Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Whitney v. Morse

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division

November 19, 2014

JAMES E. WHITNEY, PLAINTIFF
v.
SERGEANT MORSE; SERGEANT WHITTINGTON; NURSE RHONDA BRADLEY; CORPORAL FOSTER; CORPORAL MULVANEY; DEPUTY WEISS BROCK; DEPUTY WORKMAN; DEPUTY McNALLY; SHERIFF TIM HELDER; DETECTIVE Y. SCHROCK; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES LLC; and DEPUTY SHEPHERD, DEFENDANTS

James E. Whitney, Plaintiff, Pro se, Fayetteville, AR.

For Sergeant Morse, Sergeant Whittington, Nurse Rhonda Bradley, Corporal Foster, Corporal Mulvaney, Deputy Weiss Brock, Deputy Workman, Deputy McNally, Sheriff Tim Helder, Detective Y. Schrock, Deputy Shepherd, Defendants: Jason E. Owens, LEAD ATTORNEY, Rainwater, Holt & Sexton, P.A., Little Rock, AR.

For Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Defendant: Alexander Cale Block, LEAD ATTORNEY, Barber Law Firm, Little Rock, AR.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

HON. ERIN L. SETSER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis .

At the time he filed this action, Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center (WCDC). The case is before me on the motion to dismiss (Doc. 25) filed by the Separate Defendant Aramark Correctional Services, LLC. Plaintiff filed a response (Doc. 31) and Aramark filed a reply (Doc. 35). The motion is ready for decision.

1. Background

While he was incarcerated at the WCDC, the Plaintiff contends his constitutional rights were violated in a number of ways. Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) and Addendum (Doc. 8). However, only his claims against Separate Defendant Aramark are at issue in this motion. Plaintiff alleges that Aramark has contracted with Washington County to provide food service for the inmates. He asserts that Aramark has failed to provide him with a balanced and nutritious diet within his dietary restrictions. In this regard, Plaintiff alleges he is a Type II diabetic and is also allergic to gluten. Further, he states his diet basically consists of beans, potatoes, rice, and oranges. Plaintiff alleges that he has been told by deputies that he must accept his tray as presented or face disciplinary action. He indicates he now accepts the meals and either goes without or eats items he is not supposed to have because of his medical conditions. He alleges he has lost an excessive amount of weight.

Plaintiff also maintains that his food was tampered with on several occasions. On one occasion, he alleges he bit into a piece of wood approximately 1 centimeter in diameter and 2 centimeters long. On another occasion, he alleges his hard boiled egg was smashed resulting in pieces of egg shell being driven into the yolk and into the other food on his tray, rendering it unsuitable for human consumption.

2. Applicable Standard

Rule 8(a) contains the general pleading rules and requires a complaint to present " a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). " In order to meet this standard, and survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), 'a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009)(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)).

" The plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to show at the pleading stage that success on the merits is more than a 'sheer possibility.'" Braden, 588 F.3d at 594 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). The standard does " not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation, " or reasonable inference, that the " defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.