Storman

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Michael Storman challenges the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), of his pro se complaint against the Sacramento Regional Transit District (“RT”). Storman asserted claims under state and federal law for restricted, or trip-by-trip, paratransit eligibility.

Taking into consideration that we must hold “the allegations of the pro se complaint ... to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 , 92 S.Ct. 594 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam), Storman has adequately stated a claim for an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) violation. Storman alleged that on some occasions, due to his disabilities, he cannot walk more than one block, cannot walk the mile between one of his treating physicians’ offices and the nearest fixed-route bus stop, and forgoes trips that he used to make when he was deemed eligible for paratransit services. The ADA specifically requires public transit agencies to provide paratransit services to the disabled. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132 . The regulations require RT to provide such services to…