Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Randy Dewayne Pittman filed a lawsuit against the City of San Jose and city officials alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court granted his in forma pauperis application and screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), determining it failed to state a claim. The case was initially dismissed with leave to amend, with a December 1, 2025 deadline. Pittman did not file an amended complaint, leading to dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Pending motions to compel service and for sanctions/interim relief were denied as moot.
Issues
The court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff Randy Dewayne Pittman alleged the City of San Jose and officials failed to ensure accessible parking access within 200 feet of his apartment. The Court previously found his complaint inadequate under both statutes and granted leave to amend, but no amended complaint was filed.
Holdings
- The court denied plaintiff's pending motions to compel perfection of service (Dkt. No. 19) and for sanctions and interim relief (Dkt. No. 20) as moot due to the case's dismissal with prejudice.
- The court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, citing 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2) and referencing Cato v. United States (70 F.3d 1103, 1995). Plaintiff Randy Dewayne Pittman's complaint was previously found insufficient to state a claim, and he failed to file an amended complaint by the December 1, 2025 deadline.
Remedies
- The Court denies Mr. Pittman's pending motions to compel the perfection of service (Dkt. No. 19) and for sanctions and interim relief (Dkt. No. 20) as moot.
- The Court dismisses the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2), citing Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
Legal Principles
The court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2), having previously granted leave to amend which was not utilized. The decision relied on the precedent from Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 1995), affirming that pro se complaints must meet the same pleading standards as other plaintiffs.
Precedent Name
Cato v. United States
Cited Statute
- United States Code
- Rehabilitation Act
- Americans with Disabilities Act
Judge Name
P. Casey TS
Passage Text
- For the reasons set forth in the Court's previous order, the Court therefore dismisses the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2). See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
- The Court also denies Mr. Pittman's pending motions to compel the perfection of service, Dkt. No. 19, and for sanctions and interim relief, Dkt. No. 20, as moot.