TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Raymond W. Aswegan v. Captain Bruhl Lieutenant Birdsell C/o Gary Rea C/o Roush Lieutenant Bowden Roger Lawson Charles Harper John Emmett

Raymond W. ASWEGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Captain BRUHL; Lieutenant Birdsell; C/O Gary Rea; C/O Roush; Lieutenant Bowden; Roger Lawson; Charles Harper; Defendants, John Emmett, Defendant-Appellant

Aswegan v. Bruhl Lieutenant Birdsell C/o Gary Rea C/o Roush Lieutenant Bowden Roger Lawson Charles Harper John Emmett, 113 F.3d 109 (8th Cir. 1997)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 18, 1997
Docket
No. 96-3499SI
Judges
Fagg, Heaney, Gibson
Citations
113 F.3d 109

Opinion — Fagg

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

Raymond W. Aswegan, a life sentence inmate at the Iowa State Penitentiary (ISP), brought this lawsuit contending his prison infirmary cell lacks cable television reception in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (1994). The district court ruled in Aswegan’s favor and ordered John Emmett, the ISP security director, to install a cable television outlet in Aswegan’s cell. Emmett appeals, and we reverse.

Although general population inmates are permitted to purchase television sets that can be connected to the cable television outlets in their cells, infirmary inmates who own televisions lack this amenity because the infirmary cells were designed without cable television hookups. Instead, infirmary inmates entertain themselves by watching television in the infirmary’s community room where two cable-equipped televisions (with ample headphones) are available on a daily basis. As we understand the situation, “[c]able service is necessary for adequate television reception at [the] ISP.”

More v. Farrier, 984 F.2d 269, 270 (8th Cir.1993).

Under the ADA, no qualified individual with a disability can be denied “the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132 . Despite the fact that Aswegan is ambulatory and his cell is hardly fifty feet from the infirmary’s communal television room, the district court *110 decided Aswegan was a qualified disabled person who was denied the benefits of cable television because he routinely lost petty disputes about channel selections with the other infirmary inmates. Believing the ADA applies to the ISP and entitles Aswegan to have unlimited access to the television programs of his choice, the district court ordered the installation of a cable television outlet in Aswegan’s cell.

Contrary to the district court’s view, Aswegan has no viable claim for relief under section 12132 because the cable television sought by Aswegan is not a public service, program, or activity within the contemplation of the ADA We thus reverse the district court’s holding that Aswegan was entitled to access to cable television beyond that already provided in the infirmary’s television room. Because the relief Aswegan seeks is not covered by section 12132, we need not decide, and the district court should not have decided, whether correctional facilities are subject to the ADA.

We thus reverse the decision of the district court.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1997: 11998: 22008: 12010: 12016: 12022: 119972026peak 1998 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gorman v. Bartch152 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 1998)
  2. Randolph v. Rodgers980 F. Supp. 1051 (E.D. Mo. 1997)
  3. Jotham Clement Johnson v. City of Saline151 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 1998)
  4. Trujillo v. Rio Arriba County ex rel. Rio Arriba County Sheriff's Department319 F.R.D. 571 (D.N.M. 2016)
  5. Irby v. Sumnicht683 F. Supp. 2d 913 (W.D. Wis. 2010)
  6. Althouse v. Roe542 F. Supp. 2d 543 (E.D. Tex. 2008)

Most recent

  1. Thompson v. LibertyNo. KENcv-18-06 (Me. Super. Ct Jan. 20, 2022)
  2. Trujillo v. Rio Arriba County ex rel. Rio Arriba County Sheriff's Department319 F.R.D. 571 (D.N.M. 2016)
  3. Irby v. Sumnicht683 F. Supp. 2d 913 (W.D. Wis. 2010)
  4. Althouse v. Roe542 F. Supp. 2d 543 (E.D. Tex. 2008)
  5. Gorman v. Bartch152 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 1998)
  6. Jotham Clement Johnson v. City of Saline151 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 1998)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
More v. Farrier, 984 F.2d 269 (8th Cir. 1993) 77

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list