Dorko v. Williams et al
Filing
45
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION: (1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 40 is GRANTED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and against Plaintiff. All pending motions are denied as moot, and this case is terminated, with the parties to bear their own costs. (2) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this judgment, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A motion for leave to appeal i n forma pauperis MUST identify the issues the Plaintiff will present on appeal to assist the court in determining whether the appeal is taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c); see also Celske v Edwards, 164 F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999) (an appellant should be given an opportunity to submit a statement of his grounds for appealing so that the district judge "can make a reasonable assessment of the issue of good faith."); Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000)(providing that a good faith appeal is an appeal that "a reasonable person could supposehas some merit" from a legal perspective). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/30/2015. (ME, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 30 December, 2015 05:55:39 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TARRY WILLIAMS, et al.
)
Defendants. )
FRANK E. DORKO, JR.,
14-3007
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought the present lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an Eighth Amendment
violation for inadequate nutrition while he was incarcerated at
Western Illinois Correctional Center. The matter comes before this
Court for ruling on the Defendants’ Motions for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. 40). The motion is granted.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on April
22, 2015. (Doc. 40). On April 23, 2015, the Clerk of Court sent
Plaintiff a Rule 56 Notice. (Doc. 42). The notice informed Plaintiff
that he had 21 days to respond to the Defendants’ motion and that
Page 1 of 9
failure to respond could result in dismissal of this action without
trial. As of the date of this Opinion, Plaintiff has not filed a
response, nor has he filed a motion seeking additional time to do so.
Therefore, the Court will consider the Defendants’ assertions of fact
as undisputed for purposes of this ruling. See FED. R. CIV. P.
56(e)(2) (if a party fails to properly address another party’s assertion
of fact, the court may consider the fact undisputed for purposes of
the motion).
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P.
56(a). All facts must be construed in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in
his favor. Ogden v. Atterholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 2010).
The party moving for summary judgment must show the lack of a
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986). In order to be a “genuine” issue, there must be
more than “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
Page 2 of 9
586 (1986). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome
of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry
of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986).
FACTS
Plaintiff was incarcerated at Western Illinois Correctional
Center (“Western Illinois”) from August 14, 2013, until his release
from the Illinois Department of Corrections on April 18, 2014.
While incarcerated, Plaintiff was employed as an inmate server in
Western Illinois’ dietary department. Plaintiff served, but he did not
prepare the food. Nor did he ever enter the food preparation area at
the prison.
The defendants were employed at Western Illinois in the
following capacities: Food Service Program Manager (Defendant
Render); Correctional Food Service Supervisors (Defendants
Delaporte, Dodds, Kurfman, Oeser, Ostenburg, Powell, Salrin,
Schact, and Willard); and Warden (Defendant Williams). The food
service defendants supervise inmate workers who prepare and serve
the meals. Defendant Williams, the Warden, did not serve food or
Page 3 of 9
instruct inmates regarding food service during the relevant time
period.
The Illinois Department of Corrections produces a Master
Menu to ensure that inmates receive adequate daily caloric intake.
The Master Menu is a five-week schedule of daily menus that is
cycled throughout the year. Each IDOC facility is expected to
implement the Master Menu as closely as possible. To that end,
IDOC facilities utilize “production sheets” that dictate the amount of
food needed for any given meal. If a facility does not have an item
on the production sheet, the facility is allowed to make a
nutritionally appropriate substitution (i.e. vegetable for a vegetable).
IDOC facilities require servers to use measuring utensils to ensure
correct and uniform portions are served where the portion size is
not premeasured (i.e. meat patties; other prepackaged food items).
If widespread weight loss or other signs of malnutrition become
prevalent within the facility, healthcare officials notify the dietary
department. During the relevant time period, Western Illinois’
health department did not notify the dietary department that such
conditions existed.
Page 4 of 9
In November 2013, Plaintiff was fired from his job as an
inmate server for mishandling food items and creating a sanitation
hazard. For at least fourteen (14) consecutive days thereafter,
Plaintiff was on a hunger strike. As a result, Plaintiff lost
approximately 18-22 pounds. After ending the hunger strike,
Plaintiff gained approximately 28 pounds. Other than the weight
loss and low blood sugar that Plaintiff experienced during his
hunger strike, his medical records do not disclose any other
symptoms of malnutrition while incarcerated at Western Illinois.
ANALYSIS
To prevail, Plaintiff must show that actions of prison officials
resulted in the deprivation of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s
necessities,” and that in so acting, prison officials acted with
deliberate indifference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834
(1994). Deliberate indifference is more than negligence, but does
not require the plaintiff to show that the defendants intended to
cause harm. Mayoral v. Sheehan, 245 F.3d 934, 938 (7th Cir.
2001). Liability attaches under the Eighth Amendment when “the
official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health
or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the
Page 5 of 9
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm
exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at
837.
Plaintiff asserts the portion sizes were too small and certain
items (ketchup, mustard, relish, and cheese slices) were not served
at all. See Pl. Dep. 17:11-24 (small serving sizes); 20:3-21:17
(omission of condiments). Plaintiff, however, has not presented any
objective evidence to suggest that he suffered a deprivation serious
enough to trigger constitutional concerns.
According to the medical records, Plaintiff weighed 182
pounds at the time he was transferred to Western Illinois in August
2013. (Doc. 41-6 at 4). Three days after he began his hunger strike
in November 2013, he weighed 176 pounds. Id. at 11. The medical
records do not show that Plaintiff suffered any nutrition-related
maladies between the time he arrived at Western Illinois and the
time he began his hunger strike. Nor does Plaintiff allege that
prison officials denied him the requisite three meals per day. Even
assuming that prison officials served an amount of food less than
the IDOC guidelines required and without the condiments
suggested by the plan, Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that
Page 6 of 9
the food was not otherwise nutritionally adequate. The Court would
be hard-pressed to find that a loss of six (6) pounds over
approximately 12 weeks constitutes objective evidence that Plaintiff
was deprived of adequate food, especially in the absence of evidence
that Plaintiff, or any other inmate, displayed symptoms of
malnutrition. Any significant weight loss Plaintiff experienced
resulted from his voluntary hunger strike, not from the actions of
prison officials.
While Plaintiff may have preferred certain condiments with
certain foods, the Constitution does not require food to be prepared
to an inmate’s liking. See Drake v. Velasco, 207 F. Supp. 2d 809,
812 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (complaints of cold, poorly prepared, or even
food that occasionally contains foreign objects do not rise to the
level of constitutional deprivation (citing Hamm v. DeKalb County,
774 F.2d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1985))). Therefore, the Court finds
that no reasonable juror could conclude that Plaintiff suffered a
sufficiently serious deprivation for purposes of the Eighth
Amendment.
In addition, Plaintiff cannot show that the Defendants acted
with deliberate indifference. A finding that prison officials acted
Page 7 of 9
with deliberate indifference requires a showing that prison officials
appreciated an “excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer,
511 U.S. at 837. Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that the
Defendants were aware that the portion size and lack of condiments
posed an excessive health risk to inmates. The lack of notification
from health officials to that end suggests otherwise. Plaintiff may
have complained to prison officials about the portion sizes, but the
Court cannot reasonably infer from the evidence now in the record
that the Defendants were subjectively aware of an excessive risk of
harm to Plaintiff or any other inmate because the only indication in
the record is that no such risk existed. Therefore, the Court finds
that no reasonable juror could conclude that the Defendants acted
with deliberate indifference.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [40] is
GRANTED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter
judgment in favor of the Defendants and against Plaintiff.
All pending motions are denied as moot, and this case is
terminated, with the parties to bear their own costs.
2) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this judgment, he must file a
notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the
entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A motion for
leave to appeal in forma pauperis MUST identify the issues
the Plaintiff will present on appeal to assist the court in
Page 8 of 9
determining whether the appeal is taken in good faith. See
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c); see also Celske v Edwards, 164
F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999)(an appellant should be given
an opportunity to submit a statement of his grounds for
appealing so that the district judge “can make a
reasonable assessment of the issue of good faith.”); Walker
v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000)(providing that
a good faith appeal is an appeal that “a reasonable person
could suppose…has some merit” from a legal perspective).
If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the
$505.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of
the appeal.
ENTERED:
December 30, 2015.
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 9 of 9
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?