Wednesday, September 9, 2026
Page 4
Ninth Circuit:
Prisoner’s ADA Claim Survives Doctors’ Ineligibility Findings
Opinion Says Charges That Man Was Denied Incontinence Supplies Were Enough to Avoid Summary Judgment Even if Physicians Determined Unnecessary, Drawing Dissent Over ‘Unwarranted’ Intrusion Into Prison Affairs
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday that a California inmate’s allegations that he was denied necessary incontinence supplies were sufficient to withstand summary judgment on his federal disability-discrimination claim even though a prison panel had ruled that he was not eligible to receive the requested materials based on his own medical records, drawing a dissent over whether he had alleged any “discriminatory” actions.
Senior Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez authored the majority opinion, joined in by Circuit Judge Danielle J. Forrest, saying:
“[A] public entity may be obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation even when the accommodation has not been prescribed by a medical professional and even when state policy requires the prior identification of a medical condition before issuing supplies….[I]t cannot be the case that an individual…has no recourse under the [Americans with Disabilities Act (‘ADA’)] when he is left to live and sleep in his own waste, simply because the precise medical cause of his incontinence is elusive or because the existing accommodations…are inadequate.”
Total Control
Declaring that “[a]ny other result would give an institutional actor like CDCR, which controls the relevant medical staff, total control over the realization of the protections afforded by the ADA,” Paez opined:
“[The defendants’] reasoning…gives a medical answer to an ADA question. Disabilities, within the meaning of the ADA, are not limited to conditions with clear diagnoses or medical indications.”
Dissenting, Senior Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea highlighted that “prison officials correctly determined that Adom did not satisfy the requirement of ‘medical necessity’ for the incontinence supplies” based on the fact that “[m]ultiple medical professionals reviewed Adom’s medical records and were unable to find any evidence” that the plaintiff needed the diapers and related materials. He wrote:
“Put simply, the ADA does not exempt Adom from complying with CDCR’s neutral, generally applicable rules. In concluding otherwise, the majority distorts the plain meaning of the statute and exercises unwarranted power over the internal affairs of a state institution.”
Inmate With Disabilities
Asserting the ADA claim was Bilal Adom, an inmate at the Salinas Valley State Prison who allegedly suffers from urinary incontinence and a spinal injury that requires the use a wheelchair. He informed the staff that he needed diapers in December 2020, and he was given supplies for a few months before his access was cut off.
The following September, he submitted a request to the prison’s Reasonable Accommodations Panel, which rejected his plea after a review of his records revealed that no medical-staff member had found the supplies to be necessary, as required by governing regulations. In December 2021, he was seen by two more doctors; one ordered the resumption of the incontinence-supply services.
Adom filed a complaint against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and prison officials in November 2022, asserting a claim under the ADA, among other causes of action. On June 25, 2024, Senior District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of California granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, noting that injunctive relief was unavailable given the resumption of services and saying:
“Monetary damages are not available under Title II of the ADA absent a showing of discriminatory intent….To show discriminatory intent, a plaintiff must establish deliberate indifference by the public entity.
“There is no evidence Plaintiff was excluded from accommodation because of his disability, which he identifies as his incontinence.”
Discriminatory Intent
Rejecting CDCR’s assertion that Adom cannot establish discriminatory intent because his request for the supplies was “not revoked because he was incontinent” but rather because the prison determined he did not have a medical need for them, Paez opined:
“These observations are irrelevant. Discriminatory intent may be sufficient to satisfy causation in an ADA claim, but it is not necessary….Rather, Adom need only show that it was his disabilities, not some other characteristic or factor, that prevented him from accessing the benefits of CDCR’s toileting and hygiene services absent accommodation.”
He acknowledged that, in order to qualify for monetary damages, “Adom must further show that CDCR acted with deliberate indifference when it denied him the benefits of its services” and said:
“Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Adom, and resolving all inferences in his favor, Adom has put forth sufficient evidence to create a triable issue regarding whether CDCR acted with deliberate indifference.”
Deliberate Indifference
The jurist concluded that “a rational fact finder could conclude that CDCR acted with deliberate indifference when it ignored and summarily rejected Adom’s repeated pleas to reinstate his supplies order” and that the “only relevant question” was “whether Adom’s requested accommodation ‘would be unreasonable or could not be accommodated.’ ”
Paez remarked:
“[I]t is undisputed that Adom suffers urinary incontinence and mobility limitations. A jury may consider whether CDCR acted with deliberate indifference when it terminated his supply of adult diapers and declined his requests for reinstatement.”
Yesterday’s decision adds:
“We remand for the district court to consider in the first instance whether Adom has standing to seek an injunction ordering CDCR to grant him a permanent accommodation order.
Bea’s View
Bea wrote:
“The question on appeal is whether Adom’s ADA claims can proceed to trial, and, in my view, the clear answer is that they cannot….[P]rison officials had done nothing more than measure Adom’s request against the state’s regulatory standard of ‘medical necessity’ that applies to disabled and nondisabled prisoners alike. There is no claim that the regulatory standard itself is discriminatory, and the prison’s adherence to these regulations is not unlawful ‘discrimination.’ ”
Saying that “a prison is entitled to rely on the judgment of doctors in administering medical supplies,” he opined that, “even if one assumes that Adom was a ‘qualified individual,’ his ADA claim still fails because he was denied access to the…services not ‘by reason of his disability’ (incontinence)…but because he lacked proof of medical necessity for the original incontinence supplies.”
He continued:
“Adom’s ADA claims were legally defective….The undisputed record demonstrates that CDCR’s decision to suspend incontinence supplies was based on nothing more than its correct assessment that Adom did not meet the generally applicable eligibility standards for the…program. As a matter of common sense, that sort of decision is not a form of ‘disability discrimination,’ but simply the result of the prison following its neutral regulations regarding the provision of medical supplies.”
Transformation of Claim
Accusing the majority of deciding “a different case from the one that was before the district court,” he commented:
“[T]he majority transforms Adom’s ADA claim from one alleging that he was denied [incontinence-supply] services…to one alleging that CDCR deprived him of ‘meaningful access’ to ‘the basic services of toileting and hygiene maintenance.’ ”
Noting that “[i]t is wrong to penalize CDCR and force it to go to trial because it failed to proffer evidence to rebut a claim that Adom had not raised,” he added:
“In the majority’s view, a prison does not discharge its obligation to provide ‘access’ to toilets and hygiene services unless every inmate has a ‘dignified and hygienic way to manage his bodily functions.’… One could be forgiven for wondering from where this standard…originates, and the majority does not provide a clear answer. The majority opinion is similarly bereft of any guidance on how lower courts are to evaluate this new class of ADA claim in which a plaintiff alleges that a public entity failed to provide him with sufficiently ‘dignified’ access to a public service.”
The case is Adom v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 24-4756.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company