Civil Rights — cruel and unusual punishment

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Rights — cruel and unusual punishment

Where jail officials fed a prisoner only nutriloaf, even though it made him vomit and caused anal fissures, dismissal of the prisoner’s cruel and unusual punishment claim is reversed.

“Complaints filed by unrepresented prisoners are supposed to be construed liberally. E.g., McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam); Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 969 (7th Cir. 2006); Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2010). There are intimations in the record that jail officials—who may have included one or more of the named defendants—were aware of the plaintiff’s plight, and it is apparent that nothing was done to replace the nutriloaf diet that was sickening him, though he was able somehow to obtain bread. The record contains statements that he had ‘tried to solve this problem by speaking with a [correctional officer],’ that after a second incident of vomiting he ‘told officers again,’ that he was ‘taken to the clinical office to be seen by a nurse’ (presumably guards took him there), that other inmates were vomiting their nutriloaf meals (which must have been observed by correctional officers), and that he had written the sheriff informing him about their vomiting. Adult vomiting other than because of illness or drunkenness is rare—healthy, sober adults do not vomit a meal just because it doesn’t taste good—and if the plaintiff is being truthful there was a veritable epidemic of vomiting during his stay. ‘A risk can be so obvious that a jury may reasonably infer actual knowledge on the part of the defendants.’ Hall v. Bennett, 379 F.3d 462, 464 (7th Cir. 2004); see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842-43 (1994). The defendants have submitted no contrary evidence, once the inadmissible affidavit from the assistant fire chief is ruled out. It is a possible though certainly not an inevitable inference from the record (and from the defendants’ contumacy) that jail officials were aware that the nutriloaf being fed the prisoners when the plaintiff was there was sickening him yet decided to do nothing about it. That would be deliberate indifference to a serious health problem and thus state an Eighth Amendment claim.”

Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part.

11-2811 Prude v. Clarke

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stadtmueller, J., Posner, J.