United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Dustin Middendorf, an inmate in Sheridan Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks
damages. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(a) Screening - The court shall review,
before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as
practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal - On review, the
court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable
person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209
F.3d 1025, 1026- 27 (7th Cir. 2000). An action fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of
entitlement to relief must cross “the line between
possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At
this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
originally brought the claims present in this action in Case
No. 17-538, filed on May 22, 2017. The Court severed the case
on August 25, 2017. (Doc. 1). As relevant to the claims
present in this action, Plaintiff alleges that he has been
served low quality and unsanitary food of inadequate
nutritional value provided by Aramark. (Doc. 2, p. 9).
Plaintiff was never served fruit. Id. McLaurn
approved of the diet. Id.
Court's prior order served Count 5 into this case, which
it described as follows:
Count 5 - Superintendent McLaurin approved
of the nutritionally inadequate diet Aramark offered inmates
at the Jail in 2016-17 in violation of Plaintiff's
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated in the Illinois
Department of Corrections, his Complaint indicates that he
was a pre-trial detainee at the time of the relevant events.
(Doc. 2, p. 8). While the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel
and unusual punishment meted out against those convicted of
crimes, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
prohibits any punishment against a pretrial
detainee. Smith v. Dart, 803 F.3d 304, 309 (7th Cir.
2015); Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1427 (7th
Cir. 19960 (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,
535 n. 16 (1979)). A condition of confinement imposed on a
pre-trial detainee satisfies the Constitution when it is
reasonably related to a legitimate and non-punitive
governmental goal. Antonelli, 81 F.3d. at
1427-28. However, there is little practicable difference
between the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment standards, and it
is not err to apply the standards interchangeably.
Smith, 803 F.3d at 310.
Plaintiff's Count 5, correctional
officials are obligated to provide “nutritionally
adequate food that is prepared and served under conditions
which do not present an immediate danger to the health and
well-being of the inmates who consume it.” French
v. Owens,777 F.2d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir. 1985), cert.
denied,479 U.S. 817, (1986) (quoting Ramos v.
Lamm,639 F.2d 559, 571 (10th Cir. 1980), cert.
denied,450 U.S. 1041 ...