Background
Bruce Koklich, a California state prisoner, appealed from a district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act in connection with water quality at the California Institution for Men.
The court’s reasoning
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The panel concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment because Koklich failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was discriminated against by reason of his disability. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying counsel’s motions to withdraw, as counsel did not comply with local rules regarding notice to clients. Furthermore, the court held that Koklich could not represent the putative class pro se and that the district court properly rejected his pro se communications because he was represented by counsel. The court noted that a party is responsible for the consequences of errors by their freely selected attorney.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that pro se litigants represented by counsel cannot file pro se communications and must bear the consequences of their attorney’s actions or omissions. It also confirms that summary judgment is appropriate when a plaintiff fails to present a genuine dispute of material fact on an ADA claim.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download