Texas Prisoner’s ADA and Deliberate Indifference Claims Survive Summary Judgment, Qualified Immunity

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has held in a Texas prisoner’s suit that one of two prison doctors was not entitled to summary judgment or qualified immunity on a claim of deliberate indifference and that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) was not entitled to summary judgment on an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim.

The prisoner, Donald Eubanks, filed suit against TDCJ and TDCJ Doctors Kokila Naik and Aftab Ahmad after Eubanks had had his legs amputated due to improper treatment by the defendants. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the merits and for Eubanks’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies, with the doctors also seeking qualified immunity. On March 19, 2014, the district court granted summary judgment for Dr. Ahmad but denied motions by TDJC and Dr. Naik.

Eubanks, 59, a paraplegic sentenced to life for aggravated sexual assault on a child, reportedly developed painful skin injuries called decubitus ulcers (“ulcers”) while housed at the Galveston County Sheriff’s Office in August 2009. Despite a recommendation by Eubanks’ physician to hospitalize Eubanks, Ahmad approved Eubanks’ transfer to Jester and did not hospitalize him.

Allegedly suffering from multiple ulcers and uncontrolled diarrhea, Eubanks was allowed to shower as needed. Upon examination by Naik, she documented his ulcers and ordered them to be cleaned twice a week. According to Eubanks, in response to his question of how TDCJ would “Treat his ulcers without hospital care,” Naik admitted that she could not adequately treat him but would not transfer him to a hospital.

On September 30, 2009, Eubanks allegedly requested to be sent to a hospital. His request was denied, but on October 2 he was seen by a physician to have his bandages changed. However, Eubanks was left untreated because of his feces covered bandages. Eubanks reportedly complained to medical personnel over the next several days of diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, fever and chills and that he had no control over his bowels or bladder. Ahmad addressed his incontinence on October 7 but did not examine his ulcers.

On October 14, 2009, Eubanks allegedly complained to Naik that he needed his bandages changed often because of drainage, that his ulcers on his buttocks and body were not improving, and that he “Desperately needed” to go to the hospital. The doctors told him to avoid sitting, and on October 18, Eubanks claimed that he further complained to the defendant doctors that his bandages were always soaked in blood and his ulcers were worsening. After additional complaints, Eubanks was transferred to the University of Texas of Galveston Medical Branch on October 27, and a surgeon reportedly had to amputate his legs and perform other surgery to save his life.

Eubanks submitted a Step 1 grievance against Ahmad and Naik on April 19, 2010, for their inadequate care. TDCJ denied the grievance on June 9, 2010, and Eubanks submitted a Step 2 grievance – the final step in TDCJ’s grievance procedure – on June 23, 2010, challenging the denial. TDCJ, asserting that the doctors had acted properly, denied this grievance on August 2, 2010. Approximately one year later, Eubanks filed suit against multiple defendants in the district court, alleging several claims. Upon dismissal of some of those claims and defendants due to settlement, a claim of deliberate indifference against Naik and Ahmad and on ADA claim against TDCJ remained. The defendants sought summary judgment on the ground that Eubanks failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The doctors additionally sought summary judgment on the merits and qualified immunity.

The district court determined that Eubanks had submitted the requisite Step 1 and Step 2 grievances and that despite both grievances being received outside the time frame allowed by TDCJ, Eubanks properly exhausted his remedies where TDCJ had denied the grievances on the merits rather than on procedural grounds.

The court then turned to the deliberate indifference claim. According to relevant federal case law, deliberate indifference by a prison official is demonstrated by acts rising above “Gross negligence,” an official who knows that a prisoner “Face[s] a rising above substantial risk of serious bodily harm” but fails to adequately treat the cause, an official’s refusal to treat the prisoner and/or an official’s intentional mistreatment. The district court concluded that Ahmad’s treatments and judgments did “not rise to the level of deliberate indifference” and therefore dismissed the claim.

The district court declined to grant summary judgment to Naik, however, as a jury could find that Naik was deliberately indifferent because she admitted that she could not adequately treat Eubanks. Qualified immunity was likewise denied as Naik’s statement, if true,” violated a clearly,” violated a clearly established constitutional right.”

See: Eubanks v. Naik, Case No. 3:11-cv-00432 (U.S.D.C. S.D. Texas, 2014).

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case