# Wilson v. Holloway

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · March 5, 2018

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009046

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** March 5, 2018
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009046

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the objective component is “contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency”

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JACOB LEE WILSON PLAINTIFF
Vv. CASE NO. 5:18-CV-05039
SHERIFF SHAWN HOLLOWAY, Benton
County, Arkansas; LIEUTENANT
ROBIN HOLT; DAWN OSBORNE,
Kitchen Osborne; and THEMA
SNODGRASS, Kitchen Lead DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Jacob L. Wilson, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. He
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. He names as Defendants Sheriff Holloway,
Lieutenant Holt, Dawn Osborne, and Thema Snodgrass.
The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has
the obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a).
I. BACKGROUND
According to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 1), on January 10, 2018,
inmates at the Benton County Detention Center (“BCDC”) were served contaminated
food. The contaminated food caused inmates throughout the jail to become sick.
Plaintiff states that the food poisoning came “from the hands of the kitchen staff.” He
alleges that Defendants were negligent in their job performance.

Plaintiff alleges that after lunch on January 10, 2018, he was on lock-down for a
nap. Ten minutes after lock-down, Plaintiff alleges that he had to run “to the toilet and
threw up and started having explosive [diarrhea] afterwards.” He asserts that he was
sick for about a week with diarrhea and stomach pains.
Plaintiff makes no specific allegations against any of the named Defendants.
Plaintiff sues the Defendants in both their individual and official capacities. As relief,
he asks for compensatory damages and punitive damages.
ll. LEGAL STANDARD
Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of
process being issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it
contains claims that: (1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted; or, (2) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating
whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro
se complaint, however inartfully pleaded . . . to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
However, mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual averments are
insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be based. Allen v. Purkett, 5 F.3d

1151, 1153 (8th Cir. 1993); see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).
“[A] pro se plaintiff requires no special legal training to recount the facts surrounding
his alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the court is to determine whether
he makes out a claim on which relief can be granted.” Hail v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).
Ill. DISCUSSION
Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation, under color
of law, of a citizen's "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws" of the United States. In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff
must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law and that he violated a
right secured by the Constitution. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988); Dunham v.
Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir. 1999). The deprivation must be intentional:
mere negligence will not suffice to state a claim for deprivation of a constitutional right
under § 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S.
344 (1986). Job negligence is insufficient as a matter of law.
Assuming for purposes of this screening that Plaintiff is also asserting that
Defendants acted with deliberate indifference when serving him contaminated food, the
Court will review the Plaintiff's claim under Eighth Amendment standards. The Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the imposition of cruel and
unusual punishment.' U.S. Const. amend. Vill. The Cruel and Unusual Punishment

' Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee. However, the Eighth Circuit has consistently applied
the Eighth Amendment to conditions of confinement claims brought by pretrial
detainees. See, e.g., Davis v. Oregon Cnty., Mo., 607 F.3d 543, 548 (8th Cir. 2010)
(“Pretrial detainees are entitled to the same protection under the Fourteenth

Clause of the Eighth Amendment forbids conditions that involve the “wanton and
unnecessary infliction of pain,” or are “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the
crime.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981).
“[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his
will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility
for his safety and general well-being.” Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 851
(1998) (citation omitted). The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but
neither does it permit inhumane ones. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994).
“The Eighth Amendment prohibits punishments that deprive inmates of the minimal
civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Smifh v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 268 (8th Cir.
1996). Jail or prison officials must provide reasonably adequate ventilation, sanitation,
bedding, hygienic materials, food, and utilities. Prison conditions claims include threats
to an inmate’s health and safety. /rving v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 446 (8th Cir. 2008)
(citation omitted).
To state an Eighth Amendment claim, the plaintiff must allege that prison officials
acted with “deliberate indifference” towards conditions at the detention facility that created
a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. “Conditions of confinement,
however, constitute cruel and unusual punishment ‘only when they have a mutually
enforcing effect that produces deprivation of a single, identifiable human need such as
food, warmth, or exercise.” Whitnack v. Douglas Cnty., 16 F.3d 954, 957 (8th Cir. 1994)
(quoting Wilson v. Sieter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991)).

Amendment as imprisoned convicts receive under the Eighth Amendment.) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).

The deliberate indifference standard involves both an objective and subjective
component. The objective component requires an inmate to show that “he is incarcerated
under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834
(citations omitted); see also Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 2 (1992) (noting that the
objective component is “contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of
decency”) (quotation omitted). To satisfy the subjective component, an inmate must show
that prison officials had “a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834
(citations omitted); see also Brown v. Nix, 33 F.3d 951, 954-55 (8th Cir. 1994). The
subjective component “requires proof of a reckless disregard of a known risk.” Crow v.
Montgomery, 403 F.3d 598, 602 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
In this case, Plaintiffs only allegation is that he was served contaminated food on
a single occasion. Plaintiff does not allege he was routinely served contaminated food or
that food was routinely prepared in a manner presenting an immediate danger to his
health. See, e.g., Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992) (“Wishon has
presented no evidence that the food he was served was nutritionally inadequate or
prepared in a manner presenting an immediate danger to his health, or that his health
suffered as a result of the food.”).
In Islam v. Jackson, 782 F. Supp. 1111, 1114-15 (E.D. Vir. 1992), the court held
that serving one meal contaminated with maggots and meals under unsanitary conditions
for thirteen days was not cruel and unusual punishment. In George v. King, 837 F.2d 705,
707 (5th Cir. 1988), a case nearly identical to the one before us, the Fifth Circuit held that
“a single incident of unintended food poisoning, whether suffered by one or many
prisoners at an institution, does not constitute violations of the constitutional rights of the

affected prisoners.” /d. In so holding, the Court noted that it was confronted with “a single
incident of mass food poisoning of the kind occasionally experienced by those in military
service or in other institutional settings, as well as individually in the more routine course
of daily life.” /d.; see also Bennett v. Misner, 2004 WL 2091473, at *20 (D. Or. Sept. 17,
2004) (“Neither isolated instances of food poisoning, temporary lapses in sanitary food
service, nor service of meals contaminated with maggots are sufficiently serious to
constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.”). Plaintiff's allegations that he was served
contaminated food on a single occasion and became temporarily ill as a result are
insufficient to state a claim of constitutional dimension.
Additionally, as mentioned earlier, Plaintiff has not alleged that any of the named
Defendants directly participated in the alleged unconstitutional violations. “Liability under
§ 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights.”
Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has
made no such allegations in this case; instead, only stating that the “kitchen staff’ was
involved in serving the contaminated food. More is needed.
Further, with respect to the supervisory Defendants, Sheriff Holloway, Lieutenant
Holt, and Dawn Osborne, the law is that‘[a] supervisor is not vicariously liable under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for an employee’s unconstitutional activity.” White v. Holmes, 21 F.3d 277,
280 (8th Cir. 1994). Instead, the supervisor must be personally involved in the alleged
constitutional violation or his corrective inaction must constitute deliberate indifference
towards the constitutional violation. Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995).
In George, the Fifth Circuit stated that “[i]f prisoners regularly and frequently suffer
from food poisoning with truly serious medical complications as a result of particular,

known unsanitary practices which are customarily followed by the prison food service
organization, and the authorities without arguable justification refuse to attempt remedial
measures, the requisite indifference might well be manifested or inferred.” /d. at 707. In
this case, Plaintiff has made no allegations sufficient to establish a basis for supervisory
liability.
Plaintiff's official capacity claims are the equivalent of claims against Benton
County. “Official-capacity liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 occurs only when a
constitutional injury is caused by ‘a government's policy or custom, whether made by its
lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.”
Grayson v. Ross, 454 F.3d 802, 810-811 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Monell v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)). Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of any custom
or policy of Benton County that was a moving force behind the alleged constitutional
violations.
IV. CONCLUSION
No plausible claims are stated. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-ii) (in forma pauperis action, or any
portion of it, may be dismissed at any time due to frivolousness or for failure to state a
claim).
The dismissal of this case constitutes a strike within the meaning of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. The Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on this
case.

IT IS SO ORDERED on this day of March, 2018.

4. UMOTHY L. BROOKS
A F NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009046. Public record. Not legal advice.