Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shoemaker v. Rogers

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

March 20, 2019

SHERIFF BRAD ROGERS, et al., Defendants



         Billy Shoemaker sued Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers, Commander John Perry, and Correct Care Solutions, LLC, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his medical condition (bipolar disorder, depression, and suicidal ideations) and denied him medical care in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protections Clauses, the Rehabilitation and Americans with Disabilities Acts, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)(2)(A). Mr. Shoemaker voluntarily dismissed two of the three claims asserted against Correct Care Solutions, and the Emergency Medical Treatment Act claim against Sheriff Rogers.[1] Commander Perry's and Sheriff Rogers' Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings as to all remaining claims is before the court. For the following reasons, the defendants' motion is denied with respect to the § 1983 deliberate indifference claim and granted with respect to the Rehabilitation and Americans with Disabilities Acts claim.

         I. Legal Standard

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) provides that: “[a]fter the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” “A Rule 12(c) motion is designed to provide a means of disposing of cases when the material facts are not in dispute between the parties and a judgment on the merits can be achieved by focusing on the content of the competing pleadings [the complaint, the answers, and any exhibits thereto or matters incorporated by reference therein], and any facts of which the [] court will take judicial notice.” 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1367 (3d ed.); see also Northern Ind. Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. City of South Bend, 163 F.3d 449, 452-453 (7th Cir.1998); Friedman v. Washburn Co., 145 F.2d 715 (7th Cir. 1944), and is governed by the same standard as motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 619 (7th Cir. 2007); Alexander v. City of Chicago, 994 F.2d 333, 336 (7th Cir. 1993). The court must accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, without engaging in fact-finding. Reger Dev., LLC v. National City Bank, 592 F.3d 759, 763 (7th Cir. 2010); Stakowski v. Town of Cicero, 425 F.3d 1075, 1078 (7th Cir. 2005).

         II. The Complaint

         The following facts are taken from Mr. Shoemaker's complaint and accepted as true for purposes of the defendants' motion.

         Mr. Shoemaker suffers from severe mental impairments: bipolar disorder and depression, with suicidal ideations) that “substantially limit” the operation of his neurological and brain functions and major life activities, including the ability to think and care for himself. When he was arrested on December 21, 2015 and detained at the Elkhart County Correctional Complex, Mr. Shoemaker notified the defendants of his medical conditions, the antipsychotic medications he was taking, and the doctors who had prescribed the medication. At some undisclosed point during his incarceration, Mr. Shoemaker also told a Correct Care nurse that he “could become suicidal if he was not provided his antipsychotic medication.” (Cmplt. ¶¶ 3, 7-9, and 11.) The defendants didn't give Mr. Shoemaker the antipsychotic medication that his doctors had prescribed for several weeks. As a result, his mental condition deteriorated and he became “actively suicidal”; and, on January 22, 2016, he ‘d[ove] headfirst to the ground from the second story of his cell block ... fractur[ing] [his] skull, ribs, collar bone, and arm and punctur[ing] his lung causing its collapse.” (Cmplt. ¶¶ 10, 12-15).

         Mr. Shoemaker alleges that Sheriff Rogers violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Rehabilitation Act and ADA, and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, and is liable for his injuries because he:

• operates the Elkhart County jail and employs all officers and staff at the jail;
• has a “policy, practice, custom, or procedure in place at the jail of not promptly providing psychiatric medication to detainees, discriminating against individuals on the basis of their disabilities, and denying services to those with serious medical needs;
• receives federal financial assistance and operates services, programs, or activities “within the meaning of” the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the ADA;
• “holds the jail out as a site through which detainees could reasonably expect to obtain stabilizing emergency medical care”; and
• was “deliberately indifferent” to Mr. Shoemaker's condition and safety, and “intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously” harmed him.

         Mr. Shoemaker asserts only one claim against Commander Perry - the § 1983 claim alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. He alleges that Commander Perry is liable for injuries resulting from that violation because he: “supervised and directed all correctional staff responsible for protecting Mr. Shoemaker from serious harm and al[er]ting the proper authorities to his need for emergency treatment”; was “deliberately indifferent” to his condition and safety; and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.