Holland v. IN State of et al, No. 3:2020cv00899 - Document 10 (N.D. Ind. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and DIRECTS the clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Damon R Leichty on 4/23/21. (Copy mailed to pro se party). (nal)

Download PDF
Holland v. IN State of et al Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION JHARON HOLLAND, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. 3:20-CV-899 DRL-MGG IN STATE OF et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Jharon Holland, a prisoner without a lawyer, sues the Indiana Attorney General and Indiana Correctional Industries after he allegedly got sick from eating outdated and spoiled food that he purchased at the prison commissary. A filing by an unrepresented party “is 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) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court still must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. Mr. Holland alleges that on October 19, 2020, he ate donut sticks that he purchased from the prison commissary. He contends that the package had a 2018 expiration date and the contents inside were spoiled. Nevertheless, he assumed that the contents would be safe to consume since the commissary sold them. Unfortunately, he says that he Dockets.Justia.com suffered stomach pains, vomiting, and diarrhea for more than twenty-four hours. He seeks to hold defendants responsible for allowing the commissary to sell unsafe food. The Eighth Amendment protects inmates from prison officials’ “deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm.” Balsewicz v. Pawlyk, 963 F.3d 650, 654 (7th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omitted). It does not constitutionalize tort law. See Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 128 (1992) (“[W]e have previously rejected claims that the Due Process Clause should be interpreted to impose federal duties that are analogous to those traditionally imposed by state tort law.”). “Conditions of confinement must be severe to support an Eighth Amendment claim; ‘the prison officials’ act or omission must result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Morissette v. Peters, 45 F.3d 1119, 1123 (7th Cir. 1995) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1970)). “An objectively sufficiently serious risk is one that society considers so grave that to expose any unwilling individual to it would offend contemporary standards of decency.” Christopher v. Buss, 384 F.3d 879, 882 (7th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The allegations here do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. People in and out of prison face the risk of purchasing outdated food on occasion. “[N]ot every deviation from ideally safe conditions constitutes a violation of the constitution.” French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1257 (7th Cir. 1985) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Contemporary standards of decency do not require that prisoners be protected from this type of risk. 2 “The usual standard in civil cases is to allow defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where amendment would not be futile.” Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir. 2018). Here, however, there are no additional facts that would state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, it would be futile to permit Mr. Holland to amend. For these reasons, the court: (1) DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; and (2) DIRECTS the clerk to close this case. SO ORDERED. April 23, 2021 s/ Damon R. Leichty Judge, United States District Court 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.