1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION

DANIEL MILLER §

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23cv77

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Plaintiff Daniel Miller, an inmate of the Federal Correctional Institution atTexarkana 

proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under the Federal Tort Claims Act complaining of an injury 

he suffered at work while incarcerated. The lawsuit was referred to the undersigned UnitedStates 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and (3) and Local Rule CV-72 of the Local Rules 

of Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

I. The Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff states that on April 9, 2021, he was working in Unicor Prison Industries at FCITexarkana. While removing a stripped screw with wire cutters, he gripped the cutters more tightly 

than usual when he felt a tendon in hand pop, suffering excruciating pain. He reported the injury 

to his supervisor, who completed an injury report.

That same day, Plaintiff says that he was sent to the medical department, but there was no 

X-ray tech so Nurse Practitioner Dougan visually examined him. Plaintiff was told that hewould 

have to be sent out for an X-ray exam; however, this did not happen at that time. On June 28, 2021, 

after his wrist swelled up, Plaintiff says that he went back to the medical department, where he was 

seen by a nurse.

On July 6, 2021, Plaintiff says that he was finally taken for an X-ray, which Plaintiff says 

“confirmed the scapholunate interval appears slightly widened.” Dkt. No. 1 at 5. He states that

Case 5:23-cv-00077-JRG-JBB Document 8 Filed 02/26/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 69
2

the prison medical department confirmed this diagnosis and Dr. DeHaan requested a consultation, 

with a target date of August 2021.

On October 13, 2021, Plaintiffstatesthat he had another X-ray, which revealed nothing new. 

He saw Dr. DeHaan on October 29, and the doctor recommended an MRI. Plaintiffstatesthat at this 

point, six months had passed and no rehabilitative efforts had been undertaken. The MRI was done 

on March 12, 2022 and revealed a tear of the scapholunate ligament, which had not been treated in 

almost a year.

During this time, Plaintiff states that Dr. DeHaan passed away. He was taken to see Dr. 

Rebel Huffman in Tyler on July 26, 2022 and his hand was X-rayed again. Plaintiff states thathe 

went to the medical department on August 18, 2022, complaining of pain in his hand and a 

consultation with Dr. Huffman was ordered on September 9. Another MRI was done on October 

17, but the images and report were not sent to the doctor. Plaintiff saw Dr. Huffman on November 

2, 2022, and states that the doctor was surprised that it had taken over a year for some sort of 

corrective action to be done. According to Plaintiff, Dr. Huffman told him that the only remedy at 

that point was to have pins placed in his hands, but that had he been treated within three months of 

the accident, his hand could have healed to 100 percent of use.

Plaintiffstatesthat he began the administrative remedy process, but when he was at the BP-9 

stage, he was told in writing that he would have to file a tort claim instead. On November 18, 2021, 

he filed an administrative tort claim with the South Central Regional Office, and this claim was 

denied on May 23, 2023. Plaintiff states that he thereby fully exhausted the administrative remedy 

process.

II. Discussion

The Inmate Accident Compensation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4126, provides the sole remedy when 

a prisoner is injured while on the job. Velasquez v. United States, 835 F.App’x 733, 736 (5thCir. 

2020), citing Aston v. United States, 625 F.2d 1210, 1211 (5th Cir. 1980). The statute operates as 

worker’s compensation and therefore supplants tort remedies for such prisoners. United States v. 

Demko, 385 U.S. 149, 151-52 (1966). Derivative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act are also

Case 5:23-cv-00077-JRG-JBB Document 8 Filed 02/26/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 70
3

precluded so long as the original injury occurred while a party was on the job. Velasquez, 835 

F.App’x at 736, citing Thompson v. United States, 495 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1974).

In Thompson, a case brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the prisoner contended that 

he sustained a work-related back injury while employed by Federal Prison Industries. He was 

subsequently hospitalized and asserted that hisinjuries were aggravated as a result of negligence and 

malpractice on the part of one of the prison hospital’s employees. The district court dismissed the 

lawsuit, determining that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the prisoner’s claim under the Federal 

Tort Claims Act. The Fifth Circuit affirmed this decision, stating as follows:

It is well established that the inmate accident compensation system as set forth in 18 

U.S.C., § 4126 is the exclusive means of recovery for a prison-employee's workrelated injuries, United States v. Demko, 1966, 385 U.S. 149, 87 S.Ct. 382, 17

L.Ed.2d 258; Wooten v. United States, 5 Cir., 1971, 437 F.2d 79; United States v.

Cole, 5 Cir., 1967, 376 F.2d 848. Despite the appellant's allegation that the 

negligence of the hospital worker occasioned further injuries, for which he seeks 

damages, he is barred from litigating the matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act 

since the cause of his original injury was work-related and compensable under 18 

U.S.C., § 4126, Jewell v. United States, N.D.Ga., 1967, 274 F.Supp. 381.

Thompson, 495 F.2d at 193.

Similarly, in Delco v. United States, civil action no. 3:16cv933,2019WL418555 (S.D.Miss., 

January 15, 2019), Report adopted at 2019 WL 418114 (S.D.Miss., February 1, 2019), the prisoner 

claimed that he had been unloading laundry bags on March 25, 2015 when he felt something pop 

in his back. He was given pain medications and X-rays and was told that he had a pulled muscle. 

He returned to work on April 6, 2015 but later fell at work on July 17, 2015. He was diagnosed with 

degenerative disc disease, but again returned to work on August 3, He felt severe pain in his back 

on August 14, 2015 and an MRI was taken on August 24. According to the prisoner, this MRI 

revealed the need for back surgery and that the initial diagnosis of a pulled muscle had been 

incorrect. Surgery was performed on December 10, 2015.

The prisoner brought suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act for deliberate indifference to 

his medical needs, claiming that the prison officials failed to provide him with needed medications 

or rehabilitation and failed to house him in a medical facility. He also argued that he suffers serious 

neurological disorders from the surgery including paralysis, numbness, and shaking of his leg.

Case 5:23-cv-00077-JRG-JBB Document 8 Filed 02/26/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 71
4

The United Statesmoved to dismissfor want ofsubjectmatterjurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.

P. 12(b)(1). The district court stated that while the prisoner had filed suit under the Federal Tort 

Claims Act, the FTCA does not apply to Plaintiff’s initial injury because the exclusive remedy for 

a prison work-related injury is the Inmate Accident Compensation Act.

The court went on to explain that the Act is also the exclusive remedy for inmates who are 

seeking compensation for alleged improper medical treatment of work-related injuries, citing 

Thompson. Consequently, the court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider 

the prisoner’s FTCA claim.

Plaintiff here is in the same situation. He brought his claims under the Federal Tort Claims 

Act, but his exclusive remedy lies in the Inmate Accident Compensation Act. As in Thompson and 

Delco, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, and his lawsuit should be 

dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

It is accordingly recommended that the above-styled civil action be dismissed without 

prejudice for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

A copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendationsshall be served on all partiesin 

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and 

recommendationsmustfile specificwritten objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.

In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation 

to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate 

Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection which merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

Magistrate Judge is not specific, and the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections. Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).

Case 5:23-cv-00077-JRG-JBB Document 8 Filed 02/26/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 72
5

Failure to file specific written objections will bar the objecting party from appealing the 

factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which are accepted and adopted by 

the district court except upon grounds of plain error. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 

(5th Cir. 2017).

____________________________________

J. Boone Baxter

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SIGNED this the 26th day of February, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00077-JRG-JBB Document 8 Filed 02/26/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 73