## Facts

- Ronald R. Yeskey, a Pennsylvania state inmate, received an 18–36 month sentence.
- The sentencing judge recommended Yeskey for Pennsylvania’s Motivational Boot Camp, a six-month program featuring rigorous physical training, strict discipline, work projects, and treatment.
- Successful completion could make an inmate eligible for early parole after six months rather than serving the full minimum term.
- The governing statute made admission discretionary and stated that no inmate has a right to placement.
- The Department of Corrections denied Yeskey admission because of his medical history of hypertension.
- Yeskey sued under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging exclusion from a prison program based on disability, and also asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.

## Issues

1. Whether Title II of the ADA applies to state prisons and prison programs, permitting inmates to sue a state department of corrections for disability discrimination in access to prison “services, programs, or activities.”
2. Whether Title II’s scope should be interpreted consistently with § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in determining ADA coverage in the prison context.
3. Whether the case was moot given the short remaining duration of Yeskey’s sentence.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded.
- The court held that Title II of the ADA applies to state prisons and their programs, including the Motivational Boot Camp.
- The court rejected a categorical exemption for prisons from ADA coverage.
- The court held the appeal was not moot because Yeskey sought damages and the dispute was capable of repetition yet evading review.
- The court did not decide whether the boot-camp denial violated the ADA on the merits; it only held that the complaint could not be dismissed on the ground that the ADA is inapplicable to prisons.

## Legal Principles

- Title II applies to “public entit[ies],” including any department, agency, or instrumentality of a state; a state department of corrections fits within this definition.
- Title II covers discrimination in a public entity’s “services, programs, or activities,” which includes structured prison programs that confer benefits such as eligibility for early parole consideration.
- Discretionary admission and the absence of an enforceable entitlement to a prison program do not remove the program from Title II’s anti-discrimination requirements.
- Title II is to be construed consistently with § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, supporting application of disability-discrimination standards in correctional settings.
- Claims for damages and disputes likely to recur but resolve too quickly for full litigation can defeat mootness.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that ADA Title II reaches state prisons and prison programs and therefore reversed the dismissal of an inmate’s disability-discrimination claim arising from denial of admission to a boot-camp program, remanding for further proceedings on the merits.


Yeskey v. Commonwealth of Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 118 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 1997)