Terrence Hammock v. Gail Watts

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 1 of 32

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6375

TERRENCE EDWARD HAMMOCK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR GAIL WATTS; OFFICER J. SHERMAN; SERGEANT BOND;

MAJOR ALFORD; SERGEANT A. DUPREE; SERGEANT A. KELLY;

SERGEANT B. LITTLE; J. PAIGE; SERGEANT C. E. CARTER; SERGEANT B.

ROSE; LIBRARY OFFICERS; OFFICER MISS ALSTON; DIETARY

SERGEANT G. CARTER; J. DORSEY,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

OFFICER BROWN; COMMISSARY OWNER MR. DAVE; DOCTORS OF

UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, who did Plaintiff’s surgery on 2/5/20

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Brendan A. Hurson, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00482-BAH)

Argued: May 8, 2025 Decided: July 23, 2025

Before GREGORY, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 2 of 32

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which

Judge Benjamin joined. Judge Rushing wrote a separate opinion, concurring in part and

dissenting in part.

ARGUED: Shreya Sarin, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, Washington,

D.C., for Appellant. Joseph David Allen, BALTIMORE COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW,

Towson, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Regina Wang, Brian Wolfman, Becca

Steinberg, Viktor K. Dolberg, Student Counsel, Annie Farrell, Student Counsel, Giancarlo

Vargas, Student Counsel, Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic, GEORGETOWN

UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. James R. Benjamin, Jr.,

Baltimore County Attorney, Bambi Glenn, Assistant County Attorney, BALTIMORE

COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

2

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 3 of 32

GREGORY, Circuit Judge:

This case concerns a challenge to the conditions of confinement at the Baltimore

County Detention Center (“BCDC”), where Plaintiff Terrence Hammock spent over two

years in detention. Hammock alleges severe violations of his constitutional rights,

stemming from rotten and unsafe food served at the facility and a complete denial of his

ability to engage in Jum’ah, a central practice of Islam. As explained herein, we find that

the district court erred when it dismissed Hammock’s claims. Accordingly, we reverse and

remand for Hammock to have the opportunity to proceed to discovery with the assistance

of appointed counsel.

I.

Terrence Hammock was first detained on September 20, 2019, at BCDC while

awaiting trial. J.A. 10. He was convicted on December 17, 2021, and remained at BCDC

pending sentencing. J.A. 55. On February 28, 2022, he filed a Complaint alleging various

issues that have been ongoing “since he arrived” at BCDC in September 2019. J.A. 9–10.

Hammock’s first claims relate to the food he received at BCDC. He states that

“[BCDC] serve[s] rotten apples, and meat with mice bites on them.” J.A. 11; see also J.A.

26 (“the apples are rotten in the inside or outside, and the meat for lunch is no good with

mice bites.”); J.A. 27. He asserts that he “got sick several times” after eating the food

served at the facility. J.A. 26; see also J.A. 11. To avoid further sickness, he stopped

eating the BCDC meals, instead subsisting on food purchased from the prison commissary.

J.A. 11–12, 26–27. According to the Complaint, Hammock lost weight from being unable

3

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 4 of 32

to eat prison meals. Id. at 11 (“Hammock started losing weight, because he refuse [sic] to

eat . . . rotten fruit and meat with mice bites on it”).

Hammock alleges that BCDC served this contaminated food from his arrival at the

facility in September 2019 through at least the time of his supplemental pleading dated

March 15, 2022. J.A. 11, 22. He “complain[ed] to all the defendants [ ] but they did

nothing to solve the problem.” J.A. 11. He sent two letters to Defendant Gail Watts,

BCDC’s Director of Corrections, on February 19, 2022, and February 21, 2022,

complaining about the unsafe food; the letters were marked as “received” by Watts and

“processed as [ ] Inmate Complaint[s].” J.A. 25–27.

In addition to these food safety claims, Hammock also alleges that BCDC denied

him the ability to practice his religion. Hammock is a practicing Muslim, and he alleges

that he was not allowed to attend Jum’ah since his detention began in September 2019 at

least through the date of his supplemental filing on March 15, 2022. J.A. 12, 22. As this

Court has recognized, “Jum’ah is a gathering of Muslims for group prayer beginning after

the sun reaches its zenith on Fridays, and it constitutes one of the central practices of

Islam.” Greenhill v. Clarke, 944 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2019); see also O’Lone v. Est. of

Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 344 (1987). In Hammock’s words, Jum’ah is “mandatory for all

Muslims to go on Friday’s [sic] to listen to the sermon and pray.” J.A. 23.

As Hammock claims, BCDC officials prevented Hammock from attending Jum’ah

for the entirety of his detention. See J.A. 12, 22. This was over a period spanning before,

during, and after the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. See J.A. 12 (Hammock

acknowledging the pandemic). Hammock also notified prison officials of this religious

4

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 5 of 32

burden, yet BCDC officials took no action. For example, in the same February 19, 2022,

letter to Defendant Watts mentioned above, marked as “received” and “processed,”

Hammock informed her that he was not being permitted to attend Jum’ah services. J.A. 27.

Hammock also attempted to follow BCDC protocols for special religious

accommodations to no avail. As Hammock describes, in March 2022, there was “a memo

on the board now in 4G unit where Hammock sleeps,” which was a protective custody unit,

and “it states if anyone wants to get placed on the religious list please put in a Form 118 to

get on the list and then you can go to your religious services.” J.A. 22. He submitted this

form on March 10, 2022, asking to be placed “on the religious service program for Muslim

Jumah services and classes.” J.A. 23–24. Defendants returned the form to him, stating

that he “can’t be let out to general population because of the protective custody unit.” J.A.

24; see also J.A. 23.

II.

Proceeding pro se, Hammock filed suit in the United States District Court for the

District of Maryland in February 2022. See J.A. 3, 9. He brought numerous claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against BCDC correctional officials (“Defendants”), among others. See

J.A. 9, 21. At issue on appeal are (1) his deliberate indifference claim that Defendants

violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by providing him with rotten and

mice-bitten food, and (2) his free exercise claim that Defendants violated his rights under

the First Amendment by not permitting him to attend Jum’ah services. J.A. 11–13.

5

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 6 of 32

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.

See J.A. 33. Hammock filed a response brief, J.A. 50–52, as well as a motion for

representation asking for appointed counsel to “investigate, prepare and get discovery; and

communicate with defendants[’] counsel,” J.A. 53.

The district court granted Defendants’ motion without a hearing. 1 J.A. 55, 82–83.

As for Hammock’s claim regarding contaminated food, the court stated that “Hammock’s

assertions that he got sick from the food once and has lost weight are insufficient to meet

th[e] standard” of “‘serious deprivation of a basic human need.’” J.A. 67 (quoting Strickler

v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1379 (4th Cir. 1993)). It continued that “Hammock’s allegations

fail to support a valid claim that the food provided, even if substandard, amounts to

punishment within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment,” let alone satisfies the

Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Id.

Next, as for Hammock’s claim regarding religious services, the district court found

that “the legitimate penological interests of protecting [ ] health and safety” justified

Defendants’ “failure to conduct any group Jumah services during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

J.A. 69. As for the periods before and after COVID-19 restrictions were in place, the court

looked to Hammock’s pleadings to show that “his status as a protective custody inmate”

justified denying him the ability to attend Jum’ah. J.A. 69. Finally, the court held that “[a]t

1

The district court initially declined to dismiss all of the claims against a Defendant

not employed by BCDC, Dr. Zowie Barnes. It initially only granted Barnes’s motion to

dismiss in part, see J.A. 82–83, but a few weeks later, it granted her motion for summary

judgment in its entirety, see J.A. 88. The claims against Barnes, which related to medical

care Hammock received at BCDC, id., are not before us on appeal, see infra footnote 2.

6

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 7 of 32

this stage, this case has yet to proceed to discovery or a trial, so [Hammock’s] [ ] motion for

appointment of counsel will be denied.” J.A. 60; see also J.A. 83.

Hammock appealed the district court’s orders, 2 see J.A. 85–87, and he is represented

by counsel on appeal.

2

In its March 10, 2023, memorandum opinion and order, the district court granted

the correctional officer Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Hammock’s

Fourteenth, Eighth, and First Amendment claims against them. J.A. 54–83. However, it

granted in part and denied in part Dr. Barnes’ motion to dismiss. Id. Then, on April 1,

2024, the court granted Dr. Barnes’ motion for summary judgment as to Hammock’s claim

of deliberate indifference to medical needs and closed the case. J.A. 88–91.

In Hammock’s Notice of Appeal, he stated that he was appealing the district court’s

April 1, 2024, order granting Dr. Barnes’ motion to dismiss as to his claim of deliberate

indifference to medical needs. J.A. 85–91. His informal, pro se briefings to this Court

focused on his medical needs claim. See ECF Nos. 6, 9, 11, 12. However, after being

represented by counsel, his formal briefing focused on his claims regarding contaminated

food and his free exercise of religion. This briefing also noted that he was not pursuing the

claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs on appeal. See Opening Br. at 2 n.1.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)(B), as amended in 2021, confirms our

jurisdiction over the issues in this appeal. Under the amendment, “preliminary rulings that

lead up to a final judgment merge into that final judgment and are designated for purposes

of appeal by a notice of appeal that designates the final judgment.” 68th St. Site Work Grp.

v. Alban Tractor Co., 105 F.4th 222, 228 (4th Cir. 2024); see also Jenkins v. Woodard, 109

F.4th 242, 246–47 (4th Cir. 2024). If “the district court never made an express finding that

its resolution of the claims against some of the parties qualified as a final judgment,” then

the earlier order “merge[s] into the order dismissing the last remaining defendant” and is

encompassed by the “notice of appeal’s reference to the final order.” 68th St. Site Work

Grp., 105 F.4th at 229.

That is exactly what happened in this case. The district court’s March 10, 2023, order

dismissed claims against some Defendants but never made an express finding that the order

qualified as a final judgment. J.A. 82–83; see also J.A. 80–81. That earlier order nevertheless

“merged into the order dismissing the last remaining defendant,” that being Dr. Barnes. 68th

St. Site Work Grp., 105 F.4th at 229; see Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(4) (a notice of appeal

“encompasses all orders that, for purposes of appeal, merge into the designated judgment or

appealable order”); Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(6) (unless the appellant expressly limits the scope of

their appeal, “specific designations do not limit the scope of the notice of appeal”).

7

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 8 of 32

III.

We review a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo and view the

complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting as true all well-pleaded

allegations. Franks v. Ross, 313 F.3d 184, 192 (4th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint’s “[f]actual allegations must be

enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and have “enough facts to state

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

555, 570 (2007).

Pro se pleadings, like Hammock’s here, are “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) (quoting

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).

IV.

We find that the district court erred when it dismissed Hammock’s deliberate

indifference and free exercise claims for failure to state a claim. First, Hammock

sufficiently pleaded a claim of deliberate indifference based on conditions of

confinement—i.e. the denial of constitutionally sufficient food. Next, he also sufficiently

pleaded a First Amendment claim, as Defendants have not presented a penological interest

to justify their denial of his ability to practice Jum’ah for the entirety of the challenged

period. We also hold that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on either of

these claims. We therefore reverse and remand the district court’s dismissal of Hammock’s

8

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 9 of 32

First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims. Finally, we direct the district court to

appoint Hammock counsel upon remand.

A.

We begin with Hammock’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims related to the

food provided by Defendants. To state a claim for deliberate indifference based on

conditions of confinement, a plaintiff must satisfy a two-part test. First, they must show

“deprivation of a basic human need” that is “objectively sufficiently serious.” Rish v.

Johnson, 131 F.3d 1092, 1096 (4th Cir. 1997) (cleaned up). To do so, a plaintiff must

allege “a serious or significant physical or emotional injury resulting from the challenged

conditions,” or “a substantial risk of such serious harm resulting from the prisoner’s

unwilling exposure to the challenged conditions.” Shakka v. Smith, 71 F.3d 162, 166 (4th

Cir. 1995) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

The second element of a deliberate indifference claim concerns a defendant’s

awareness of the injuries or risks. This standard is objective or subjective depending on

whether the plaintiff is a pretrial detainee or a prisoner. See Short v. Hartman, 87 F.4th

593, 608–10 (4th Cir. 2023). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies to pretrial

detainees, “it is enough that the plaintiff show that the defendant acted or failed to act in

the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it

should be known.” Short, 87 F.4th at 611 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Under

the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant had “a sufficiently

culpable state of mind,” which requires either actual knowledge of an excessive risk to the

prisoner’s safety or proof that prison officials were aware of facts from which an inference

9

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 10 of 32

could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists and that the inference was

actually drawn. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837 (1994) (cleaned up). We hold

that Hammock has adequately pleaded both elements and has thus also alleged sufficient

information to survive a claim for qualified immunity.

1.

Hammock’s allegations regarding contaminated food––at the motion to dismiss

stage, and particularly as pleaded by a pro se litigant––are sufficient, as they establish both

“a serious or significant physical . . . injury” and “a substantial risk of such serious harm.”

Shakka, 71 F.3d at 166.

As for a serious or significant physical injury, prisoners have a right to “nutritionally

adequate food, prepared and served under conditions which do not present immediate

danger to the health and well-being of the inmates who consume it.” Shrader v. White, 761

F.2d 975, 986 (4th Cir. 1985) (quotations and citations omitted). We agree that, “[u]nder

some circumstances . . . inadequate, unsanitary food service can be sufficiently serious to

satisfy the objective element of an Eighth Amendment claim.” Islam v. Jackson, 782 F.

Supp. 1111, 1114 (E.D. Va. 1992). A plaintiff must allege “serious medical . . .

deterioration attributable to” the challenged conditions. Lopez v. Robinson, 914 F.2d 486,

490 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting Shrader v. White, 761 F.2d 975, 979 (4th Cir. 1985)).

Hammock alleges that the food served at BCDC, including rotten apples and mice-

bitten meat, made him sick on several occasions. J.A. 11; see also J.A. 26. Under our

precedent, this is sufficient on a motion to dismiss. The fact that he did not specifically

plead the symptoms of his sickness is not fatal to his claim at this stage. We are not

10

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 11 of 32

presented with an appeal from a motion for summary judgment, where we would require

“hard evidence” of “serious medical and emotional deterioration.” Lopez, 914 F.2d at 491

(cleaned up). Rather, at the motion to dismiss stage, “detailed factual averments are no[t]

[ ] necessary to avoid dismissal of a claim.” Bolding v. Holshouser, 575 F.2d 461, 464 (4th

Cir. 1978). This Court has held that basic allegations that defendants “fail[ed] to provide

adequate sanitary food service facilities and conditions,” Bolding, 575 F.2d at 465, 468

(cleaned up), or that a plaintiff suffered “physically due to periodic pain associated with

hunger” and “mentally because [he] cannot focus on his rehabilitation [so] he must

continue to worry about food or the lack there of,” King v. Lewis, 358 F. App’x 459, 460

(per curiam), are sufficient to state a cognizable claim, see also Burkey, 2021 WL 3857814,

at *8 (holding plaintiff’s allegations that “spoiled bread, milk, meat or molded food has

caused . . . sickness to myself and others since April 2020” are sufficient). Hammock’s

allegations are similarly sufficient. Particularly as Hammock’s pro se complaint must be

“liberally construed,” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (quotation marks and citation omitted), he

has pleaded “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” Twombly, 550

U.S. at 555.

Additionally, to avoid continuing to get sick, Hammock stopped eating the BCDC

meals, which caused him to lose weight. J.A. 11–12; see also J.A. 26–27. As other courts

have recognized, weight loss caused by a plaintiff’s choice to not eat meals can give a

significant physical dimension to the injury. See Escobar v. Mora, 496 F. App’x 806, 811

(10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished). Together, Hammock’s allegations that he got sick several

times and lost weight establish serious physical injury.

11

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 12 of 32

In terms of the frequency of the injury, it is true that occasional short-lived problems

with food service and isolated instances of spoiled or contaminated food does not give rise

to a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Bedell v. Angelone, No. 2:01CV780, 2003 WL

24054709, at *3, *14 (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 2003), aff’d sub nom. Bedell v. Vt. D.O.C., 87 F.

App’x 323 (4th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (where the plaintiff has alleged “rotten oranges and

potatoes [ ] served on” one day, that “does not rise to the level of a constitutional

violation”). However, Hammock asserts that BCDC served rotten apples and meat with

mice bites for more than two years, which caused him to “g[e]t sick several times.” J.A.

11, 26–27. The district court stated that Hammock “got sick from the food once,” J.A. 67,

but that is directly contradicted by Hammock’s pleadings, see J.A. 26. Hammock’s

allegations spanning over two years are far beyond the “isolated” incidents that courts have

deemed insufficient to state a claim. See, e.g., Islam, 782 F. Supp. at 1114 (“Plaintiff

complains that defendants served him contaminated food on one occasion . . . . Missing

one meal as an isolated event does not deprive an inmate of basic nutritional needs.

Likewise, temporary service of food without gloves by employees not medically examined

or certified to handle food does not present an immediate danger to the health and well

being of the inmates who consume it.”); Lunsford v. Reynolds, 376 F. Supp 526, 528 (W.D.

Va. 1974) (“Occasional incidents of foreign objects contained in food, while regrettable,

does not present a question of constitutional proportion.”). Hammock has adequately

alleged that the provision of rotten apples and mice-bitten meat was a regular, ongoing

occurrence over the course of multiple years, causing him to get sick numerous times.

12

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 13 of 32

In addition to showing serious or significant injury, Hammock’s allegations also

show a substantial risk of harm. He was at continued risk of getting sick from the apples

and meat and only shielded himself from further sickness by refusing to eat BCDC’s meals.

See J.A. 11–12, 26–27. We have made clear that “[j]ail employees may not ignore a

dangerous condition of confinement on the ground that the complaining inmate shows no

serious current symptoms.” Webb v. Deboo, 423 F. App’x 299, 300 (4th Cir. 2011) (per

curiam) (citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33–36 (1993)). As the Supreme Court

explained, “a prison inmate [ ] could successfully complain about demonstrably unsafe

drinking water without waiting for an attack of dysentery.” Helling, 509 U.S. at 33; see

also id. (“It would be odd to deny an injunction to inmates who plainly proved an unsafe,

life-threatening condition in their prison on the ground that nothing yet had happened to

them. The Courts of Appeals have plainly recognized that a remedy for unsafe conditions

need not await a tragic event.”). Accordingly, Hammock did not need to wait to fall ill

again to have a colorable claim. His allegations that BCDC continued to serve

contaminated food, although he was not currently experiencing sickness, show a substantial

risk of serious harm.

Based on the allegations in his Complaint, Hammock has adequately pleaded the

first element of his deliberate indifference claim. 3 We make no statement as to the merits,

3

Hammock also states in his Complaint that he “has been receiving cold meals every

meal” although BCDC is supposed to provide two hot meals a day. J.A. 11; see also J.A.

22, 26–27. His claim as to cold meals fails as a matter of law. As our district courts have

wisely observed, “merely serving food cold does not present a serious risk of harm or an

immediate danger to the health of an inmate” and thus, the failure to serve hot meals does

(Continued)

13

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 14 of 32

but acknowledge that moving forward, he may be able to provide sufficient facts to support

his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. BCDC’s alleged practices of unsanitary,

contaminated food service present serious questions of serious injuries.

2.

We now move to the second part of the deliberate indifference test. Hammock was

a pretrial detainee from September 20, 2019, to December 17, 2021, after which time he

was a prisoner, J.A. 55, and accordingly, he must satisfy standards under both the

Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments. As explained above, the Fourteenth Amendment has

an objective standard, requiring a plaintiff to show that the defendant knew or should have

known of an unjustifiably high risk of harm. Short, 87 F.4th at 611. Under the Eighth

Amendment’s subjective standard, a plaintiff must show the defendant’s actual knowledge

or proof that a defendant drew an inference that a substantial risk of serious harm exists

based on facts of which they were aware. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. A showing that

satisfies the Eighth Amendment is sufficient to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment. Short,

87 F.4th at 611–12.

not, standing alone, raise to the level of a cognizable constitutional injury. Harrison v.

Moketa/Motycka, 485 F. Supp. 2d 652, 656 (D.S.C. 2007); Burkey v. Balt. Cnty., No. GJH-

20-2006, 2021 WL 3857814, at *7 (D. Md. Aug. 30, 2021) (“Plaintiff’s complaints

regarding the provision of cold meals fail to state a claim. Inmates have no constitutional

right to be served a hot meal.”) (collecting cases) (quotation and citation omitted). We

have no reason to disagree with their conclusions. But, contrary to Defendants’ assertion,

see Resp. Br. at 3–4, this was not the sole argument Hammock made before the district

court nor on appeal. Accordingly, our analysis focused on Hammock’s claims regarding

rotten apples and mice-bitten meat.

14

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 15 of 32

Hammock has sufficiently alleged that Defendants knew of the risk of harm from

the food to satisfy both standards during the relevant time periods. BCDC served the

contaminated food since his arrival as a pretrial detainee in September 2019. J.A. 10–11.

He states that he “complain[ed] to all the defendants [ ] but they did nothing to solve the

problem.” J.A. 11. These allegations are sufficient to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment’s

objective standard. After he was convicted, he sent two letters to Defendant Watts in

February 2022 complaining about the unsafe food. J.A. 26–27. The letters were marked

as “received” and “processed as [ ] Inmate Complaint[s],” J.A. 25, but the issues with the

food continued the following month, see J.A. 22. These pleaded grievances are sufficient

to satisfy the Eighth Amendment standard. See, e.g., Brown v. Brock, 632 F. App’x 744,

747 (4th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (defendant’s prior knowledge and repetition of incidents

satisfy element under Eighth Amendment); Burkey, 2021 WL 3857814, at *8 (describing

grievances and complaints filed, stating that “Plaintiff alleges that he has repeatedly

brought these issues to the attention of the correctional officers and has been ignored. . . .

Plaintiff has thus [ ] satisfied the subjective component of his claim”); cf. Islam, 782 F.

Supp. at 1116 (finding element under Eighth Amendment not met where “plaintiff

acknowledges that Prison Officials acted immediately to obtain food from another vendor

after one contaminated meal was [served] . . . . When plaintiff became ill, Prison Officials

responded immediately with appropriate medical treatment.”).

15

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 16 of 32

Accordingly, Hammock has sufficiently pleaded this element both as a pretrial

detainee and a prisoner. 4

3.

Defendants assert that “[s]hould [ ] this Court find a constitutional violation, then

the Defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity.” Resp. Br. at 16. At the

motion to dismiss stage, Defendants carry the burden of demonstrating qualified immunity,

Henry v. Purnell, 501 F.3d 374, 378 (4th Cir. 2007), and their entitlement to it must appear

on “the face of the complaint” to warrant dismissal on such grounds, Brockington v.

Boykins, 637 F.3d 503, 506 (4th Cir. 2011). We continue to accept all of Hammock’s

factual allegations as true. See, e.g., Ray v. Roane, 948 F.3d 222, 226, 228–29 (4th Cir.

2020) (“a genuine question of material fact regarding whether the conduct allegedly

violative of the right actually occurred must be reserved for trial.”) (cleaned up). We hold

that Defendants have not shown that they are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

The pertinent question is whether “the unconstitutionality of the officers’ conduct

was clearly established.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 227 (2009). Qualified

4

We also note that Defendants do not discuss this element in their response brief.

See generally Resp. Br.; see also Reply Br. at 2 (“Defendants do not dispute that . . . they

knew that they served Hammock rotten and mice-bitten food that caused him to get sick.

They dispute only whether Hammock has alleged a sufficiently serious injury to state a

claim.”) (citations omitted). This Court has explained that “an appellee who simply ignores

arguments in the appellant’s brief has forfeited his response, because ‘an outright failure

to join in the adversarial process would ordinarily result in waiver.’” W. Va. Coal Workers’

Pneumoconiosis Fund v. Bell, 781 F. App’x 214, 226 (4th Cir. 2019) (unpublished)

(Richardson, J. writing separately and announcing the judgment) (quoting Alvarez v.

Lynch, 828 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2016)). Thus, Defendants have waived the opportunity

to contest their knowledge satisfying this element under both Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments.

16

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 17 of 32

immunity does not protect officials who knowingly disregard the law; thus, officers who

are aware their conduct is constitutionally deficient cannot rely on qualified immunity, and

sometimes context makes the violation so “apparent” such that caselaw is not needed to

establish this awareness. King v. Riley, 76 F.4th 259, 265 (4th Cir. 2023) (citations

omitted).

As this Court has explained, “Eighth Amendment liability comes into play only

where a corrections officer appreciates the harm confinement conditions impose yet

chooses to disregard it—but qualified immunity does ‘not allow the official who actually

knows that he was violating the law to escape liability for his actions.’” Thorpe v. Clarke,

37 F.4th 926, 933–34 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 821

(1982) (Brennan, J., concurring)) (emphasis in original). Therefore, “when plaintiffs have

made a showing sufficient to demonstrate an intentional violation of the Eighth

Amendment, they have also made a showing sufficient to overcome any claim to qualified

immunity.” Id. at 934 (cleaned up). “The two inquiries”––Eighth Amendment liability

and qualified immunity––“effectively collapse into one.” Id. (cleaned up).

As discussed above, Hammock has sufficiently pleaded deliberate difference under

both the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments. Accordingly, under Thorpe, that is sufficient

to overcome a claim to qualified immunity at this stage. See id. (“Because Plaintiffs have

adequately pleaded Defendants’ deliberate indifference, the district court correctly denied

qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage.”). There may well be a factual dispute

about whether the meals in fact caused Hammock serious physical injury or posed a

substantial risk of serious harm. There may be further disputes over Defendants’

17

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 18 of 32

knowledge of the inadequacy of BCDC meals or Hammock’s complaints. However, these

important questions should be resolved on a motion for summary judgment, after discovery

has occurred. See id. at 930 (“The problem for Defendants, however, is that they invoke

qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss, before any of the evidence is in.”).

* * *

Altogether, Hammock has sufficiently pleaded a claim of deliberate indifference

based on conditions of confinement, and Defendants have not shown that they are entitled

to qualified immunity. We reverse the district court’s dismissal of Hammock’s claims

under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

B.

We now turn to Hammock’s First Amendment claim. To state a free exercise claim,

a plaintiff must allege “(1) that he holds a sincere religious belief and (2) that his religious

practice has been substantially burdened by the prison policy or practice.” Firewalker-

Fields v. Lee, 58 F.4th 104, 114 (4th Cir. 2023); see also Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F.3d 161,

168 (4th Cir. 2017). Once this “threshold” showing is made, Firewalker-Fields, 58 F.4th

at 115, the prison bears the burden of offering penological interests that justify its

infringement on free exercise rights for the entire period that the prisoner challenges, see

Wilcox, 877 F.3d at 169. If the prison adequately alleges a penological interest, a plaintiff

can still prevail if the policy is not reasonably related to that interest. See id. To make this

determination, we apply the factors outlined in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89–90 (1987).

Here, Hammock has pleaded a free exercise claim, and Defendants have not presented

sufficient penological interests, such that we should not move on to the Turner analysis.

18

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 19 of 32

1.

Hammock has adequately claimed that he holds a sincere religious belief that is

burdened by prison regulations. He alleges that, as a Muslim, he must attend Jum’ah

services on Fridays “to listen to the sermon and pray.” J.A. 22–23, J.A. 12. Defendants

do not contest this element, see generally Resp. Br., and the Supreme Court has recognized

that attendance at Jum’ah is “commanded by the Koran” and “must be held every Friday,”

O’Lone, 482 U.S. at 345. Hammock next pleads that he was not allowed to attend Jum’ah

since his detention began in September 2019 at least through the date of his supplemental

filing on March 15, 2022. J.A. 12, 22. This is sufficient to meet the second element. “A

practice or policy places a substantial burden on a person’s religious exercise when it

‘put[s] substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his

beliefs.’” Carter v. Fleming, 879 F.3d 132, 139 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting Thomas v. Review

Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981)). Defendants denied Hammock the

ability to practice Jum’ah at all, which violates the requirements of his religion. And as

above, Defendants do not contest this element. See generally Resp. Br.

2.

Even when a prison policy substantially burdens a plaintiff’s religious practice, the

policy will not violate the First Amendment if the defendants can demonstrate that it is

reasonably related to the achievement of a legitimate penological objective. Wilcox, 877

F.3d at 169. “The prison bears the burden of offering the interests that support its policy,”

Lumumba v. Kiser, 116 F.4th 269, 282 (4th Cir. 2024), which it “must present . . . to the

district court in the first instance,” Carter, 879 F.3d at 140.

19

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 20 of 32

Defendants offered only one penological interest for burdening Hammock’s

religious expression: the need for social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. J.A.

68; Resp. Br. 9–10. However, as Hammock notes, Defendants denied access to Jum’ah

services before and after the pandemic. J.A. 12, 22–23. More specifically, Hammock was

detained six months before the Center for Disease Control issued guidance about social

distancing in detention facilities and remained incarcerated for over a year after

vaccinations were offered. Opening Br. at 19–20 (citing CDC, Interim Guidance on

Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention

Facilities, Nat’l Comm’n on Corr. Health Care (Mar. 23, 2020), https://www.ncchc.org/wp-

content/uploads/CDC_Correctional_Facility_Guidance_032720.pdf; https://perma.cc/667K-

YW42 (last visited June 24, 2025); Redd v. Watts, No. SAG-21-0455, 2023 WL 4744743,

at *4 (D. Md. July 25, 2023)); J.A. 10, 68. Counsel for Defendants admitted at oral

argument that “it’s not in the record” why Hammock was denied religious services before

COVID-19. Oral Argument at 23:28–23:35. Accordingly, as Defendants’ proffered

penological interest does not account for “the entirety of the challenged period,” it is

“premature” for us to assess whether the prison’s actions are unconstitutional under Turner.

Wilcox, 877 F.3d at 169.

Because the pandemic was insufficient, the district court improperly relied on an

additional interest that the Defendants themselves did not present. The court stated that

“Hammock’s pleading reflects that the reason he has not been permitted to attend religious

services is his status as a protective custody inmate.” J.A. 69. To come to this conclusion,

the court relied on information from Hammock’s own pleadings. J.A. 69–70. It pointed to

20

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 21 of 32

a handwritten response on Hammock’s request form to attend Jum’ah, which he had attached

to his Complaint. J.A. 68, see J.A. 24. The response from a prison official stated, Hammock

“can’t be let out to general population because of the protective custody unit.” Id.

The district court’s reliance on this document to show a penological interest was

improper for two reasons. First, and significantly, the district court–—not the

Defendants—identified this additional interest. But caselaw from this Court makes clear

that “it is not the courts’ role to simply invent possible objectives that Defendants have not

even claimed were the basis for their policy.” Wilcox, 877 F.3d at 169; see also Carter,

879 F.3d at 140; Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 200 n.9 (4th Cir. 2006). By inventing and

then evaluating this penological interest, the court improperly relieved the Defendants of

their burden to put forward the interest, which they must do before the district court rather

than at a later stage. See Firewalker-Fields, 58 F.4th at 116.

Second, the district court improperly considered the remark on Hammock’s

document as true. “[I]n cases where the plaintiff attaches or incorporates a document for

purposes other than the truthfulness of the document, it is inappropriate to treat the contents

of that document as true.” Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 167 (4th Cir.

2016). Here, Hammock attached the request form to show that he had submitted a request

to attend Jum’ah services and that it was denied, not that the reason for denial was valid or

true. See J.A. 22–23 (“Hammock put in a 118 form on 3-10-22 which is enclosed and

Hammock was denied . . . . Just because Hammock is on [protective custody] the officials

here and Gail Watts can not ignore, or throw away Hammock[’s] constitutional rights.”).

Because Hammock did not intend for the document to demonstrate the “truthfulness” of

21

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 22 of 32

Defendants’ justification for denying him Jum’ah attendance, the district court cannot treat

it as true at the motion to dismiss stage. See Bell v. Landress, 708 F. App’x 138, 139 (4th

Cir. 2018) (per curiam).

Finally, we note that even if it were proper to rely on the request form, the document

still does not indicate when Hammock was in protective custody other than at the time he

submitted the form and received the response. Defendants contend that based on the

record, “[t]he district court had a sufficient basis to accept that Hammock was in protective

custody for at least some of his period of incarceration.” Resp. Br. at 10 n. 2. But “at least

some” of the time is not enough. This document would thus still not provide a

comprehensive justification for the entirety of the period that Hammock challenged.

Setting aside this improper justification, we are left without a penological interest

to justify denying Hammock’s religious expression before and after the COVID-19

pandemic. And without a penological interest to evaluate, we cannot continue with a

Turner analysis.

3.

As explained above, Defendants have the burden of demonstrating qualified

immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, Henry, 501 F.3d at 378, and their entitlement to

it must appear on the face of the complaint, Brockington, 637 F.3d at 506. Defendants are

not entitled to qualified immunity if Hammock alleged a deprivation of a constitutional

right that was clearly established at the time of Defendants’ alleged conduct. See Pearson,

555 U.S. at 232.

22

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 23 of 32

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment forbids the adoption of laws

designed to suppress religious beliefs or practices. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye,

Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 523 (1993). This includes practices or policies that

“put[] substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.”

Thomas, 450 U.S. at 718. One such belief is Jum’ah, as the Supreme Court has recognized

it as a mandatory weekly Muslim congregational service. See O’Lone, 482 U.S. at 345.

As the Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly recognized, these First

Amendment protections extend to the prison environment. See id. at 348; Morrison v.

Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648, 656 (4th Cir. 2001). A prison regulation or policy that impinges

on a constitutional right is only valid if reasonably related to “legitimate penological

interests.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 89; see also Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 200 “(a prisoner’s free

exercise rights may only be restricted by punitive measures to the extent that these

measures are reasonably adapted to achieving a legitimate penological objective.”)

(cleaned up).

One would be hard-pressed to find a more clearly established constitutional

violation than the one before us here. Denying Hammock the ability to attend Jum’ah

arbitrarily, without any legitimate penological interest, is plainly unconstitutional. In other

words, binding precedent gives “‘fair warning, with sufficient specificity,’ that

[Defendants’] actions would violate the Constitution” if not for a legitimate justification.

Quinn v. Zerkle, 111 F.4th 281, 294 (4th Cir. 2024) (quoting Aleman v. City of Charlotte,

80 F.4th 264, 295 (4th Cir. 2023)). As Defendants have not presented any penological

interest that covers the entire challenged period, and Hammock’s right was clearly

23

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 24 of 32

established, we hold that Defendants have not shown that they are entitled to qualified

immunity at this motion to dismiss stage “before any of the evidence is in.” Thorpe, 37

F.4th at 930.

* * *

Hammock has sufficiently pleaded a free exercise claim under the First

Amendment. Because Defendants have not presented any penological interest to justify

their denial of Jum’ah services outside of the COVID-19 pandemic, they have not satisfied

their burden to defeat this claim at the motion to dismiss stage; additionally, they have not

shown that they are entitled to qualified immunity. We reverse the district court’s dismissal

of Hammock’s First Amendment claim.

C.

Finally, we turn to Hammock’s “Renew[ed] Motion for Representation” filed

below, in which he asked for appointed counsel to “investigate, prepare and get discovery,

and communicate with defendants[’] counsel.” J.A. 53. The district court denied his

motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice because “[a]t this stage, this case has

yet to proceed to discovery or a trial.” J.A. 60, see also J.A. 81, 83. However, on remand,

the parties will engage in discovery on Hammock’s remaining claims.

Accordingly, having found that Hammock has pleaded colorable claims sufficient

to survive a motion to dismiss, and now finding that he lacks the capacity to adequately

present his claims, see Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 162–63 (4th Cir. 1984),

abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296

(1989); J.A. 53 (Hammock’s motion stating that he has “little knowledge of the law” and

24

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 25 of 32

“can not do” discovery, among other aspects of litigation), “upon remand, the district court

should take the necessary steps to appoint counsel” for Hammock, McMillian v. Wake

Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 399 F. App’x 824, 829 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); United States v.

Isley, 877 F.2d 60, 1989 WL 64118, at *1 (4th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (treating an appeal

from the district court’s denial of a motion for appointment of counsel as a motion for

appointment of counsel directed to this Court).

V.

On review, we find that the district court erred in dismissing Hammock’s claims.

Hammock has sufficiently pleaded a claim of deliberate indifference based on his sickness

from rotten and mice-bitten food provided by BCDC. Further, he has also sufficiently

pleaded a claim under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause based on the entirely

unjustified burdens on his constitutionally-protected religious expression.

We also find that at this stage, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on

these claims. These asserted rights are firmly established in the caselaw of this Court and

the Supreme Court. As a result, the district court erred in granting Defendants’ motion to

dismiss Hammock’s claims. We remand this action to the district court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion. The district court’s order is

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

25

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 26 of 32

RUSHING, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree with the majority that the district court erred in dismissing Hammock’s Free

Exercise claim. But I would affirm the district court’s dismissal of his Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendment claims because Hammock has not alleged a serious injury or

substantial risk of such an injury from the conditions of confinement he challenges.

I.

As the majority correctly concludes, 1 Hammock’s complaint fairly alleges that he

“holds a sincere religious belief” and that the Baltimore County Detention Center’s

(BCDC) policy preventing him from attending Jumu’ah services “places a substantial

burden on his ability to practice his religion.” Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F.3d 161, 168 (4th Cir.

2017). The prison then bears the burden to offer a penological justification for the

challenged policy or practice. Id. at 169. Defendants, however, failed to provide the

district court with any penological justification for burdening Hammock’s religious

practice before BCDC implemented COVID-19 restrictions or after those restrictions were

lifted. On appeal, Defendants still have not offered any justifications for those time

1

I also agree with the majority that we have jurisdiction to hear Hammock’s appeal.

And while Hammock did not raise his First, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment claims in

his informal brief, the Defendants at multiple turns have expressly consented to expanding

this appeal to address all the issues ultimately raised in formal briefing. See Joint Supp.

Br. 7–8. In this unusual circumstance, therefore, the majority appropriately considers these

claims at Defendants’ and Hammock’s joint request. Cf. Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d

170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (explaining that, ordinarily, “under Fourth Circuit rules, our

review is limited to issues preserved in that [informal] brief” (citing 4th Cir. R. 34(b));

United States v. Hairston, 754 F.3d 258, 260 & n. 3 (4th Cir. 2014) (finding an argument

forfeited when it was raised in a party’s formal brief but omitted from its informal brief);

Jafari v. Old Dominion Transit Mgmt. Co., 462 Fed. App. 385, 389–390 (4th Cir. 2012)

(same).

26

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 27 of 32

periods. “[I]t is not the courts’ role to simply invent possible objectives that Defendants

have not even claimed were the basis for their policy,” id., and the district court erred in

doing so. Hammock’s Free Exercise claim may proceed.

Unlike the majority, however, upon remanding this claim I would leave to the

district court’s sound discretion the decision whether “exceptional circumstances” exist

warranting appointment of counsel. Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984).

The district court previously denied Hammock’s motions for appointment of counsel

because the case was not destined for discovery or trial. As Hammock’s case moves

forward on remand, the district court can be trusted to fairly consider any renewed motion.

Because that court is better positioned to assess whether the “characteristics of the claim

and the litigant” justify appointing counsel, I would leave this “discretionary” power in its

capable hands. Id.; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

II.

Turning to Hammock’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, I would affirm

the district court’s dismissal. To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,

to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Bing v.

Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 618 (4th Cir. 2020) (“[L]iberal construction does not mean

overlooking the pleading requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”).

Hammock’s factual allegations about the food BCDC provides “have not nudged [his]

27

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 28 of 32

claims” of constitutional deprivation “across the line from conceivable to plausible.”

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

It has long been settled that “only those deprivations denying [an incarcerated

person] ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities’ are sufficiently grave” to form

the basis of a constitutional violation. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (quoting

Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). Accordingly, to state a claim that prison

conditions violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must first allege “a

serious deprivation of a basic human need.” Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1379 (4th

Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Short v. Hartman, 87 F.4th 593, 611

(4th Cir. 2023). This objective “serious deprivation” standard requires pretrial detainees

and prisoners alike to allege “a serious or significant physical or emotional injury resulting

from the challenged conditions,” Strickler, 989 F.2d at 1381, or a substantial risk of such

serious harm resulting from their unwilling exposure to the challenged conditions, see

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33–35 (1993); see also Shakka v. Smith, 71 F.3d 162,

166 (4th Cir. 1995).

Courts regularly apply this objective standard to claims alleging inadequate or

unsafe prison food. In that context, “[i]t is well-established that inmates must be provided

nutritionally adequate food, prepared and served under conditions which do not present an

immediate danger to the health and well being of the inmates who consume it.” Shrader

v. White, 761 F.2d 975, 986 (4th Cir. 1985). But “[t]he fact that the food occasionally

contains foreign objects or sometimes is served cold, while unpleasant, does not amount to

a constitutional deprivation.” LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993)

28

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 29 of 32

(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Balcar v. Smith, No. 17-5159, 2017 WL

3613479, at *2 (6th Cir. July 17, 2017) (“Isolated exposure to foreign bodies in food,

including those of rodents and insects, do not constitute an Eighth Amendment

violation.”). 2 Courts have held that sufficiently serious actual harm from food

contamination or deprivation can support a claim. See, e.g., Brown v. Brock, 632 Fed. App.

744, 746 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that prisoner stated claim where he “bit down on one of

these pieces of metal [in his food] and permanently injured his tooth causing pain and

potential loss of the tooth”); Prude v. Clarke, 675 F.3d 732, 734 (7th Cir. 2012)

(recognizing that the provision “of tainted or otherwise sickening food, with the effect of

causing substantial weight loss, vomiting, stomach pains, and . . . an anal fissure”

supported an Eighth Amendment claim). By contrast, mere “discomfort after eating some

meals” is not enough to state a claim, especially where a prisoner does not seek medical

attention. Shrader, 761 F.2d at 986; cf. Lowery v. Bennett, 492 Fed. App. 405, 411 (4th Cir.

2012) (“The bare allegations that Appellant suffered ‘pain’ are not sufficient to establish

the requisite level of seriousness.”).

2

District courts in this Circuit apply the same standard. See, e.g., Wassil v. Casto,

No. 3:13-06020, 2014 WL 988479, at *4 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 12, 2014) (“Although the line

between ‘chronic’ and ‘occasional’ problems is somewhat ambiguous, the Court does not

believe that Plaintiffs have alleged food service issues sufficient in frequency or severity

to violate the Eighth Amendment. This is because ‘occasional incidents of a foreign object

contained in food, while regrettable, does [sic] not present a question of constitutional

proportion.’” (quoting Lunsford v. Reynolds, 376 F. Supp. 526, 528 (W.D. Va. 1974)); see

id. (collecting cases about food contaminated with rats, bugs, hair, rocks, glass, and metal,

as well as raw or spoiled food).

29

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 30 of 32

Applying this standard, Hammock’s pleadings fall short. His operative complaint

alleges that for “29 months [he] has been receiving cold meals every meal.” J.A. 11. He

also alleges that Defendants “serve rotten apples, and meat with mice bites on them which

[have] gotten Hammock sick” and that he “started losing weight, because he refuse[d] to

eat cold meals, rotten fruit and meat with mice bites on it.” J.A. 11. He claims that he

hasn’t “eaten the BCDC meals for like 29 months,” and instead eats food purchased from

the prison commissary. J.A. 11–12. In two letters to Director Watts, Hammock wrote that

he kept receiving cold meals, “the apples are rotten in the inside or outside, and the meat

for lunch is no good with mice bites or its with wet bread or hard bread.” J.A. 26. He told

Watts that he stopped eating the meals after he “got sick several times in the past.” J.A.

26. In a subsequent supplemental pleading, Hammock reiterated his allegation that he

“keep[s] getting cold meals everyday . . . which he cannot eat,” but he did not mention

rotten apples or mice-bitten meat. J.A. 22. At most, then, Hammock’s pleadings present a

claim that he consumed prison food some unspecified number of times approximately two

years ago, “got sick several times,” and so stopped eating the meals and “started losing

weight.” J.A. 11, 26.

Those averments do not allege a “serious or significant physical or emotional

injury.” Strickler, 989 F.2d at 1381. Without more, Hammock’s assertion that he “got sick

several times” does not allege an illness of constitutional severity. See Hammock 28(j)

Letter, ECF No. 72, at 2 (May 9, 2025) (acknowledging that “Mr. Hammock did not specify

the severity of his illness”). Likewise, the statement that Hammock “started losing weight”

when he stopped eating prison meals and moved to a diet of commissary purchases is

30

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 31 of 32

devoid of factual detail that could support a constitutional claim. The majority excuses

these shortcomings by observing that Hammock need not produce “hard evidence” of

“serious medical and emotional deterioration” at this stage. Maj. Op. 11. That’s true but

incomplete. On a motion to dismiss, we can credit a plaintiff’s representations about his

symptoms and the severity of his illness, but we cannot invent the symptoms and severity

in the first place. Because Hammock has not told us anything specific about his sickness

or weight loss, he has failed to allege a serious physical or emotional injury.

Nor has Hammock adequately pled “a substantial risk of such serious harm resulting

from [his] unwilling exposure to the challenged conditions.” Rish v. Johnson, 131 F.3d

1092, 1096 (4th Cir. 1997). Our Court has held that “the Eighth Amendment provides

protection against conditions that have not resulted in past injury, but are reasonably likely

to cause serious harm in the future.” Shakka, 71 F.3d at 168. Starting with the probability

component of the risk equation, Hammock’s pleadings are unclear about the frequency of

exposure to rotten apples and mice-bitten meat. But his allegations falter again on severity.

If Hammock were to resume eating the meals provided by BCDC, and if BCDC again

served him a rotten apple or mice-bitten meat, the expected harm would be the injury

Hammock alleges he experienced previously: getting “sick.” Because that alleged harm is

insufficient under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the risk of identical harm—no

matter the likelihood—is necessarily insufficient.

In a letter to the Court following oral argument, Hammock argued that “the food

posed a risk of more serious future harm” than what he previously experienced. Hammock

28(j) Letter, ECF No. 72, at 1 (May 9, 2025). As his attorney put it at oral argument, “if

31

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6375 Doc: 76 Filed: 07/23/2025 Pg: 32 of 32

mice have access to this food, [who] knows what else they have access to.” Oral Arg.

39:13–17. But Hammock’s complaint never makes an allegation about more serious future

harm, and caselaw counsels against such speculation, which in Hammock’s telling would

state a constitutional claim every time there’s a mouse in the kitchen. Cf., e.g., Wassil,

2014 WL 988479, at *4 (citing cases).

At bottom, Hammock’s complaint alleges that in some instances BCDC has not

provided fresh and sanitary food. But our inquiry into the sufficiency of his complaint

“‘spring[s] from constitutional requirements and [our] answers . . . must reflect that fact

rather than a court’s idea of how best to operate a detention facility.’” Strickler, 989 F.2d

at 1382 (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 351). Measured against the demanding standards of

the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Hammock’s sparse allegations fail to allege either

a serious injury or a substantial risk of such injury flowing from BCDC’s conduct and so

fail to state a claim. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision

reversing the district court’s dismissal of those claims.

32