Turner Bey v. Holcomb et al
Filing
13
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted., ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 7/11/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(mlc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
AKEEM TURNER BEY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAUSE NO. 3:18CV120-PPS
THE STATE OF INDIANA, et al., )
Defendants.
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Akeem Turner Bey, a pro se prisoner, initially filed a complaint against eight
defendants as a result of being served food containing soy at the Indiana State Prison
(ISP). I explained that his general claim for being served a soy diet was not cognizable
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nevertheless, because Turner Bey seemed to indicate that the
quality of soy being served was otherwise dangerous, I granted him to leave to amend
his complaint in order to further elaborate on that potential claim, in the spirit of
Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013). ECF 9.
Turner Bey has now filed an amended complaint. ECF 10. A filing by an
unrepresented party “is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and
citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must review the
merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails
1
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. “In order to state a claim under § 1983 a
plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right;
and (2) that the defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667,
670 (7th Cir. 2006).
In his amended complaint, Turner Bey decided not to pursue his claim that the
quality of soy being served at ISP is dangerous. Instead, his allegations center around
the more general complaint that ISP served him food containing soy. Turner Bey sues
Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb, the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC), ISP
Superintendent Ron Neal, Aramark, Aramark Supervisor Mr. Peoples, Aramark
Contract Monitor John Schilling, Mr. Crane, and an unidentified ISP dietician. Turner
Bey seeks money damages and injunctive relief.
To start, Turner Bey again claims that the defendants’ decision to serve him (and
the other inmates at ISP) a soy-based diet, in and of itself, violates the Eighth
Amendment. I have previously explained that this claim has no traction. ECF 9. For the
reasons fully explained in that May 21, 2018, decision, Turner-Bey’s general complaint
about being served a soy-based diet does not state a claim. See Id.
Next, Turner Bey alleges that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment by
serving him soy because it caused him health problems. It is true that, “[a]lthough the
provision of a soy diet, as a general matter, does not violate the Eighth Amendment, it
may still amount to cruel and unusual punishment if a plaintiff has a serious medical
2
condition for which soy is contraindicated.” Riley-El v. Godinez, 2015 WL 4572322 at *4-5.
In Riley-El, the plaintiff was diagnosed with a serious medical condition for which an
outside doctor advised him to reduce his soy intake. Id. Riley-El claimed to be
consuming too much soy in light of his health condition. He brought these concerns to
the attention of prison officials, who failed to act. The court found that his allegations
about the effect of consuming soy under those circumstances were sufficient to survive
a motion to dismiss. Id. But, quite unlike the plaintiff in Riley-El, Turner Bey does not
allege to have been diagnosed with any serious medical condition for which soy is
contraindicated. Thus, Turner Bey can find no relief under this theory.
Although not diagnosed, I note that Turner Bey alleges that “soy meat has
caused me diarrhea on numerous occasions, it’s caused me to feel woozy, aggravated,
symptoms of feeling lava hot and ice cold during summer months plus in the winter,
I’ve thrown up blood with my food, it’s made my blood pressure rise to like 100
something over 100 something and other things where are documented on these 7
health care request forms I’ve submitted to show what it’s done to me.”1 ECF 10 at 3.
The simple fact that Turner Bey may have gotten ill from eating soy does not make the
defendants liable to him. Prison officials only violate the Eighth Amendment’s
1
I have examined each of these seven forms to see what, exactly, is going on. In them, Turner Bey
makes various complaints to health care staff. But, none of these forms suggest Turner Bey is suffering
from, or has been diagnosed with, a serious medical condition for which soy is contraindicated. ECF 10 at
6-12. Nor do any of these forms indicate soy is causing the complained of health problems. In fact, none of
the seven health care forms even mention soy. Id. Instead, Turner Bey attributed each his health problems
to something other than soy. Id. Thus, Turner Bey’s current allegations that soy caused him to suffer these
past health problems are simply not plausible in light of the attached documents.
3
proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when their conduct demonstrates
“deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 104 (1976). The deliberate indifference standard is satisfied if the plaintiff shows
that the prison official acted or failed to act despite the official’s knowledge of a
substantial risk of serious harm.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 841 (1994). Even if
Turner Bey suffered negative health effects from exposure to soy, there are no
allegations that any of the defendants knew the risks of serving Turner Bey a soy diet
prior to implementing it. Thus, there is no alleged deliberate indifference on their part.
As a result, these allegations could not state a claim against any defendant.
ACCORDINGLY:
This case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the complaint
does not state a claim for which relief can be granted.
SO ORDERED on July 11, 2018.
/s/ Philip P. Simon
Judge
United States District Court
4
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?