(PC) Adams v. California Prison Industry Authority

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ADAMS, No. 2:20-cv-1901-JDP-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceedingwithout counsel,brings suit under42 U.S.C. § 1983, 19 alleging that the defendants violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act 20 (“ADA”) and 29 U.S.C. § 794 (the “Rehabilitation Act”)by refusing to allow him to work his 21 prison job with tinted glasses that he needs for his light sensitivity. Plaintiff was eventually 22 terminated from his job after refusing to work without his glasses. The case is before the court 23 for screening, and I conclude that plaintiff’s official capacity claimscan proceed against the 24 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). All other claims and 25 defendants are dismissed with leave to amend for the reasons stated below.1 26 1 Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and a 27 trust fund…