Reported / Citable
Background
Kiheem Grant, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after a September 2023 use-of-force incident allegedly caused brain injuries and left him in a coma. Grant alleged that, after awakening, he experienced paralysis, difficulty writing, memory loss, and impaired cognitive functioning.
Grant claimed that TDCJ and the University of Texas Medical Branch knew of his disabilities because they were open and obvious and because his family requested accommodations. He alleged that the defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide “rehabilitative care,” with TDCJ refusing reasonable accommodations and UTMB delaying a referral for rehabilitation. The defendants moved to dismiss, and the magistrate judge recommended dismissal for failure to plead facts showing that they had denied a reasonable accommodation.
The Court’s Holding
After de novo review, the district court overruled Grant’s three objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court held that Grant’s generalized request for “rehabilitative care” did not identify a requested accommodation in sufficiently direct and specific terms. His allegations that he and his family repeatedly requested accommodations also lacked facts explaining what accommodations were sought, why they were necessary, or why they were refused.
The court further held that Grant had not adequately pleaded that his disabilities and resulting accommodation needs were open, obvious, and apparent. The allegations of memory loss, difficulty writing, cognitive impairment, and unspecified paralysis lacked sufficient factual detail to establish that exception. The court also explained that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act do not establish a standard of medical care and cannot support a claim based merely on poor or inadequate medical treatment. It granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed Grant’s claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Key Takeaways
- An ADA or Rehabilitation Act plaintiff ordinarily must request an accommodation in direct and specific terms; a broad request for “rehabilitative care” was insufficient here.
- The open-and-obvious exception applies when both the disability and the resulting need for an accommodation are apparent, and Grant’s factually undeveloped allegations did not satisfy that standard.
- Claims alleging inadequate medical care or disagreement with treatment do not, without more, state an ADA or Rehabilitation Act claim.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the factual specificity required when prisoners plead failure-to-accommodate claims. Identifying a disability and alleging that officials knew about it may not suffice; the complaint generally must connect the disability to a particular limitation, requested accommodation, and denial.
The dismissal without prejudice leaves Grant able to pursue an amended pleading if procedurally permitted, but the order draws a firm distinction between disability discrimination and allegations that medical providers supplied inadequate treatment.