“[T]he alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KRAIG PAYNE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 25-cv-926-NJR
JB PRITZKER, LATOYA HUGHES,
and JEREMIAH BROWN,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Kraig Payne, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who is
currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Payne’s original
Complaint (Doc. 1) alleging that his food was tainted was dismissed without prejudice
(Doc. 13). Payne was granted leave to file an amended pleading. His amended pleading
was due July 7, 2025 (Id.).
On July 22, 2025, the Court dismissed Payne’s case with prejudice due to his failure
to file an amended pleading by the deadline (Docs. 15, 16). That same date, Payne filed
his Amended Complaint (Doc. 17). Payne dated his Amended Complaint as being filed
on June 13, 2025. Although it is not entirely clear from the pleading when he submitted
the pleading for filing, the Court will consider it timely submitted. Thus, the dismissal
Order (Doc. 15) and Judgment (Doc. 16) are VACATED.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Amended
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to
screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law
is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Amended Complaint
Payne alleges that Defendants attempted to murder him and/or conduct unlawful
human experiments by serving him an organism in his food (Doc. 17, p. 6). He alleges the
Constitution allows him to decline participation in an unlawful experiment without
consent (Id.). He believes that officials at the prison fed him an organism without warning
him, and he does not know what the food contains or from where it originates (Id.). He
wrote grievances that were reviewed by both Warden Jeremiah Brown and Illinois
Department of Corrections Director Latoya Hughes (Id. at pp. 6, 9). Payne alleges that he
has a sample of the larva, and technology could identify the item if he had the resources
to have it tested (Id. at p. 7). He alleges that he is in imminent danger due to his food
being tainted (Id. at p. 8). Payne further believes the tainted food is part of an unlawful
experiment with man-made organisms that depend on an electric magnetic pulse to come
alive in the body (Id. at p. 9). Payne alleges that the larvae is in everything that the inmates
eat, including breakfast cereal and burger meat (Id.). He specifically saw the worm in his
beans and believes that the beans act as a shell of protection (Id. at p. 12). He reported the
worms, but nothing was done (Id. at p. 9). Payne alleges that Governor JB Pritzker is
involved in these activities because Payne wrote him about the conditions, but Pritzker
failed to visit the prison (Id.).
Discussion
Payne’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim. To the extent he alleges claims
of attempted murder, Payne cannot use Section 1983 to criminally charge a person.
A private citizen “has no right to compel a criminal prosecution.” Wimberly v. Julius, 606
F. App’x 309, 311 (7th Cir. 2015), cert. denied 577 U.S. 987 (2015).
Although not entirely clear from his pleadings, Payne may be trying to allege an
Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim for the food he was served. He
alleges that there was some unidentifiable organism in his food, particularly in a serving
of beans (although he also notes possible organisms in his cereal and ground beef). To
establish a conditions of confinement claim, an inmate must establish (1) “a deprivation
that is, from an objective standpoint, sufficiently serious that it results in the denial of the
minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,” and (2) “where prison officials are
deliberately indifferent to this state of affairs.” Gray v. Hardy, 826 F.3d 1000, 1005 (7th Cir.
2016) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). Isolated incidents of food
contamination do not usually rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Morris v.
Buege, No. 23-cv-11-pp, 2023 WL 2465882, at *3-4 (E. D Wisc. Mar. 10, 2023); Jackson v.
Lang, No. 09 C 5123, 2010 WL 3210762, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2010) (one incident of
finding rodent parts in a meal did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation) (citing
George v. King, 837 F.2d 705, 707 (7th Cir. 1988)). But officials can be liable if they are
deliberately indifferent to a known danger with prison food. Green v. Beth, 663 F. App’x
471, 473-74 (7th Cir. 2016). Payne fails to provide enough factual allegations to state a
claim. Although he alleges that he received an organism in his food, he fails to indicate
when this occurred or any of the factual circumstances surrounding the contamination of
his food. He notes that one organism was found in his beans, but he fails to allege when
he received the beans, how they were served, the description of the organism, or whether
he informed any officials at the time he received his food tray. He allegedly attaches the
item to his pleading, but it appears to be a piece of tape with orange stains on it (Doc. 17,
p. 7). He further fails to allege whether he received tainted food on one occasion or if
there have been multiple occasions. He notes that the larvae are also found in breakfast
cereal and burger meat, but he fails to indicate when he received these items.
Further, Payne alleges that Brown and Latoya Hughes failed to act in response to
his grievances. But the mere mishandling or denial of a grievance does not state a claim.
Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he alleged mishandling of [a
prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the
underlying conduct states no claim.”). The defendants must be personally involved in the
constitutional deprivation. Vance v. Rumsfeld, 701 F.3d 193, 203 (7th Cir. 2012). There are
simply no allegations to suggest that any of the defendants were involved in the
preparation of Payne’s food or were aware of issues with organisms in the food. He fails
to allege that he spoke to Brown or Hughes. He alleges that he wrote to Governor Pritzker
but fails to describe any response that he may have received from him. There are simply
no allegations to suggest that these individuals were aware of the issues with his food or
personally involved in its preparation and service.
Thus, Payne once again fails to state a claim. This is Payne’s second attempt to
state a claim in this case, and he has been unable to do so. The Court finds that further
amendment would be futile.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Payne’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to state a claim. The dismissal counts as one of Payne’s three allotted
“strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Payne is further ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action
was incurred at the time the action was filed. Therefore, the filing fee remains due and
payable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
If Payne wishes to appeal this Order, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court
within 30 days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). If Payne does choose
to appeal, he will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome
of the appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d
724, 725-26 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien, 133
F.3d at 467. He must list each of the issues he intends to appeal in the notice of appeal,
and a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must set forth the issues he plans to
present on appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(C). Moreover, if the appeal is found to be
nonmeritorious, Payne may also incur another “strike.” A proper and timely motion filed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll the 30-day appeal deadline.
FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more than 28 days after the
entry of judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be extended.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 25, 2025 7 C2
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge