Case: Hacker v. Cain

3:14-cv-00063 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

Filed Date: Jan. 30, 2014

Closed Date: Jan. 10, 2018

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On January 30, 2014, an inmate at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The plaintiff initially filed the suit pro se, but subsequently obtained private counsel and submitted his first amended complaint on September 15, 2014. The plaintiff sued the state of Louisiana, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (LDPSC), and the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola for serious transgressions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs as required by the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiff alleged that LDPSC utilized discriminatory policies against individuals with disabilities by refusing to pay for “elective surgery,” failing to make reasonable work accommodations, and excluding individuals with disabilities from participating in beneficial prison programs and activities. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants knew about his medical condition but unreasonably delayed treatment, resulting in serious pain and suffering. Specifically, the plaintiff had been suffering from deteriorating eyesight for years as a result of cataracts, but—despite numerous doctors’ recommendations that he required surgery to remedy his progressing blindness—the defendants refused to pay for his cataracts surgery on the grounds that it was “elective surgery.” They also required the plaintiff to work in dangerous manual labor jobs, despite his deteriorating vision that made him more susceptible to injury, and excluded him from prison programs such as physical exercise, arts, and music. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and monetary damages. This case was assigned to Judge John W. deGravelles and referred to Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes.

Shortly after the plaintiff filed his initial pro se complaint, the defendants allowed him to receive cataracts surgery—first for one eye in July 2014, then both eyes by September 2014. Subsequently, the plaintiff moved to file a second amended complaint on March 4, 2015. However, the magistrate judge ruled one week later that the plaintiff had failed to serve his first amended complaint on the defendants in a timely manner and ordered him to show cause for this delay, lest his complaint be dismissed. The magistrate judge also denied the plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint.

Meanwhile, the defendants submitted motions to dismiss the plaintiff’s first amended complaint—first, the warden in his individual capacity on March 12, 2015, then all the other defendants on March 24, 2015. The warden’s motion to dismiss alleged that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a violation of civil rights since the warden was not a public entity under the ADA and that Louisiana was the real party to the lawsuit. The remaining defendants’ motions to dismiss alleged that they were protected under Eleventh Amendment immunity, that the plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages was frivolous, and that the plaintiff had failed to establish good cause for his delay in serving his first amended complaint. However, the day before, the plaintiff filed his response to the magistrate’s order to show cause for his delay in serving his first amended complaint. The plaintiff claimed that he had two main reasons for failing to serve: (1) at the time of the complaint filing deadline, he was still unsure as to whether the cataract surgery had been successful, and (2) he had already moved to file a second amended complaint, which would need to be served on the defendants, so he did not want to risk unnecessary expense by serving the first amended complaint.

On April 9, 2015, the court granted both motions to dismiss the first amended complaint, but vacated these orders the next day. The court then granted the plaintiff’s motion to file his second amended complaint on June 2, 2015. The plaintiff filed his second amended complaint that same day.

The plaintiff’s second amended complaint, instead of focusing on the denial of the cataract surgery itself, was framed around LDSPC’s discriminatory policies that led to the long delay before the plaintiff’s surgery and which caused him to experience pain and suffering in the interim. Specifically, these included LDSPC’s policies to delay surgery for certain types of disabilities by not paying for “elective surgery,” which included cataract removal surgery, to not make reasonable work accommodations for individuals with disabilities, and to exclude disabled individuals from the benefits of the prison’s services, programs, and activities. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, monetary damages, and any other relief the court deemed necessary.

The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 15, 2015 and June 30, 2015, first by the warden and the secretary of LDSPC in their individual capacities and then all defendants in their official capacities. They alleged that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim for a violation of civil rights, that they were protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity, and that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court did not rule on these motions to dismiss until January 25, 2016, declaring them moot. In the meantime, both parties moved for summary judgment—the defendants on September 11, 2015 and the plaintiffs on November 6, 2015. The court denied both motions on June 6, 2016. 2016 WL 3167176.

Both parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on July 6, 2016, but both appeals were voluntarily dismissed on July 26, 2016. The parties then scheduled a settlement conference order on December 12, 2016, but they were unable to come to an agreement.

Five days before trial, on January 25, 2017, the parties disputed the issue of injunctive relief. The defendants alleged that the court should declare plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief moot, since the plaintiff no longer suffered from a disability under the ADA. The plaintiff, on the other hand, alleged that he still suffered from a disability since he was waiting for surgery for his torn pectoralis muscle, an injury sustained as a result of the defendants’ discriminatory policies, and that the defendants’ discriminatory policies were still in place, which could result in future violations of the ADA.

The jury trial began on January 30, 2017. The parties agreed that the court should decide the issue of injunctive relief instead of the jury. The court declared injunctive relief moot on January 31, 2017. Subsequently, the judge dismissed Louisiana and its governor as defendants in the lawsuit.

The jury returned its verdict on February 7, 2017, ruling in favor of the defendants. The jury said that the plaintiff had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered from a disability under the ADA before he received the cataract removal surgery, and that the individual defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs under the Eighth Amendment by delaying surgery and by requiring him to do manual labor despite his visual impairment.

After the trial, on February 17, 2017, the plaintiff asked the court to certify that an appeal of the February 7, 2017 judgment was not frivolous and to grant him a free transcript of his trial. The plaintiff alleged that his grounds for appeal were because the defense counsel had violated the court’s January 17, 2017 holding regarding the acceptability of certain categories of evidence, thereby resulting in a trial that was unfairly prejudiced against him. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defense counsel had violated restrictions by mentioning specific details about the plaintiff’s sentence or crime, medical care not pertaining to the plaintiff’s cataracts, and comparing the plaintiff’s medical care to that of “free people.” The defendants disputed the veracity of these claims, but ultimately the court ruled that the plaintiff’s appeal was not frivolous and gave him a copy of the trial transcript on March 2, 2017.

The plaintiff moved for a new trial on March 2, 2017, alleging that the defense counsel violated the court’s restrictions regarding acceptable evidence, that a key witness misrepresented the definition of a disability under the ADA, and that the evidence overwhelmingly contradicted the jury’s verdict. Through March and April 2017 the parties disputed whether a new trial was warranted.

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on October 30, 2017. The court held that the plaintiff made no specific showing of prejudice from the defense counsel’s violations, that the jury could reasonably have rejected the plaintiff's and other inmates’ testimony that the plaintiff’s visual impairments actually affected his daily life, and that the jury could reasonably have found that none of the defendants acted towards the plaintiff with deliberate indifference, as required to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim. 2017 WL 6803760. The plaintiff appealed this holding on November 3, 2017.

On December 27, 2018, the Fifth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial. The Fifth Circuit found that a reasonable jury could have found that the plaintiff was not disabled and that the plaintiff did not show that he was prejudiced by defense counsel mentioning excluded categories of evidence, since those references were brief and vague. 2018 WL 6822306.

	Document
3:14-cv-00063	Docket [PACER]	Aug. 23, 2017	Aug. 23, 2017 Docket
17-30879	Docket Jason Hacker v. N. Cain U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit	Jan. 18, 2019	Jan. 18, 2019 Docket
1 3:14-cv-00063	Complaint	Jan. 30, 2014	Jan. 30, 2014 Complaint
324 17-30879	Judgment U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit	Jan. 30, 2014	Jan. 30, 2014 Order/Opinion
73 3:14-cv-00063	Second Amended Complaint	June 2, 2015	June 2, 2015 Complaint
170 3:14-cv-00063	Order on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment	June 6, 2016	June 6, 2016 Order/Opinion 2016 WL 3167176
203 3:14-cv-00063	Statement of Interest of the United States	Dec. 7, 2016	Dec. 7, 2016 Pleading / Motion / Brief
278 3:14-cv-00063	Judgment	Feb. 6, 2017	Feb. 6, 2017 Order/Opinion
315 3:14-cv-00063	Ruling and Order	Oct. 30, 2017	Oct. 30, 2017 Order/Opinion 2017 WL 6803760

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against N. Burl Cain, Jason Collins, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Rahm Singh filed by Jason Hacker. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(SMG) (Entered: 01/31/2014) 1 Attachment View on PACER	Jan. 30, 2014	Jan. 30, 2014 RECAP
2	MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with Statement of Account by Jason Hacker. (SMG) (Entered: 01/31/2014)	Jan. 30, 2014	Jan. 30, 2014 PACER
	Motions Referred	Jan. 31, 2014	Jan. 31, 2014 PACER
	MOTION(S) REFERRED: 2 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with Statement of Account. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (SMG)	Jan. 31, 2014	Jan. 31, 2014 PACER
3	ORDER granting 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. It is ordered that the plaintiff pay an initial partial filing fee of $34.97 in accordance with 28 USC 1915. A copy of this order shall be sent to the plaintiff and to Centralized Inmate Banking. Filing Fee due by 2/24/2014.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 01/31/2014. (NLT) (Entered: 01/31/2014)	Jan. 31, 2014	Jan. 31, 2014 PACER
4	ORDER: USM is to serve the defendants wherever found. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the parties shall file cross motions for summary judgment as provided under Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. All discovery requests and responses shall be filed in the record of this matter.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 01/31/2014. (NLT) (Entered: 01/31/2014)	Jan. 31, 2014	Jan. 31, 2014 PACER
5	Summons Issued as to N. Burl Cain, Jason Collins, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Rahm Singh. (Summons submitted to the USM for service.) (NLT) (Entered: 01/31/2014)	Jan. 31, 2014	Jan. 31, 2014 PACER
	Filing Fee Received	Feb. 19, 2014	Feb. 19, 2014 PACER
	Filing fee: $ 34.97, receipt number 4699022457 (TMR)	Feb. 19, 2014	Feb. 19, 2014 PACER
6	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jason Hacker. N. Burl Cain served on 2/28/2014, answer due 3/21/2014; Jason Collins served on 2/28/2014, answer due 3/21/2014; Stephanie Lamartiniere served on 2/28/2014, answer due 3/21/2014; Rahm Singh served on 2/28/2014, answer due 3/21/2014. (US Marshal, ) (Entered: 02/28/2014)	Feb. 28, 2014	Feb. 28, 2014 PACER
7	ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by N. Burl Cain, Jason Collins, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Rahm Singh.(Animashaun, Babatunde) (Entered: 03/25/2014)	March 25, 2014	March 25, 2014 PACER
	Motions Referred	March 25, 2014	March 25, 2014 PACER
8	MOTION for Extension of Time, MOTION for Extension of Discovery Deadlines by N. Burl Cain, Jason Collins, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Rahm Singh. (Animashaun, Babatunde) (Entered: 03/25/2014)	March 25, 2014	March 25, 2014 PACER
	MOTION(S) REFERRED: 8 MOTION for Extension of Time MOTION for Extension of Discovery Deadlines . This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (NLT)	March 25, 2014	March 25, 2014 PACER
9	ORDER granting 8 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and file Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. Discovery and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed by 6/23/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 03/25/2014. (NLT) (Entered: 03/25/2014)	March 25, 2014	March 25, 2014 PACER
	ADI Receipt Entry	May 19, 2014	May 19, 2014 PACER
	Confirmation of receipt of payment from JASON HACKER in the amount of $10. Transaction posted on 5/15/2014. Receipt number LAMDDC1074 processed by Finance Import. (NLT ADI, )	May 19, 2014	May 19, 2014 PACER
10	Ex Parte MOTION to Enroll Nicholas Trenticosta and John Adcock as Attorney for Plaintiff by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Adcock, John) (Entered: 06/02/2014)	June 2, 2014	June 2, 2014 PACER
11	First MOTION for Extension of Time To Extend Deadlines for Completion of Discovery and Filing of Dispositive Motions, MOTION/Request for the Parties to Exchange Initial Disclosures and MOTION/Request for a Pretrial Conference in order to Facilitate the Issuance of a Scheduling Order by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Adcock, John). Added MOTION or the Parties to Exchange Initial Disclosures, MOTION for Pretrial Conference on 6/3/2014 (NLT). (Entered: 06/02/2014)	June 2, 2014	June 2, 2014 PACER
	Motions Referred	June 3, 2014	June 3, 2014 PACER
	MOTION(S) REFERRED: 11 First MOTION for Extension of Time To Extend Deadlines for Completion of Discovery and Filing of Dispositive Motions, Request for the Parties to Exchange Initial Disclosures and Request for a Pretrial Conference in order to Facilitate the Issuance of a, 10 Ex Parte MOTION to Enroll Nicholas Trenticosta and John Adcock as Attorney for Plaintiff. This motion is now pending before the USMJ. (NLT)	June 3, 2014	June 3, 2014 PACER
12	ORDER granting 10 Motion to Enroll as Attorney. Added attorney Nicholas J. Trenticosta and John Adcock for Jason Hacker. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 06/03/2014. (NLT) (Entered: 06/03/2014)	June 3, 2014	June 3, 2014 PACER
13	ORDER granting 11 MOTION To Extend Deadlines for Completion of Discovery and Filing of Dispositive Motions, Request for the Parties to Exchange Initial Disclosures and Request for a Pretrial Conference in Order to Facilitate the Issuance of a Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 06/03/2014. (NLT) (Entered: 06/03/2014)	June 3, 2014	June 3, 2014 PACER
14	90-DAY CONFERENCE ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 8/5/2014 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger. Status Report due by 7/29/2014. The parties may participate by phone. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 6/5/14. (BNW) Modified on 6/5/2014 (BNW). (Entered: 06/05/2014)	June 5, 2014	June 5, 2014 PACER
	ADI Receipt Entry	June 20, 2014	June 20, 2014 PACER
	Confirmation of receipt of payment from JASON HACKER in the amount of $10. Transaction posted on 6/13/2014. Receipt number LAMDDC1099 processed by Finance Import. (NLT ADI, )	June 20, 2014	June 20, 2014 PACER
	ADI Receipt Entry	July 18, 2014	July 18, 2014 PACER
	Confirmation of receipt of payment from JASON HACKER in the amount of $15. Transaction posted on 7/17/2014. Receipt number LAMDDC1123 processed by Finance Import. (NLT ADI, )	July 18, 2014	July 18, 2014 PACER
15	Joint STATUS REPORT by All Plaintiffs. (Adcock, John) Modified to edit text on 7/28/2014 (SMG). (Entered: 07/28/2014)	July 28, 2014	July 28, 2014 PACER
16	Minute Entry/Scheduling Order and Order Setting Status Conference for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger: Scheduling Conference held on 8/5/2014. Amended Pleadings due by 9/15/2014. Discovery due by 5/4/2015. Discovery from Experts due by 5/4/2015. Plaintiff's Expert Witness List due by 12/1/2014. Defendant's Expert Witness List due by 1/5/2015. Plaintiff's Expert Reports due by 2/2/2015. Defendant's Expert Reports due by 3/2/2015. Motions In Limine shall be filed by 1/22/2016. Responses to Motions In Limine shall be filed by 2/12/2016. Affidavit of Settlement Efforts due by 2/19/2016. Joint jury instructions, voir dire, verdict forms, and trial briefs due by 2/26/2016. Dispositive Motions shall be filed by 6/1/2015. Daubert Motions shall be filed by 8/21/2015. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 12/21/2015. Pretrial Conference set for 1/14/2016 at 01:30 PM in chambers before Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson. Jury Trial set for 3/28/2016 to 3/31/2016 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 2 before Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson. This case is assigned for a status conference on 10/31/2014 at 11:00 am. (SMG) Modified to add status conference date on 8/13/2014 (SMG). (Entered: 08/12/2014)	Aug. 5, 2014	Aug. 5, 2014 PACER
	ADI Receipt Entry	Aug. 13, 2014	Aug. 13, 2014 PACER
	Confirmation of receipt of payment from JASON HACKER in the amount of $22. Transaction posted on 8/12/2014. Receipt number LAMDDC1135 processed by Finance Import. (NLT ADI, )	Aug. 13, 2014	Aug. 13, 2014 PACER
	Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings	Aug. 13, 2014	Aug. 13, 2014 PACER
	Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry) Status Conference set for 10/31/2014 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger. (SMG)	Aug. 13, 2014	Aug. 13, 2014 PACER
17	This case is reassigned to Judge John W. deGravelles. Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 8/13/2014. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.)(NLT ADI, ) (Entered: 08/13/2014)	Aug. 13, 2014	Aug. 13, 2014 PACER
18	Notice to Counsel: Jury Trial set for 3/28/2016 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 1 before Judge John W. deGravelles. Pretrial Conference set for 1/14/2016 at 1:30 PM in chambers before Judge John W. deGravelles. All deadlines previously set remain unchanged. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no hyperlink or PDF document associated with this entry.) (KDC) (Entered: 08/27/2014)	Aug. 27, 2014	Aug. 27, 2014 PACER
19	First AMENDED COMPLAINT against State of Louisiana, Louisiana Department Of Corrections and Public Safety, Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Bobby Jindal, James M. LeBlanc, filed by Jason Hacker.(Adcock, John) Modified to edit text on 9/16/2014 (SMG). (Entered: 09/15/2014)	Sept. 15, 2014	Sept. 15, 2014 PACER
	ADI Receipt Entry	Oct. 3, 2014	Oct. 3, 2014 PACER
	Confirmation of receipt of payment from JASON HACKER in the amount of $14. Transaction posted on 9/29/2014. Receipt number LAMDDC1161 processed by Finance Import. (NLT ADI, )	Oct. 3, 2014	Oct. 3, 2014 PACER
	ADI Receipt Entry	Oct. 21, 2014	Oct. 21, 2014 PACER

Case: Hacker v. Cain

3:14-cv-00063 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details