Emily Cohen sued multiple defendants, including district court judges, district attorneys, and her former criminal defense attorneys, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court dismissed the ADA claims against her criminal defense attorneys as frivolous, and Cohen appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Factual Overview
Cohen alleged that her former criminal defense attorneys acted in concert with state officials to deny her accommodations and access to the state courthouse. Specifically, she claimed that her attorneys discouraged her from bringing her service dog to court and agreed not to press ADA claims or request reasonable accommodations on her behalf. The district court dismissed the ADA Title II claims against these defendants as frivolous and with prejudice. Cohen appealed, challenging the dismissal and the district court’s denial of leave to appeal in forma pauperis. She also argued that the district court failed to consider her disabilities in its disposition.
Legal Analysis
ADA Title II Claims Against Defense Attorneys: The court explained that Title II of the ADA applies only to public entities and prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in providing public services, programs, or activities. While individuals may be named as defendants, it can only be in their official capacity as representatives of a public entity. The court found that defense attorneys, whether private or public defenders, are not public entities and do not act under color of state law, making them unsuitable defendants for ADA Title II claims.
In Forma Pauperis Status: The court reviewed the district court’s denial of in forma pauperis status, noting that such status requires both financial inability to pay filing fees and a reasoned, non-frivolous argument on appeal. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial and independently denied in forma pauperis status due to the lack of a reasoned, non-frivolous argument.
Disability Accommodation Claims: The court rejected Cohen’s arguments regarding the district court’s alleged failure to consider her dyslexia and refusal of disability accommodations, noting that she failed to provide specific examples or indicate where she raised these issues in the record.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the ADA claims against the criminal defense attorneys, denied Cohen’s request for appointment of counsel, and denied in forma pauperis status.
Schrag on Law 