United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Charlottesville Division
Glen E. Conrad Senior United States District Judge
matter is before the court on the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the Plaintiff's pro se complaint. ECF
Nos. 8, 12, & 14. For the reasons stated below, the court
grants the Defendants' motions. Plaintiff has also filed
a motion for discovery, (ECF No. 24), and a motion for
injunctive relief, (ECF No. 25). The court previously stayed
these motions while it ruled on the Defendants' motions
to dismiss. ECF No. 34. Because the court dismisses
Plaintiff's claims, it will also deny his motions for
discovery and for injunctive relief.
se plaintiff Charles Wimer brought suit against numerous
Greene County Virginia government entities, the Central
Virginia Regional Jail, and employees of those entities.
Compl. at 1. Wimer asserts claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.,
(the “ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701, (“Section 504”).
is a defendant in a criminal case pending in Greene County
Circuit Court, at least originally before Judge Dale
Durrer. Compl. at 2-3; Commonwealth v.
Wimer, No. CR18000219-00 (Greene Cnty. Cir. Ct. Aug. 7,
2018). Wimer alleges that he has been diagnosed with certain
“learning disabilities” and “emotional
disorders” as a child and as an adult. Id. at
1. Wimer also attaches a psychological evaluation report to
his complaint, which conveyed test results that
“clearly indicate[d]” that Wimer “has
learning disabilities.” Id. 15-17. The report
also notes that Wimer has “functional” reading
skills, but his “spelling and writing skills remain
problematic.” Id. Wimer alleges that he
requested “accommodations” in his criminal case
to accommodate his disabilities: a “qualif[ied] reader
[and] writer.” Id. at 2. Judge Durrer, after
hearing Wimer's request, appears to have found that
Wimer's court-appointed attorney could sufficiently
accommodate his needs. Id. at 2-3.
also alleges that the Defendants “creat[ed]
communication barriers to prevent [him] from fil[ing]
claim[s]” and that they “failed [t]o develop
policies and procedures that protect individuals with
disabilities.” Id. at 1-2. Wimer does not
explain what “claim[s]” he has been unable to
bring, other than to reference paperwork he attempted to file
on “January 7th.” Id. at 3. Wimer has
also retained an attorney and pursued FOIA
alleges several interactions with Greene County court staff.
When he asked for “assistance in filling out”
paperwork, court staff recommended he go to legal aid for
help at one point. Id. At other times, staff members
have “helped to do some writing in the past and
reading, ” helped him with document requests, and
“assisted” Wimer in “filling out the
paperwork for [a] court-appointed attorney, ” as well
as “addresses [and] some names” in civil filings.
ECF No. 18.
alleges that the Central Virginia Regional Jail failed to
accommodate his leaning disability. Compl. & ECF No. 18.
However, Wimer also attaches to his complaint a July 20, 2018
“Synopsis” from Major R. Davis signed by Wimer,
explaining that Wimer specifically declined to request any
accommodations when presented the option in jail, but that
Davis informed court staff that Wimer might request
further alleges that the Central Virginia Regional Jail
failed to “provide adequate medical
accommodations” related to a digestive disorder. Wimer
clarifies in his opposition to the Defendants' motions to
dismiss that he suffers from irritable bowel syndrome, and
that he was “only given Pepto” to treat it. ECF
Wimer alleges vague failures by unspecified Defendants to
train various parties, including court staff, a
Sherriff's department, Judge Durrer, and the
“release desk for the jail.” Compl. at 2; ECF No.
filed his complaint on March 19, 2019 in the Circuit Court of
Greene County. See Compl. Wimer seeks a
“consent decree [w]ith the state of Virginia, ”
and unspecified damages for “mental anguish [and]
injuries.” Id. at 3-4. Defendants removed this
case from state court on April 9, 2019. The Defendants have
moved to dismiss Wimer's complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
complaint seeks relief under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA. These statutes
prohibit discrimination against an individual because of his
or her disability. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of disability against an
“otherwise qualified individual with a
disability” in the administration of federal programs);
42 U.S.C. § 12132 (“[N]o qualified individual with
a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded
from participation in ...