(a) General. This section applies to public entities that are responsible for the operation or management of adult and juvenile justice jails, detention and correctional facilities, and community correctional facilities, either directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with public or private entities, in whole or in part, including private correctional facilities.
(b) Discrimination prohibited. (1) Public entities shall ensure that qualified inmates or detainees with disabilities shall not, because a facility is inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity.
(2) Public entities shall ensure that inmates or detainees with disabilities are housed in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individuals. Unless it is appropriate to make an exception, a public entity—
(i) Shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in inappropriate security classifications because no accessible cells or beds are available;
(ii) Shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in designated medical areas unless they are actually receiving medical care or treatment;
(iii) Shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in facilities that do not offer the same programs as the facilities where they would otherwise be housed; and
(iv) Shall not deprive inmates or detainees with disabilities of visitation with family members by placing them in distant facilities where they would not otherwise be housed.
(3) Public entities shall implement reasonable policies, including physical modifications to additional cells in accordance with the 2010 Standards, so as to ensure that each inmate with a disability is housed in a cell with the accessible elements necessary to afford the inmate access to safe, appropriate housing.
[AG Order No. 3180-2010, 75 FR 56183, Sept. 15, 2010]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
13 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case:
Craig Geness v. Jason Cox, 902 F.3d 344 (3rd Cir. 2018).
Craig Geness v. Jason Cox, 902 F.3d 344 (3rd Cir. 2018).
“Regulations promulgated under the ADA require that the Commonwealth " shall ensure that inmates or detainees with disabilities are housed in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individuals," 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(2) (emphasis added), and "[s]hall not…”
Robert Furgess v. PA Dept of Corr., 933 F.3d 285 (3rd Cir. 2019).
“26 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(1) ("Public entities shall ensure that qualified inmates or detainees with disabilities shall not, because a facility is inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities , be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, the…”
Brown v. Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr. Servs., 383 F. Supp. 3d 519 (D. Maryland 2019).
“(iii) Shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in facilities that do not offer the same programs as the facilities where they would otherwise be housed; 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(2)(i), (iii), and (iv).”
McBride v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 294 F. Supp. 3d 695 (E.D. Mich. 2018).
· cites it 2× “They note that 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(3) provides that "[p]ublic entities shall implement reasonable policies .”
Meeks v. Schofield, 10 F. Supp. 3d 774 (M.D. Tenn. 2014).
· cites it 2× “However, the plaintiff also alleges that it was per se discriminatory and a Title II violation to house him in Unit 15, because this amounted to placement in a “designated medical area” even though he was not actually receiving care or treatment, in violation of the express…”
Abdus-Sabur v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 221 F. Supp. 3d 3 (D.D.C. 2016).
“3d at 143 (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (a) (2015)). *9 Here, the plaintiff fails to state a claim under Title II of the ADA because “[a]s a private prison company, defendant [CCA] is not covered by Title II of the ADA.”
Arce v. Louisiana, 226 F. Supp. 3d 643 (E.D. La. 2016).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(1). Accordingly, a plaintiff states a claim for relief under the ADA if he-alleges: “(1) that he has a qualifying disability; (2) that he is being denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities 7 for which the public entity is responsible, or…”
Reaves v. Dep't of Corr., 195 F. Supp. 3d 383 (D. Mass. 2016).
“2d 650 (2006); see 28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (ADA regulations of correctional facilities).”
Armstrong v. Brown, 103 F. Supp. 3d 1070 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
“” 28 CFR § 35.152 (b)(2). Accordingly, the Court finds that in order to ensure compliance with this Court’s orders and with the ADA and its implementing regulations, it is necessary to prohibit Defendants from housing Armstrong class members in administrative segregation due to…”
Johnson v. Florida Dep't of Corr., 826 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (N.D. Fla. 2011).
“28 C.F.R. § 35.152 (b)(2)(iii) (requiring public correctional authorities to not “place inmates or detainees with disabilities in facilities that do not offer the same programs as the facilities where they would otherwise be housed”).”
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.152(B)(1) — 1 case
— 28 C.F.R. § 35.152(B)(2) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.