MCDANIELS v. SMITH

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana
DecidedMarch 12, 2024
Docket2:18-cv-00238
StatusUnknown

This text of MCDANIELS v. SMITH (MCDANIELS v. SMITH) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
MCDANIELS v. SMITH, (S.D. Ind. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

JOSEPH ANTHONY MCDANIELS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:18-cv-00238-JPH-MJD ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendants. )

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Joseph McDaniels brought claims against the United States and individual employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") alleging negligence and deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition. The negligence claim, brought against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), alleged that nobody responded to a duress alarm that he initiated from inside his cell while he was experiencing atrial fibrillation. He contends that correctional officers either disabled the duress alarm or ignored it, and that their failure to respond delayed his access to medical care and prolonged his pain and suffering. The deliberate indifference claim alleged that two BOP employees, Lt. Baker and Nurse Smith, knew that he had a serious heart condition yet refused to let him take his cardiac medications. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted with respect to Lt. Baker and denied with respect to Nurse Smith and the United States. The Court recruited counsel for Mr. McDaniels and conducted a trial in July 2023 during which evidence related to both the FTCA claim against the United States and the deliberate indifference claim against Nurse Smith was presented.1 The jury found for Nurse Smith on the deliberate indifference claim and the Court took the FTCA claim against the United States under advisement.

The Parties have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Dkt. 158; dkt. 159. Having considered those filings, the evidence, and the arguments presented at trial, the Court now makes findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1) and holds that the United States is not liable on the FTCA claim. I. Findings of Fact A. FCC Terre Haute and the Special Housing Unit FCC Terre Haute has three facilities: a satellite camp, a medium-security

facility called Federal Correctional Institution Terre Haute ("FCI Terre Haute"), and a maximum-security facility called United States Penitentiary Terre Haute ("USP Terre Haute"). Dkt. 154 at 38. The Special Housing Unit ("SHU") is a solitary confinement unit within USP Terre Haute. Id.; dkt. 153 at 39-41. In the SHU, correctional officers are required to make rounds every 30 minutes, during which they walk down each range and look into each cell to ensure that prisoners are safe. Dkt. 154 at 55. If a correctional officer sees a prisoner in medical distress, the correctional officer must contact medical

services. Id. Members of the nursing staff also walk through the SHU routinely, making sick call rounds and distributing medication. Id. Case managers,

1 The Court thanks Mark Sniderman for his thorough and conscientious representation of Mr. McDaniels. counselors, unit managers, and other BOP officials also regularly make rounds in the SHU throughout the day. Id. at 59; Exhibit 222. Each cell in the SHU has a duress alarm button, which the prisoner can

push in an emergency. Id. at 48-49. When a prisoner pushes the duress alarm button in his cell, an alarm goes off, which notifies the SHU control room officer. Id. The SHU control room officer then notifies the range officer that an alarm was activated, and the range officer checks on the prisoner. Id. If the officers in the SHU do not respond to the alarm promptly, an alarm will sound in the facility's main control room, and the officers there will call the SHU control room and direct the officers there to check and advise on the alarm. Id. at 49. Once a duress alarm has been pushed in a cell, it cannot be turned off remotely by

BOP staff—"someone would have to physically go to the cell and turn the key to reset that alarm." Dkt. 154 at 50. B. Mr. McDaniels' transfer to FCC Terre Haute and later to the SHU In February or March 2017, Mr. McDaniels was transferred to the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana ("FCC Terre Haute"). Dkt. 154 at 87-88. A BOP physician conducted an initial intake examination and noted that Mr. McDaniels had several preexisting conditions, including diabetes and atrial fibrillation. Id. at 88-90; Exhibit 240. Atrial fibrillation involves a disturbance

in the heart's electrical system that causes the heart's minor chamber to wiggle— called fibrillation—instead of beating. Dkt. 154 at 12. A patient experiencing atrial fibrillation may feel fluttering in the chest, shortness of breath, chest pain, and a rapid heartbeat. Id. at 12-13. When Mr. McDaniels was incarcerated at FCC Terre Haute, the medical staff managed his atrial fibrillation and diabetes with several medications. At FCC Terre Haute, prisoners may receive medications by going to the nurses'

station (the "pill line") or by a nurse coming to the prisoners' cell. Id. at 76, 109. Prisoners may also have "self-carry medication," where they are given a supply of medication to keep in their cell. Id. at 74. Mr. McDaniels received some of his medications, including insulin injections, through the pill line, while his cardiac medications were self-carry. Dkt. 153 at 9-11. On August 3, 2017, Mr. McDaniels was moved from his cell at FCI Terre Haute to a cell in the SHU. Id.; dkt. 153 at 39-41. Mr. McDaniels was not allowed to take his self-carry medication with him into the SHU and, for reasons

that are unclear from the record, they were not delivered to his cell in the SHU. Dkt. 153 at 43, 77.2 As a result, he went without his cardiac medications from August 3 to August 5, 2017. Id. C. Mr. McDaniels experienced atrial fibrillation on August 5 It's undisputed that on August 5, 2017, Mr. McDaniels experienced atrial fibrillation while in his cell in the SHU; was examined by Nurse Michele Smith at approximately 6:25 p.m.; and was sent to the emergency room at Union Hospital pursuant to orders of the on-call physician. Dkt. 154 at 95-96; Exhibit

227; Exhibit 230. Emergency room doctors stabilized his heart rate, id. at 19;

2 Mr. McDaniels' claim about his medications proceeded under Bivens, while his FTCA claim against the United States is based on only his allegations regarding the duress alarm. See dkt. 85 at 12–18; dkt. 159. Exhibit 230, and Mr. McDaniels was transported back to USP Terre Haute on August 7, 2017. Dkt. 154 at 99. At trial, Mr. McDaniels testified that when he experienced atrial fibrillation,

he felt like he was "having a heart attack," with his heart "thumping uncontrollably to the point where [he felt like he] was not breathing right. He also had "dizzy spells," "shortness of breath," and "very uncomfortable tightness in the chest." Mr. McDaniels further explained "it just makes you feel like, you know, okay, you are out of here any minute now" and "it felt like an elephant was sitting on my chest or at some points it felt like my chest was going to just pop out because it was beating so hard and fast, and other times it felt like I was just going to pass out." Dkt. 153 at 22.

D. SHU staff interactions with Mr. McDaniels before he was examined by Nurse Smith and sent to the emergency room

On August 5, 2017, Nurse Kelly Keller worked in the SHU from 6:50 a.m. until 5:35 p.m. Dkt. 154 at 108. During that time, she administered insulin to Mr. McDaniels at approximately 7:35 a.m. and 5:26 p.m. Id. at 93, 109-11. At no point did Nurse Keller observe Mr. McDaniels vomit or to be in medical distress. Id. at 111. Rebekka Eisele, a BOP case manager, was on duty on August 5, 2017, and did rounds in the SHU from 3:35 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. Dkt. 154 at 64-67. She did not observe Mr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Molzof v. United States
502 U.S. 301 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Kephart
934 N.E.2d 1120 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2010)
Sauders v. County of Steuben
693 N.E.2d 16 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1998)
David Furry v. United States
712 F.3d 988 (Seventh Circuit, 2013)
Kim Millbrook v. United States
564 F. App'x 855 (Seventh Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
MCDANIELS v. SMITH, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdaniels-v-smith-insd-2024.