United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STAJES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jacob L. Wilson, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma
pauperis. He names as Defendants Sheriff Holloway,
Lieutenant Holt, Dawn Osborne, and Thema Snodgrass.
case is before the Court for preservice screening under the
provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has the
obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of
a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
to the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 1), on January 10,
2018, inmates at the Benton County Detention Center
("BCDC") were served contaminated food. The
contaminated food caused inmates throughout the jail to
become sick. Plaintiff states that the food poisoning came
"from the hands of the kitchen staff." He alleges
that Defendants were negligent in their job performance.
alleges that after lunch on January 10, 2018, he was on
lock-down for a nap. Ten minutes after lock-down, Plaintiff
alleges that he had to run "to the toilet and threw up
and started having explosive [diarrhea] afterwards." He
asserts that he was sick for about a week with diarrhea and
makes no specific allegations against any of the named
Defendants. Plaintiff sues the Defendants in both their
individual and official capacities. As relief, he asks for
compensatory damages and punitive damages.
the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to
service of process being issued. The Court must dismiss a
complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that:
(1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or, (2) seek monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in
law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted if it does not allege "enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). "In evaluating whether a pro
se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a
claim, we hold 'a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded ... to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Jackson
v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual
averments are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief
can be based. Allen v. Purkett, 5 F.3d 1151, 1153
(8th Cir. 1993); see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d
912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). "[A] pro se plaintiff requires
no special legal training to recount the facts surrounding
his alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the
court is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which
relief can be granted." Hall v. Bellmon, 935
F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).
1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation,
under color of law, of a citizen's "rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws" of the United States. In order to state a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege that the
defendant acted under color of state law and that he violated
a right secured by the Constitution. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007,
1009 (8th Cir. 1999). The deprivation must be intentional;
mere negligence will not suffice to state a claim for
deprivation of a constitutional right under § 1983.
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986);
Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986). Job
negligence is insufficient as a matter of law.
for purposes of this screening that Plaintiff is also
asserting that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference
when serving him contaminated food, the Court will review the
Plaintiff's claim under Eighth Amendment standards. The
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits
the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. Const,
amend. VIII. The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the
Eighth Amendment forbids conditions that involve the
"wanton and unnecessary infliction of ...