Godfrey v. Cantina Food Services et al

Filing 79

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 75 ). Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and to close the case. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 4/9/18. (bps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CHARLES GODFREY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THOMAS SPILLER, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-cv-455-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Charles Godfrey, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional
Center (“Pinckneyville”). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the soy diet and “two-meal-per-day”
brunch program at Pinckneyville caused him serious harm. Following threshold review, Plaintiff
proceeds on the following Counts:
Count 1:

Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Spiller, Bates, and Bailey, in
their individual capacities only, for endangering Plaintiff’s health by
serving him a soy diet.

Count 2:

Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Spiller, Bates, and Bailey, in
their individual capacities only, for endangering Plaintiff’s health by
serving him a nutritionally inadequate diet consisting of 1,600 calories per
day.

This matter is currently before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 75). Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 77). For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion
is GRANTED.

Page 1 of 7

Factual Background
On February 11, 2012, Pinckneyville launched a pilot program shifting from a threemeal-per-day food service to a two-meal-per-day on weekends and holidays (Doc. 76-1 at 70).
On August 12, 2013, Pinckneyville implemented the two-meal-per-day program seven days a
week (Id). Defendant Spiller was employed by IDOC as the Warden at Pinckneyville from
October 2013 to June 2015 (Id. at 82).
Defendant Bailey was employed by IDOC as the Food Service Administrator from
August 16, 2002 to May 31, 2017 (Id. at 69). Bailey formulated the master diets, including
menus, portions, and serving sizes of food items, for both the three-meal-per-day food service,
and the two-meal-per-day food service (Id. at 70). Defendant Bates was employed by IDOC as
the Deputy Director from December 1, 2001 to June 7, 2013 (Id. at 81). Bates attended meetings
regarding the implementation of a pilot brunch program at Pinckneyville with Bailey (Doc. 77-5
at 5).

Bates and Spiller relied on the menus set and approved by the administration in

Springfield (Doc. 76-1 at 81-82).
Charles Godfrey was transferred to Pinckneyville from Vienna Correctional Center in
November 2014 (Doc. 76-1 at 11). Godfrey alleges he weighed approximately 223 pounds when
he entered Pinckneyville (Id. at 64) and that he lost weight due to the reduced amount of food in
the two-meal-per-day program (Id. at 61). The brunch program was discontinued on December
1, 2015 (Id. at 70). When Godfrey resumed his three-meals-per-day, he gained weight up to 216
pounds (Id. at 76). Godfrey currently weights 192 (Id. at 61).
Regarding the soy program, Godfrey worked in dietary and overheard a supervisor
instructing inmates to substitute soy for meat because the State is on a budget (Id. at 34-35).
Godfrey claims that IDOC did not use any meat, only soy substitute (Id.). He alleges he suffered
frequent constipation, headaches, diarrhea, and “brain fog” because of the soy (Id. at 45). As a

Page 2 of 7

result, he saw the doctor who gave him Colace and fiber pills (Id. at 47). On February 9, 2016,
Godfrey was diagnosed with an inguinal hernia (Doc. 77-2). He alleges the constipation caused
or contributed to his painful hernia (Doc. 77 at 4). From February 2016 until September 2016,
Godfrey did not receive a hernia support belt to alleviate his pain (Docs. 77-3, 77-4).
Any offender in need of a specific diet due to medical reasons is permitted to be
prescribed a therapeutic diet by his physician (Id. at 70-71). Godfrey alleges that he tried to
speak to Defendant Spiller in order to request a specific diet, but Spiller ignored his request to
speak to him (76-1 at 48-49).
Discussion
Summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party can demonstrate “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); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322(1986); see also RuffinThompkins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 422 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2005). The
moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the lack of any genuine issue of material
fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once a properly supported motion for summary judgment is
made, the adverse party “must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact
exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.” Estate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Anderson, 477
U.S. at 248). When deciding a summary judgment motion, the Court views the facts in the light
most favorable to, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of, the nonmoving party. Apex
Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

Page 3 of 7

Count 1 – Soy Diet
Although the Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment” of an inmate,
not all prison conditions trigger Eighth Amendment scrutiny. James v. Milwaukee County, 956
F.2d 696, 699 (7th Cir. 1992). Only conditions of confinement that deny an inmate of “basic
human needs” or “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,” such as food, medical
care, or sanitation, violates the Eighth Amendment. Id.; See also Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d
1422, 1427 (7th Cir. 1996).
In Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991), the Supreme Court instructed courts evaluating
claims of unconstitutional conditions of confinement to consider: (1) whether the defendant
prison officials acted with the requisite state of mind (the subjective component) and (2) whether
the alleged deprivations were sufficiently serious to rise to the level of a constitutional violation
(the objective component). Thus, to establish his Eighth Amendment claim, Plaintiff must show
that he was subjected to conditions that denied him “the minimal civilized measure of life’s
necessities” and that Defendants acted with a culpable state of mind. Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d
488, 491 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) (“[A] prison
official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying humane conditions of
confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards
that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.”) (other citations omitted)).
With regard to the objective component, while the Eighth Amendment entitles prisoners
to humane conditions of confinement that provide for their “basic human needs”, Rice v. Corr.
Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 664 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347
(1981)), it does not require prison officials to provide inmates with “more salubrious air,
healthier food, or cleaner water than are enjoyed by substantial numbers of free Americans.”
Carroll v. DeTeela, 255 F.3d 470, 472 (7th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). Notably, a number of

Page 4 of 7

courts have recently rejected claims by inmates that soy-rich diets put them at a serious risk of
harm. For example, in Harris v. Brown, the court noted that “society today simply does not see
soy protein as a risk to the general population, much less a serious risk.” 07-CV-3225, 2014 WL
4948229, *4 (C.D. Ill. September 30, 2014). The court pointed out that the federal government
still allows food manufacturers to claim health benefits on food labels for foods containing at
least 6.25 grams of soy protein per serving. Id. at *4 (citation omitted). And after considering
various expert reports regarding the health effects of soy, the Harris court concluded that
“[t]oday, serving soy to prisoners could not be considered cruel and unusual punishment as a
matter of law” and the “most than can be said is that the safety of soy is a topic of current debate
and study and has been for some time.” Id. at *4-5. See also Ruiz v. Bailey, No. 17-cv-00107SMY, 2017 WL 2645630 at *3–4 (S.D. Ill. June 20, 2017); Riley-El v. Godinez, No. 13 C 8656,
2013 WL 4572322 at *4 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2015); Munson v. Gaetz, 957 F. Supp. 2d 951, 954
(S.D. Ill. 2013); Smith v. Rector, No. 13-cv-00837, 2013 WL 5436371 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2013);
Adams v. Talbor, No. 12-2221, 2013 WL 5940630 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2013).
This Court finds the reasoning in Harris persuasive. While Plaintiff asserts that the soy
in his diet caused him to suffer from constipation, diarrhea, headaches and “brain fog,” the Court
finds that the objective component has not been met, particularly in light of the fact that there is
no evidence as to what amount of soy Plaintiff actually consumed, no evidence that Plaintiff’s
complaints were caused by the ingestion of soy, and no evidence he suffers from a soy allergy or
has a medical condition for which soy is contraindicated.
Moreover, the Court finds Plaintiff’s assertion that the high soy content of the diet is
directly related to his inguinal hernia disingenuous. Plaintiff cites to his medical record as
evidence that he complained of the hernia in February of 2016, but ignores the statement in the

Page 5 of 7

cited record that he self-reported he had suffered from a hernia previously (Doc. 77-2 at 2). For
these reasons, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Count 1.
Count II – Brunch Program
An inmate who is deprived of adequate nutrition, a basic human need, may be able to
sustain an Eighth Amendment claim. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981);
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1970); James v. Milwaukee Cnty., 956 F.2d 696, 699
(7th Cir. 1992). However, the denial of food is not a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment,
and the Court “must assess the amount and duration of the deprivation.” Reed v. McBride, 178
F.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1999). See generally Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991) (it
would be an Eighth Amendment violation to deny a prisoner an “identifiable human need such as
food”); Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 734 (7th Cir. 2001) (withholding food from an
inmate can, in some circumstances, satisfy the first Farmer prong); Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d
504, 507 (5th Cir.1998) (serving inmates only two meals per day may satisfy the Eighth
Amendment if the meals are nutritionally adequate); Cunningham v. Jones, 567 F.2d 653, 669
(6th Cir. 1977), app. after remand, 667 F.2d 565 (1982) (feeding inmates only once a day for 15
days, would constitute cruel and unusual punishment only if it “deprive[s] the prisoners
concerned ... of sufficient food to maintain normal health.”).
Plaintiff alleges the two meals that were served at Pinckneyville only consisted of 16001800 calories and that as a result, he suffered from hunger pains between meals and weight loss.
Plaintiff’s complaints of hunger pains between meals are not sufficient evidence of harm, much
less serious harm. Further, Plaintiff does not allege that the lack of meals was the only cause of
his weight loss. Plaintiff testified he weighed 238 pounds at Vienna Correctional Center but that
he had to lose weight to play basketball and was down to 223 pounds when he transferred to
Pinckneyville. He alleges that because of the Pinckneyville two-meal-per-day policy, over the

Page 6 of 7

course of a year he dropped down to “200 some pounds” and that when he started back on three
meals a day, his weight went back up to approximately 216 pounds.
There is no evidence that Plaintiff’s weight loss put his health at risk in anyway. In fact,
Plaintiff testified that after gaining weight back eating three meals a day, he now weighs 192
pounds. He has since lost weight because he injured his knee and wanted to lose weight because
he felt “a little chubby.” Plaintiff’s allegations of hunger pains and approximately twenty
pounds of weight loss over the course of a year without any adverse health effects are not
significant enough to show objectively serious harm. Moreover, there is no evidence that the
meals provided were nutritionally inadequate. As such, Defendants are also entitled to judgment
as to Count 2. 1
Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 75) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
enter judgment accordingly and to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 9, 2018
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

1

Defendants also assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Godfrey’s claims. Because the Court has
concluded that the evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendants violated
Godfrey’s Eighth Amendment rights, it will not address the issue of qualified immunity.

Page 7 of 7