Engstrom v. Holladay et al
ORDER approving and adopting 33 Recommended Disposition as this Court's findings in all respects; granting defendants Morgan and Townsend's 25 motion for summary judgment; and dismissing with prejudice Mr. Engstrom's claims. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 9/16/2016. (ljb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DAVID WILLIAM ENGSTROM
CASE NO. 4:15-cv-00297-KGB-BD
DOC HOLLADAY, et al.
Magistrate Judge Beth Deere has filed a Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”)
(Dkt. No. 33). After careful review of the Recommendation and plaintiff David William Engstrom’s
timely objections (Dkt. No. 34), as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that
the Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings in all
respects (Dkt. No. 33).
The Court writes separately to address Mr. Engstrom’s objections. Mr. Engstrom is an
Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”) inmate formerly detained at the Pulaski County
Regional Detention Facility (“PCRDF”). Mr. Engstrom, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that, while he was detained at PCRDF, he was forced to
participate in the practices and observances of Islamic religious belief (Dkt. No. 2, at 3). Mr.
Engstrom further alleged that he was not allowed to eat for four consecutive days because Mr.
Engstrom’s anothername was placed on the fasting list for Ramadan. Mr. Engstrom contended that
defendants Morgan and Townsend acted with deliberate indifference in denying him food for four
This Court previously dismissed Mr. Engstrom’s claims against defendant Doc Holladay
(Dkt. No. 14). Likewise, the Court dismissed Mr. Engstrom’s claims against defendants Morgan and
Townsend in their official capacities (Dkt. No. 14).
Defendants Morgan and Townsend moved for summary judgment on Mr. Engstrom’s claims
against them in their individual capacities (Dkt. No. 25). Defendants Morgan and Townsend contend
that they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. The Recommendation agrees,
concluding that defendants Morgan and Townsend were not deliberately indifferent to Mr.
Engstrom’s health or safety and that, as a matter of law, Mr. Engstrom’s Eighth Amendment claims
In his objections, Mr. Engstrom contends that defendants Morgan and Townsend were
deliberately indifferent because they refused to allow him to be fed three daily meals, citing Mr.
Engstrom’s inclusion on the Ramadan fasting list. Mr. Engstrom contends defendants Morgan and
Townsend did not properly investigate his grievance after determining that the allegations contained
therein were “non-grievable.” He contends that there is nothing in ADC policy that makes a claim
of deliberate indifference “non-grievable.” Mr. Engstrom contends that he reported the lack of
nutritional food to the medical staff and that he experienced a fall or several falls on the stairs
because of the lack of food to sustain him. Mr. Engstrom also complains that he has lost
approximately 50 pounds, which started as a result of the denial of meals for the four days he was
on the Ramadan fasting list. Mr. Engstrom contends that an evidentiary hearing is warranted.
To prevail on this issue, Mr. Engstrom must show that prison officials were deliberately
indifferent to his dietary needs. Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992). Prisoners
have a right to nutritionally adequate food. Id. Depriving a person of all food for four days would
impose a constitutionally significant hardship. Atkins v. City of Chicago, 631 F.3d 823, 830 (7th Cir.
2011) (citing Reed v. McBride, 178 F.3d 849, 853–54 (7th Cir. 1999); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d
807, 814–15 and n. 5 (9th Cir. 2009); Simmons v. Cook, 154 F.3d 805, 808 (8th Cir. 1998)). Here,
however, Mr. Engstrom does not allege that he was entirely deprived of food during the four days
he was on the Ramadan fasting list. Instead, he contends that he was not fed three daily meals.
Defendants Morgan and Townsend contend that all prisoners on the Ramadan fasting list receive
breakfast and a sack containing a dinner meal at the end of the day, totaling 2550 to 2600 calories
per day. Mr. Engstrom presents no evidence to the contrary.
The Recommended Disposition appears to conclude that in his complaint, Mr. Engstrom
alleges that being forced to participate in the practices and observances of Islamic religious belief
violated his rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (Dkt. No. 33, at 1-2).
After a careful review of Mr. Engstrom’s complaint, however, this Court concludes that he has not
alleged a violation of his First Amendments rights (Dkt. No. 2, at 3). Instead, throughout his
pleadings, Mr. Engstrom has complained that the denial of food as a result of his placement on the
Ramadan fasting list constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. In his response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Mr. Engstrom
contends that he did not fill out the Ramadan fasting form at issue but was signed up either by the
defendants or by another inmate (Dkt. No. 29, at 10). However, Mr. Engstrom states that the
purpose of signing him up for the Ramadan fasting list was to inflict intentionally pain and suffering
upon him. While it is unclear to the Court who filled out the paperwork that resulted in Mr.
Engstrom being placed on the Ramadan fasting list, the Court does not construe Mr. Engstrom’s
complaint to contain a claim that his First Amendment rights were violated.
Defendants Morgan and Townsend’s motion for summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No. 25).
Mr. Engstrom’s claims are dismissed with prejudice.
It is so ordered, this 16th day of September, 2016.
KRISTINE G. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?