Lareina A. Sauls v. Pierce County et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LAREINA A SAULS, CASE NO. 25-cv-06089-JHC Plaintiff, ORDER v. PIERCE COUNTY et al., Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency ADA Accommodations, Dkt. # 3, and Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Dkt. # 20.

1. Motion for Emergency ADA Accommodations Plaintiff asks the Court for certain ADA accommodations. Dkt. # 3. But the ADA does not apply to federal courts. Roman v. Jefferson at Hollywood LP, 495 F. App’x 804, 806 (9th Cir. 2012) (“While the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires state courts to make disability accommodations, the ADA does not apply to federal courts.”); see 42 U.S.C. § 20 12131(1)(A). Thus, the Court DENIES the Motion for Emergency ADA Accommodations. Dkt. # 3. // // l 2. Petition for Writ of Mandamus 2 Plaintiff appears to seek a writ of mandamus against Pierce County Superior Court because “the court failed to issue any accommodation determination, failed to engage in the interactive process, and proceeded to adjudicated substantive matters regardless.” Dkt. #20 at 2.

5 She likewise says, “A court cannot extinguish federal access obligations by declining to rule and || then declaring the unresolved request irrelevant or moot. Such inaction constitutes denial of 7 ||meaningful access by method of administration.” Jd. at 8.

8 But a writ of mandamus 1s not available from this Court to Pierce County Superior Court because federal courts cannot issue state courts such writs. See Demos v. U.S. District Court, 10 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a 11 state court or official to take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a matter of law). Thus, || the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

13 Dated this 19th day of December, 2025.

14 Cok. Chur 15 John H. Chun United States District Judge