Larry Lloyd v. FITZWATER, Sgt.; LEWIS, C/O

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY LLOYD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FITZWATER, Sgt.; LEWIS, C/O,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
MARK RUFENER, Chief, Kitsap County
Jail; SENOVIA RIVAS, Nurse,
Defendants.
No. 20-35955
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05627-BHS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Larry Lloyd appeals pro se from the district
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-35955
court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of the Fourteenth
Amendment and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) arising from his
pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler,
627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lloyd’s inadequate medical care claim
under the Fourteenth Amendment because Lloyd failed to allege facts sufficient to
show that he was at a substantial risk of suffering serious harm due to defendants’
refusal to transfer him to the disability housing dorm. See Gordon v. County of
Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth elements of a pretrial
detainee’s medical care claim under the Fourteenth Amendment); see also
Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295-96 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating
that on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court is “not required to accept as true
conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the
complaint”).
This district court properly dismissed Lloyd’s ADA claim seeking monetary
damages because Lloyd failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants
were deliberately indifferent to any need for accommodations. See Duvall v.
County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing elements of
an ADA claim, and the required showing of intentional discrimination to state a

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-35955
claim for damages; the test for intentional discrimination is deliberate
indifference). Contrary to Lloyd’s contention, the medical records he cites did not
require physical therapy or that any exercises be done at night.
We reject as meritless Lloyd’s contention that defendants violated jail
policies by failing to transfer him.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --