Seventh Circuit Reinstates Claim That Jail Food Violated 8th Amendment

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed in part a district court
dismissal of claims that being fed nutriloaf in a county jail subjected an inmate
to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
Prude v. Clarke, No. 11-2811 (7th Cir., decided March 27, 2012). The plaintiff
was apparently serving time in a state prison facility but was transferred to and
stayed in a county jail on several occasions during court proceedings on his
post-conviction petition. He was fed only “nutriloaf,” “a bad-tasting food given
to prisoners as a form of punishment” and, during his third stay at the county
facility began vomiting and experiencing stomach pains and constipation. He
ultimately lost 8.3 percent of his weight.

According to the court, “[t]he defendants’ response to his suit has been contumacious, and we are surprised that the district judge did not impose sanctions. The defendants ignored the plaintiff’s discovery demands, ignored the judge’s order that they comply with those demands, and continued their defiance even after the judge threatened to impose sanctions. But the judge failed to carry through on his threat, so the threat proved empty.” The court also noted that the defendants failed to file a brief in the appeals court “and failed to respond to our order to show cause why they hadn’t filed a brief. They seem to think that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over a county jail.”

Discounting a “preposterous affidavit from a sheriff’s officer,” who stated that “Nutriloaf has been determined to be a nutritious substance for regular meals,” the court determined that the uncontradicted evidence was sufficient to support the plaintiff’s first claim. In this regard, the court stated, “Deliberate withholding of nutritious food or substitution of tainted or otherwise sickening food, with the effect of causing substantial weight loss, vomiting, stomach pains, and maybe an anal fissure, or other severe hardship, would violate the Eighth Amendment.” While acknowledging that not all nutriloaf is unhealthful, the court observed that the defendants’ failure to comply with the plaintiff’s discovery demands left the court without information about the recipe for the nutriloaf served to the plaintiff, “or whether the ingredients were tainted or otherwise unhealthful.”

Allowing this claim to proceed, the court suggested that the lower court request that a lawyer assist the plaintiff in litigating the matter and “also consider imposing sanctions on the defendants.” The court further ordered the defendants to show cause within 14 days why they “should not be sanctioned for contumacious conduct in this court. If they ignore this order to show cause like the last one, they will find themselves in deep trouble.”