## Facts

- Sean G. Duffy, a deaf/hearing-impaired Washington state prisoner, could read and write but communicated most effectively with an interpreter.
- In July 1992, prison officials charged Duffy with indecent exposure, placed him in segregation, and set a disciplinary hearing.
- The prison designated a corrections officer, Frances Linder, to serve as Duffy’s interpreter.
- Duffy objected that Linder lacked formal sign-language training, was not certified, and did not sign in a way he could understand; he requested a certified interpreter, which officials denied.
- Duffy refused to attend the disciplinary hearing with Linder as interpreter; the hearing proceeded without him and resulted in a guilty finding.
- Duffy also participated in two classification hearings concerning security level and placement, and he alleged similar failures to provide adequate interpretive assistance.
- Duffy sued prison officials under Title II of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Washington’s interpreter statute (RCW 2.42.120).
- Two district courts granted summary judgment to defendants; Duffy appealed, and the Ninth Circuit consolidated the appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act apply to state prison disciplinary and classification proceedings.
2. Whether disputed evidence about the interpreter’s qualifications and Duffy’s ability to communicate created triable issues on ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims.
3. Whether Duffy’s refusal to attend the disciplinary hearing with the offered interpreter defeated his disability-discrimination claims as a matter of law.
4. Whether summary judgment was proper on Duffy’s § 1983 constitutional theories and state-law interpreter claims.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court reversed summary judgment on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims in both cases because genuine disputes existed about whether the interpreter provided was qualified for Duffy and whether communication was effective.
- The court held that these factual disputes could not be resolved on summary judgment.
- The court affirmed summary judgment as to other claims to the extent they failed as a matter of law (including certain § 1983 constitutional theories and portions of the state-law claims).

## Legal Principles

- Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act apply to covered services, programs, or activities in state prisons, including disciplinary and classification proceedings.
- Public entities must provide reasonable accommodations necessary to afford a qualified individual with a disability meaningful access, which may require interpretive assistance for deaf participants.
- Whether an interpreter is “qualified” and whether communication was effective are fact-intensive questions; conflicting evidence on these points generally precludes summary judgment.
- A plaintiff’s refusal to proceed with an allegedly unqualified interpreter does not automatically bar statutory disability claims when the refusal is tied to the asserted lack of effective communication.
- Statutory disability-rights violations do not necessarily establish independent constitutional violations actionable under § 1983.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that factual disputes about interpreter qualifications and effective communication required a trial-level determination on Duffy’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims arising from prison disciplinary and classification hearings, while leaving intact the district courts’ dismissal of other theories that did not survive summary judgment as a matter of law.


Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447 (9th Cir. 1996)