Filed Date: Nov. 11, 2020
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about an incarcerated individual with Celiac disease who alleged violations of the ADA by the Clark County Jail in Washington State.
This lawsuit was filed on November 11, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington by a man with Celiac disease who was held in Clark County Jail without access to gluten free food. The plaintiff alleged that he was held for 30 days without food he could safely eat which caused illness, hospitalization, and the loss of 10% of his body weight. The lawsuit was filed against Clark County, Clark County Jail, and NaphCare Inc., a company which provides medical care in correctional facilities. The plaintiff was represented by Washington Civil & Disability Advocate and private counsel. He sought declaratory relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
The plaintiff brought this lawsuit under thirteen causes of action. On Count 1, the plaintiff alleged a violation of the Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) because he is an individual with a disability due to his celiac disease and the defendant discriminated against him because of his disability. On Count 2, the plaintiff alleged a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 because the defendants received federal financial assistance and the plaintiff was discriminated against because of his disability. On Count 3, the plaintiff alleged a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because incarcerated individuals have a constitutional right to receive and have access to adequate basic essentials including appropriate food. On Count 4, the plaintiff alleged a violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination because the defendants discriminated against the plaintiff by not affording him full and equal access to proper nutrition because of his disability. On Count 5, the plaintiff alleged negligence because the defendants negligently failed to provide the plaintiff with a safe, gluten free diet. On Count 6, the plaintiff alleged outrage because the defendants intended to cause emotional distress when they didn’t provide the plaintiff with a gluten free diet. On Count 7, the plaintiff alleged battery because the defendants intended to cause harm to the plaintiff’s person and injure his health. On Count 8, the plaintiff alleged negligent misrepresentation because the defendants provided a meal labeled gluten free that was actually gluten-contaminated. On Count 9, the plaintiff alleged fraud and intentional misrepresentation because the defendants made false statements about the meals served to the plaintiff. On Count 10, the plaintiff alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress because the defendants breached their duty to the plaintiff by refusing to accommodate his disability.
On Count 11, the plaintiff alleged a breach of express warranty because the defendants served the plaintiff food that was gluten-contaminated. On Count 12, the plaintiff alleged a breach of implied warranty of merchantability because the defendants did not adequately pack or label their special diet meals. On Count 13, the plaintiff alleged a breach of implied warranty because the plaintiff relied on the defendants’ judgements that the food he was served was fit for a person with Celiac disease.
The case was assigned to Judge Richard A. Jones.
On January 6, 2021, the court set a trial date of February 22, 2022. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 8, 2021, adding a new defendant, Wellpath, another company that provided medical care for the Defendant Clark County Jail.
Defendant Wellpath filed a motion to dismiss on May 3, 2021, alleging that its contract with the Defendant Clark County Jail ended on the second day of the plaintiff’s incarceration and that there was no proof the plaintiff was in contact with their staff while he was being allegedly harmed. Additionally, Defendant Wellpath argued that the defendants were lumped together with no particularity for their actions.
On June 15, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion to stay discovery for the case until Defendant Wellpath’s motion to dismiss was decided. Six days later, the court declined to stay the case but vacated the trial dates and pretrial deadlines. On October 18, 2021, the case was reassigned to Judge David G. Estudillo.
On January 4, 2022, the court granted Defendant Wellpath’s motion to dismiss finding the plaintiff’s claims lacked particularity against Defendant Wellpath.
The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 25, 2022, which reduced the number of claims against Defendant Wellpath and provided specific information on the plaintiff’s interaction with the Defendant Clark County Jail.
Defendant Wellpath filed a motion to dismiss on February 8, 2022, alleging that the Washington state civil rights statutes did not apply because jails did not fall within the definition of a public accommodation. Further, it alleged that the plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress failed because the plaintiff was not a bystander to a tort committed on a third party. Further, Defendant Wellpath argued that the plaintiff’s claim of outrage failed as a matter of law because gross negligence by a healthcare provider does not satisfy the tort of outrage. Last, it argued the remaining claims were conclusions that provided no factual support for a policy of Wellpath to not provide medically necessary meals to incarcerated individuals.
On February 10 and 11, 2022, Defendants NaphCare, Clark County, and Clark County Jail filed for joinder of the motion to dismiss by Wellpath. They sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and outrage.
On February 28, 2022, a new trial date was set for July 17, 2023.
The court granted in part Defendant Wellpath’s motion to dismiss on May 23, 2022. The court dismissed the Washington Law Against Discrimination claim for all defendants because it found that the jail was not a place of public accommodation. It also dismissed the Rehabilitation Act claim due to insufficient facts. On the other hand, the court did not dismiss the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim because it found that the plaintiff was not required to be a bystander to assert a claim. Further, the court did not dismiss the outrage claim because it found the plaintiff adequately alleged the claim. The court found the plaintiff adequately alleged claims for negligence and § 1983. On June 2, 2022, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the Rehabilitation Act claims. This was granted by the court on August 12, 2022.
The trial date set for July 17 was terminated on April 24, 2023. On May 25, 2023, defendant NaphCare filed a motion for judgement on the pleadings. Defendant NaphCare alleged that it wasn’t the relevant party for the Rehabilitation Act claim. Further, Defendant NaphCare alleged the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim should not apply to it because its records review policy was not facially unconstitutional. The plaintiff alleged a records review policy of which inmates do not receive medically necessary diets until Defendant NaphCare was able to verify the need for those diets with the inmate’s medical records. In order to assert Monell liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff was required to show that a policy is facially unconstitutional or that there was deliberate indifference by the defendant.
On January 29, 2024, the court denied Defendant NaphCare’s motion for judgement on the pleadings. The court found the plaintiff sufficiently pled a 42 U.S. §1983 Monell claim because it showed deprivation of a constitutional right, existence of a policy, deliberate indifference, and that the policy was closely related to the injuries. Further, the court found Defendant NaphCare was the proper defendant for the Rehabilitation Act because the plaintiff detailed how Defendant NaphCare was significantly involved in authorizing medically appropriate meals. Lastly, the court found there was a factual dispute as to if Defendant NaphCare received federal funding within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act and thus the issue would be best reviewed once discovery was completed.
The plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against Defendants Wellpath and NaphCare on March 28, 2024, alleging they refused to disclose any specifics about the federal or state funding that they receive. The plaintiff argued that this discovery was necessary to determine whether Defendants Wellpath and NaphCare received federal funding which would make them subject to the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
On April 10, 2024, Defendant NaphCare filed a motion for summary judgement arguing that the §1983 Monell and Rehabilitation Act claims should fail as a matter of law. Additionally, they argued that the negligence claim failed because the plaintiff could not prove Defendant NaphCare caused any injury. The same day, Defendant Clark County filed for partial summary judgement arguing the plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies. The next day, Defendant Wellpath filed a motion for summary judgement arguing that the plaintiff’s claims had no factual basis because Defendant Wellpath provided less than 35 hours of service during his detainment.
The plaintiff’s request for sanctions was denied on August 2, 2024, because the court found the defendants provided the requested information.
On August 19, 2024, the court addressed all three requests for summary judgement. Defendant NaphCare and Defendant Wellpath’s motions were granted in part. The court granted summary judgement for the Rehabilitation Act and negligence claims against Defendant NaphCare, but declined to dismiss the Monell and outrage claims. Wellpath was successful for summary judgement on the Rehabilitation Act, Monell, and negligence claims. It was not granted summary judgement for the outrage claim. Clark County’s motion was denied regarding the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and outrage claims. Aside from this ruling, the court kept the following claims against all defendants: The Washington Law Against Discrimination, battery, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and intentional misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty.
The plaintiff filed for reconsideration of the court’s ruling on September 3, 2024, but was denied on October 8, 2024, because he failed to provide new evidence or case law.
After the plaintiff and Defendant Naphcare reached a settlement, Defendant Naphcare was dismissed from the case on March 3, 2025. Terms of the settlement agreement were not available to the Clearinghouse.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Cara Claflin (3/21/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18623447/parties/picciano-v-clark-county/
Dunbar, Christina Farno (Washington)
Aiken, Jerome R. (Washington)
Armstrong, Iain (Washington)
Davison, Zachary E (Washington)
Ji, Mason (Washington)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18623447/picciano-v-clark-county/
Last updated Aug. 18, 2025, 12:14 a.m.
State / Territory: Washington
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 11, 2020
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A man with Celiac disease who was held in Clark County Jail without access to gluten free food.
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Wellpath, Private Entity/Person
NaphCare Inc, Private Entity/Person
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Mixed
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis: