Hollgarth v. Buffet et al
Filing
8
MERIT REVIEW OPINION: Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by March 6, 2018. If Plaintiff does not file an amended com plaint or Plaintiff's amended complaint still fails to state a claim, then this action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim and a strike will be assessed against Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the amended complaint will replace the original complaint. Piecemeal amendments are not permitted. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION.) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 2/6/2018. (GL, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 06 February, 2018 01:22:26 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LINDY HOLLGARTH,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF HOWARD BUFFET,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
18-CV-2026
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
Plaintiff filed this case pro se from Macon County Jail. The
case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A.1 This statute requires the Court to review a complaint filed
by a prisoner to identify the cognizable claims and to dismiss part
or all of the complaint if no claim is stated.
In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor.
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). However,
1
A prisoner who has had three prior actions dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous or malicious can
no longer proceed in forma pauperis (without prepaying the filing fee in full) unless the prisoner is under
“imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Page 1 of 5
conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts
must be provided to "'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(quoted
cite omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that, on August 27, 2017, he bit into a
sandwich which, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, contained a woman’s
press-on fingernail. The fingernail cut the roof of Plaintiff’s mouth
before Plaintiff could spit out the fingernail. Plaintiff internal efforts
for justice have been denied. He seeks $150,000 in damages.
An ongoing problem of foreign objects in prison food can state
a federal constitutional claim for deliberate indifference to a
substantial risk of serious harm. For example, in Green v. Beth, a
detainee alleged that jail officials knew of repeated problems with
foreign objects in the food causing injury to detainees, and the
plaintiff-detainee’s teeth had been broken by biting into a rock
imbedded in the food. The Seventh Circuit held those allegations
sufficient to state a claim. Green v. Beth, 663 F’Appx. 471 (7th Cir.
2016)(not reported in Fed. Rptr.); see also French v. Owens, 777
F.2d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir. 1985)(inmates are constitutionally
entitled to “‘nutritionally adequate food that is prepared and served
Page 2 of 5
under conditions which do not present an immediate danger to the
health and well-being of the inmates who consume it.'")(quoting with
approval Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 570-71 (10th Cir. 1980).
However, an isolated incident of being served contaminated
food does not rise to a constitutional violation. See Perez v.
Sullivan, 100 F’Appx. 564 (7th Cir. 2004)(not reported in Fed.
Rptr.)(affirming dismissal for failure to state a claim allegations that
detainee became sick from isolated incident of being served spoiled
milk); Teen v. St. Clair County Jail, 2017 WL 3670164 (S.D. Ill.
2017)(not reported in Fed. Rptr.)(single episode of food
contamination without prior occurrences of contamination stated
no constitutional claim). The individuals preparing the food might
have been negligent, but negligence does not violate the U.S.
Constitution. McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir.
2010)(“[N]egligence, even gross negligence, does not violate the
Constitution.”) Additionally, the individuals who run the Jail, like
the Sheriff, are not liable for the constitutional violations of their
employees simply because those individuals are in charge. Kuhn v.
Goodlow, 678 F.3d 552. 556 (7th Cir. 2012)( "'An individual cannot
be held liable in a § 1983 action unless he caused or participated in
Page 3 of 5
an alleged constitutional deprivation.'")(quoted cite omitted); Chavez
v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001)(no
respondeat superior liability under § 1983).
Plaintiff’s allegations do not allow a plausible inference of a
systemic problem with contaminated food at the Jail. The only
plausible inference that arises from the current allegations is that
the fingernail in the food was an isolated occurrence of negligence.
The criminal dockets from Plaintiff’s currently pending charges in
Macon County show that he has been in the custody of the Jail
since June 2017. People v. Hollgarth, 2017CF452; People v.
Hollgarth, 2017CF2015. In the eight months since his detention,
he alleges only one incident of contaminated food, which would be
about one meal out of well over 600 meals, if Plaintiff is served three
meals a day. The current complaint, therefore, states no federal
claim, but Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file an amended
complaint.
IT IS ORDERED:
1)
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Page 4 of 5
2) Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by March 6, 2018.
If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint or Plaintiff’s
amended complaint still fails to state a claim, then this action will
be dismissed for failure to state a claim and a strike will be
assessed against Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). If Plaintiff
files an amended complaint, the amended complaint will replace the
original complaint. Piecemeal amendments are not permitted.
ENTERED: February 6, 2018
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 5 of 5
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?