The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
TIMOTHY MARCUS MAYBERRY,
Plaintiff,
v. CAUSE NO. 3:24-CV-187-HAB-SLC
RON NEAL, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Timothy Marcus Mayberry, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended
complaint. At this stage of the proceedings, Mayberry may amend his complaint once
as a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, the court must review the complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. “In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint under the
plausibility standard announced in Twombly and Iqbal, we accept the well-pleaded facts
in the complaint as true, but legal conclusions and conclusory allegations merely
reciting the elements of the claim are not entitled to this presumption of truth.”
McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2011). “After excising the
allegations not entitled to the presumption, we determine whether the remaining
factual allegations plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Id.
In a prior screening order, the court allowed Mayberry to proceed on the following
claims:
An Eighth Amendment claim against Aramark Correctional Services
Representative Johnson in her individual capacity based on allegations that the
fruits and vegetables in the kosher meals he is served at Indiana State Prison are
routinely spoiled and rotten, leaving him with inadequate nutrition;
An Establishment Clause claim against IDOC Religious Director David Liebel in
his individual capacity for failing to provide celebratory feasts in 2023 for Islamic
holidays on par with those provided for Christian and Jewish holidays;
An injunctive relief claim against Warden Ron Neal in his official capacity to
obtain a diet that complies with his sincere religious belief to regularly consume
halal meat from herbivorous animals and to eat food prepared only by Muslims
to the extent required by RLUIPA;
An injunctive relief claim against Warden Ron Neal in his official capacity to be
able to celebrate the Muslim holidays of ‘Eid al-Fitr and ‘Eid ul-Adha as required
by his sincere religious beliefs to the extent required by RLUIPA.
ECF 10.
In the amended complaint, Mayberry seeks to add a claim against Warden Neal,
Director Liebel, Kitchen Supervisor Johnson, and Kitchen Supervisor Peeples because
he has received dirty drinking water and spoiled food at the Indiana State Prison since
February 10, 2023. He alleges that each of these defendants “through direct and/or
indirect acts and omissions and/or administrative practice, policy, and enforcement,
have ordered, condoned, and/or authorized Aramark and IDOC staff to deny me clean
drinking water and a proper halal diet.” With respect to his diet, he is specifically
concerned about peanut butter and jelly sandwiches because he lacks sufficient
information regarding their ingredients to determine whether they qualify as halal. He
alleges that he verbally complained to Kitchen Supervisor Johnson, and Kitchen
Supervisor Peeples about these issues. In the prior screening order, the court found that
providing a vegetarian kosher diet to an inmate seeking a halal diet for religious
purposes did not violate his constitutional rights. ECF 10 at 2-4. For the same reasons,
Mayberry may not proceed on his allegations regarding an improper halal diet.
Mayberry separately alleges Kitchen Supervisor Johnson, and Kitchen Supervisor
Peeples have served him rotten and spoiled fruits and vegetables.
In evaluating an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim, the court
conducts both an objective and a subjective inquiry. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834
(1994). The objective prong asks whether the alleged deprivation is “sufficiently
serious” so that “a prison official’s act results in the denial of the minimal civilized
measure of life’s necessities.” Id.“ It is well established that there is no respondeat
superior liability under § 1983.” Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 622 (7th Cir. 2010). To
hold an individual defendant liable for deliberate indifference, the complaint must
allege the defendant was personally involved in the alleged deprivation of a
constitutional right. Whitfield v. Spiller, 76 F.4th 698, 706 (7th Cir. 2023).
“Official-capacity suits . . . generally represent only another way of pleading an
action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Hill v. Shelander, 924 F.2d 1370,
1372 (7th Cir. 1991). “[A]n official capacity suit will be presumed when the indicia of an
official policy or custom are present in the complaint.” Id. at 1373. To pursue a claim
under Section 1983 against a local governmental entity or a corporate entity, a plaintiff
must show that his constitutional injury was the result of that entity’s official policy or
practice. Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 675 (7th Cir. 2012). However,
“neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons under §
1983.” Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
Mayberry adequately states an Eighth Amendment claim against Kitchen
Supervisor Johnson, and Kitchen Supervisor Peeples based on the allegations that he
has received dirty drinking water and spoiled fruit and vegetables. However,
disregarding the legal conclusions leaves no factual allegations suggesting that Director
Liebel and Warden Neal were personally involved in denying Mayberry clean water or
providing him with spoiled food. To the extent that Mayberry is pursuing a policy or
practice claim against these defendants in their official capacity, he is effectively suing
their employer. He cannot proceed on a claim against the State or its officials in their
official capacity, including Director Liebel and Warden Neal. However, he may proceed
on a policy and practice claim regarding the unclean drinking water and spoiled food
against Aramark, the corporate employer of Kitchen Supervisor Johnson and Kitchen
Supervisor Peeples.
Mayberry is also seeking to add an Equal Protection claim against Director
Liebel, Warden Neal, Kitchen Supervisor Johnson, and Kitchen Supervisor Peeples
because they have accommodated inmates of the Jewish faith by creating a kosher
kitchen and hiring a rabbi while denying similar treatment for inmates of the Islamic
faith. “A plaintiff must demonstrate intentional or purposeful discrimination to show
an equal protection violation.” Shango v. Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091, 1104 (7th Cir. 1982).
“Discriminatory purpose, however, implies more than intent as volition or intent as
awareness of consequences.” Id. “It implies that the decisionmaker singled out a
particular group for disparate treatment and selected his course of action at least in part
for the purpose of causing its adverse effects on the identifiable group.” Id. The
amended complaint contains no suggestion that the defendants have accommodated
only inmates of Jewish faith for the purpose of causing inmates of Islamic faith
adversity. Therefore, Mayberry may not proceed on this claim under the Equal
Protection Clause.
It further appears that Mayberry is seeking to add Warden Neal, Kitchen
Supervisor Johnson, and Kitchen Supervisor Peeples to the Establishment Clause claim
against Director Liebel for failing to provide celebratory feasts in 2023 for Islamic
holidays on par with those provided for Christian and Jewish holidays. He may
proceed on this claim against these three additional defendants. Accordingly, the Court:
(1) GRANTS Timothy Marcus Mayberry leave to proceed against Theresa
Johnson and Wayne Peeples in their individual capacities on an Eighth Amendment
claim for monetary damages for serving him rotten fruit and vegetables and dirty
drinking water;
(2) GRANTS Timothy Marcus Mayberry leave to proceed against Aramark on an
Eighth Amendment claim for monetary damages for maintaining a policy or practice of
serving him rotten fruit and vegetables and dirty drinking water;
(3) GRANTS Timothy Marcus Mayberry leave to proceed against IDOC
Religious Director David Liebel, Warden Neal, Theresa Johnson, and Wayne Peeples in
their individual capacities for monetary damages for failing to provide celebratory
feasts in 2023 for Islamic holidays on par with those provided for Christian and Jewish
holidays to the extent required by the Establishment Clause;
(4) GRANTS Timothy Marcus Mayberry leave to proceed against Warden Ron
Neal in his official capacity for injunctive relief to obtain a diet that complies with his
sincere religious belief to regularly consume halal meat from herbivorous animals and
to eat food prepared only by Muslims to the extent required by RLUIPA;
(5) GRANTS Timothy Marcus Mayberry leave to proceed against Warden Ron
Neal in his official capacity for injunctive relief to be able to celebrate the Muslim
holidays of ‘Eid al-Fitr and ‘Eid ul-Adha as required by his sincere religious beliefs to
the extent required by RLUIPA;
(6) DISMISSES all other claims;
(7) DIRECTS the clerk, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service
from (and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to use any lawful means to
locate and serve process on) Aramark, Theresa Johnson, and Wayne Peeples at Aramark
with a copy of this order and the amended complaint (ECF 15);
(8) ORDERS Aramark to provide the full name, date of birth, and last known
home address of any defendant who does not waive service if it has such information;
and
(9) ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), the defendants to respond, as
provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to
the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening
order.
SO ORDERED on October 3, 2024.
s/Holly A. Brady
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT