Civil Rights — Rehabilitation Act

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Rights — Rehabilitation Act

Where a prisoner alleged he was denied recreation because of his disability, he stated a claim for relief.

“The only statute cited by the plaintiff, the Americans with Disabilities Act, may not be available to him, because it is an open question whether state officers are immune from suits under that Act. United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 158-59 (2006). But the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., is available to him, and courts are supposed to analyze a litigant’s claims and not just the legal theories that he propounds, Hatmaker v. Memorial Medical Center, 619 F.3d 741, 743 (7th Cir. 2010); McManus v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 320 F.3d 545, 551 (5th Cir. 2003)—especially when he is litigating pro se. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). The plaintiff sued the defendants in their official capacity, and so the lawsuit is against a state agency—and one that happens to receive federal financial assistance, which brings the agency within the scope of the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C. § 794; Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 716 n. 4 (2005); Bruggeman v. Blagojevich, 324 F.3d 906, 912 (7th Cir. 2003). To be wheelchair-bound is to be disabled within the Act’s meaning. 29 U.S.C. § 705(9)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A). And the plaintiff alleges that it was because of his disability that he was denied recreation, which is a “program or activity” under the Act. Crawford v. Indiana Department of Corrections, 115 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir. 1997); Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996). So the suit was dismissed prematurely.

Vacated and Remanded.

11-2137 Norfleet v. Walker

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Gilbert, J., Posner, J.