Adom v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.
9th Cir. No. 24-4756
Rights Behind Bars represents Bilal Adom, a wheelchair-user incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison who lives with a serious spinal condition and with incontinence. For nearly a year, prison staff issued Mr. Adom a weekly supply of adult diapers so that he could manage his condition with hygiene and dignity. After he was transferred to a new housing unit, the prison abruptly cut off those supplies—without examining him, speaking with him, or gathering any new information about his needs. For nearly five months, Mr. Adom was left without the supplies he depended on, forced to make do as best he could and to clean up in the middle of the night despite the spinal pain that caused. He told prison officials, over and over, that the deprivation left him humiliated and dehumanized. Through every available channel—formal grievances, accommodation requests, and direct appeals to medical and custodial staff—he asked for his supplies to be restored. Each request was denied for the same stated reason: that the supplies were not "medically necessary."
Mr. Adom filed his complaint pro se, alleging that CDCR violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, along with Eighth Amendment claims against individual staff. The district court granted summary judgment against him across the board. Rights Behind Bars represented Mr. Adom on appeal. In a published opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment on the ADA claim, writing, “When a person with a disability can access a public entity’s services only by experiencing pain and humiliation, that access is likely not meaningful.” The Court also held that a public entity is not excused from its obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation simply because it decided the accommodation was not medically necessary: “In other words, it cannot be the case that an individual with a disability…has no recourse under the 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 programs are inadequate.” The Court further held that a jury could find CDCR acted with deliberate indifference, and it reversed in part on the Eighth Amendment claims in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. The case returns to the district court for further proceedings.