Civil rights.

U.S. Appeals Court ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act

PAROLE

Armstrong v. Davis 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001). Disabled prisoners and parolees brought a class action against a governor, corrections secretary, and board of prison terms, alleging that policies and practices for parole and parole revocation proceedings violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court found that the defendants engaged in discrimination and entered a system-wide injunction requiring modification of policies and practices. The defendants appealed and the appeals court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. The appeals court held that the department's use of notification forms that were inadequate for prisoners and parolees who were visually impaired, deaf, illiterate, learning disabled, or retarded, and the reliance on untrained employees to determine which prisoners and parolees were disabled and what accommodations were reasonable, violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. The appeals court held that a system-wide inju nction against the board of prison terms was warranted because the board failed to provide effective communications during notification, hearings and appeals, failed to select facilities accessible to mobility-impaired persons, and failed to provide reasonable accommodations. The court noted that the board failed to offer any justification for its failures at trial. (California Youth and Adult Corrections Authority, California Department of Corrections, California Board of Prison Terms)

U.S. Appeals Court ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act

HANDICAP

Chisolm v. McManimon. 275 F.3d 315 (3rd Cir. 2001)-A hearing-impaired detainee brought a suit against the warden of a pretrial detainment facility and county court system, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act, ?? 1983 and a state discrimination law, for failing to provide an interpreter and other services. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and the detainee appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the county court system was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity during an ongoing merger with the state court system. The appeals court held that summary judgment was precluded by genuine issues of material fact as to: (1) the effectiveness of alternate aids or services provided to the detainee when the jail failed to provide a...