Robert McDaniel v. Salam Syed, 115 F.4th 805

Background

Carl McDaniel, a long‑term Wisconsin prisoner with serious mobility and incontinence impairments, underwent spinal surgery and later used a walker and cane.
After transfer to Columbia Correctional Institution facility staff removed his prior "no‑stairs/low‑tier" restrictions and assigned him to a double‑occupancy cell in a stair‑only unit; he repeatedly complained that stairs prevented him from getting meals and medications.
McDaniel swore he missed roughly 600 meals and many medication doses during one year at Columbia and repeatedly requested a no‑stairs cell, a single (wet) cell, and a bed without a top bunk; those requests were denied.
He sued under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (failure to accommodate) and brought an Eighth Amendment deliberate‑indifference claim against Dr. Salam Syed; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants.
The Seventh Circuit: (1) reversed as to the no‑stairs accommodation claim (finding disputed facts, deliberate indifference possible, and Eleventh Amendment not bar to damages because conduct could also violate Eighth Amendment); (2) affirmed summary judgment for defendants on single‑occupancy and no‑top‑bunk claims; and (3) affirmed summary judgment for Dr. Syed on the Eighth Amendment deliberate‑indifference claim.
Procedural notes: McDaniel litigated largely pro se, signed key filings under penalty of perjury, was released from custody before appeal, later died, and his son (executor) was substituted as plaintiff.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by refusing to treat McDaniel's sworn statements about missing ~600 meals as true at summary judgment	McDaniel submitted §1746 declarations and responses attesting he missed hundreds of meals and that staff knew; those sworn statements suffice to create factual dispute	Defendants relied on local Civil Rule 56 noncompliance and argued the court properly disregarded unspecific, non‑cited assertions	Reversed in part: district court erred in disregarding McDaniel’s sworn assertions about missed meals where they were within his personal knowledge and unsupported contradictions were not supplied by defendants; those facts must be credited for summary‑judgment purposes
ADA/Rehab Act — denial of a no‑stairs unit (failure to accommodate)	Denial of a no‑stairs assignment prevented meaningful access to programs (meals, meds); repeated complaints put DOC on notice; refusal was deliberately indifferent and caused compensable harm	DOC relied on medical assessments (PT and prison clinicians), argued stairs were part of reasonable post‑op mobility treatment and walker/cane constituted accommodation	Reversed: genuine dispute of material fact exists whether housing McDaniel in a stairs‑access unit denied meaningful access; jury could find deliberate indifference and that ADA/504 damages are available; Eleventh Amendment does not bar damages because the same conduct could violate the Eighth Amendment
ADA/Rehab Act — single‑occupancy wet cell and no top‑bunk requests	McDaniel said double‑occupancy impeded timed‑voiding and incontinence care; top bunk aggravated pain	DOC said requests were medical‑treatment disagreements and medical staff did not find those accommodations medically necessary	Affirmed: claim framed as medical‑treatment disagreement, not denial of access; no triable issue under ADA/504 on these accommodations
Eighth Amendment deliberate‑indifference claim against Dr. Syed (and sovereign immunity overlap)	McDaniel argued Syed ignored specialists, failed to change inadequate pain/incontinence treatment, and perpetuated denial of access	Syed showed continued, individualized medical judgment, referrals, and treatment changes; decisions reflected reasonable professional judgment	Affirmed for Syed: evidence does not show the extreme departure from acceptable professional judgment needed for Eighth Amendment liability; however, DOC (state) may face damages under ADA/504 if a jury finds conduct also violated the Eighth Amendment (abrogating Eleventh Amendment immunity for that conduct).

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (U.S. 2006) (Title II abrogates state immunity to the extent conduct also violates the Constitution)
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (U.S. 2004) (congruence‑and‑proportionality framework for §5 enforcement)
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1997) (limits on Congress’s §5 remedial power)
Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (U.S. 1985) (meaningful access standard for benefits/programs)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference standard for conditions of confinement)
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1981) (conditions of confinement and minimal civilized measure)
Jaros v. Illinois Dep't of Corrections, 684 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2012) (ADA/504 analysis in prison context)
Wright v. New York State Dep't of Corr., 831 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2016) (mobility aids and reliance on others defeats accommodation)
Cadena v. El Paso County, 946 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 2020) (wheelchair/accommodation claim despite medical judgment)
Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246 (7th Cir. 1996) (distinguishing medical‑treatment disputes from ADA access claims)
Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (deliberate indifference subjective‑knowledge standard for medical claims)
Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2011) (§1746 declarations equivalent to affidavits for summary judgment)