo. 1999)

  3. Gross v. Landry

    2:17-cv-00297-LEW (D. Me. Mar. 19, 2019)   Cited 5 times

    The weight of authority suggests that prisons and prison medical facilities are not "public accommodations" within the meaning of the ADA. See e.g., Maringo v. Warden, Corr. Corp. of Am., (CCA), 283 F. App'x 205, 206 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding that Title III of the ADA was not applicable to a prison); Maher v. Tennessee, No. 16-1314-JDT-CGC, 2018 WL 1404405, at *4 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 20, 2018) ("prisons such as the HCCF which are operated by private companies are not among those private entities that are considered a 'public accommodation'"); Valdovinos-Blanco v. Vaughn, No. CV 11-0436 MCA/WPL, 2012 WL 13076554, at *5 (D.N.M. Apr. 12, 2012) ("Each court to tackle this issue has found, without doubt, that a prison is not a place of public accommodation"); Wattleton v. Doe, No. CIV.A. 10-11969-JGD, 2010 WL 5283287, at *2 (D. Mass. Dec. 14, 2010) (federal prison not a place of public accommodation); but see, Hernandez v. Cty. of Monterey, 70 F. Supp. 3d 963, 978 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ("Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that CFMG 'operates' a professional office in the actual physical 'place' of the jail to provide the 'public accommodation' of all required medical care"). Under Maine's analogous anti-discrimination law, the Maine Human Rights Act, some Maine courts have interpreted the phrase "places of public accommodation" to exclude correctional facilities.