1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ADAMS, Case No. 2:20-cv-01901-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT CDCR

PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES

13 v. STIPULATION AND DENYING ITS

MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT

14 CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, et al., ECF Nos. 17, 24 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought under the 19 Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. I previously screened the complaint 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that plaintiff’s official capacity claims against all 21 defendants could proceed against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 22 (“CDCR”).1 Id. After being served, CDCR filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that CDCR is not 23 the proper defendant for plaintiff’s official capacity claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation 24 Act. ECF No. 17. 25

1 I also found that plaintiff’s individual capacity claims against the three individual 26 defendants were not cognizable. ECF No. 8 at 3; see Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1156 (9th 27 Cir. 2002). Although plaintiff was granted leave to amend his claims against the individual defendants, ECF No. 8 at 5, he elected to proceed only with his official capacity claims against 28 CDCR, ECF No. 11. 1 On July 23, 2021, I held a status conference at which the parties discussed, among other 2 things, CDCR’s contention that it was not the proper defendant. ECF No. 23. Both parties 3 agreed that the California Prison Industry Authority—the entity employing the individual 4 defendants—was the proper defendant for plaintiff’s claims, rather than CDCR. Consistent with 5 that agreement, the parties subsequently filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal of CDCR. 6 ECF No. 24; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 7 Given plaintiff’s position that the individual defendants were employed by the California 8 Prison Industry Authority, his ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims will proceed against that 9 defendant.2 See Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1141 (9th Cir. 2001) (“When a plaintiff 10 brings a direct suit under either the Rehabilitation Act or Title II of the ADA against a 11 municipality (including a county), the public entity is liable for the vicarious acts of its 12 employees.”). Further, CDCR is dismissed from this action pursuant to the July 28, 2021 13 stipulation for voluntarily dismissal, rendering its motion to dismiss moot. See Com. Space 14 Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999) (observing that “a dismissal 15 under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though 16 no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complaint, and the district court lacks jurisdiction 17 to do anything about it”). 18 Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 19 1. Defendant CDCR is dismissed from this case pursuant to the July 28, 2021 stipulation 20 for voluntarily dismiss. See ECF No. 24. 21 2. CDCR’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 17, is denied as moot. 22 3. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s claims under Title II of the Americans with 23 Disabilities Act and 29 U.S.C. § 794 (the Rehabilitation Act) against defendant California Prison 24 Industry Authority.

25 26 27 2 An order directing service against defendant California Prison Industry Authority will 28 issue in due course. 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ September 27, 2021 Q_—_—. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28