Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00221/USCOURTS-ared-3_19-cv-00221-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

NORTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN IMMEL,

#660654 PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 3:19-cv-221-KGB-BD

DOYLE RAMEY, et al. DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedures for Filing Objections

This Recommendation for dismissal has been sent to Judge Kristine G. Baker. Any

party may file objections with the Clerk of Court if they disagree with the findings or 

conclusions set out in the Recommendation. To be considered, objections must be filed

within 14 days. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis 

for the objection. 

If parties do not file objections, they risk waiving the right to appeal questions of 

fact. And, if no objections are filed, Judge Baker can adopt this Recommendation without 

independently reviewing the record. 

II. Background

Plaintiff Kevin Immel, an Arkansas Division of Correction inmate, filed this 

lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2) Mr. Immel 

complains that he did not receive nutritionally adequate food while he was held in the 

Poinsett County Detention Center (Detention Center). (Doc. No. 2) Specifically, he 

complains that he was not provided sufficient portions. 

Case 3:19-cv-00221-KGB Document 25 Filed 03/25/20 Page 1 of 5
Defendants Ramey and Rorex (Defendants) have now filed a motion for summary 

judgment. (Doc. No. 19) Mr. Immel has responded. (Doc. No. 23)

III. Standard

Summary judgment means that the court rules in favor of a party without the need 

for a trial. The Defendants are entitled to summary judgment only if the evidence, viewed 

in the light most favorable to Mr. Immel, demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute 

about any fact that is important to the outcome of the case. FED.R.CIV.P. 56; Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322B23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 

242, 246 (1986). If the Defendants come forward with that evidence, Mr. Immel must go 

beyond the pleadings and, by depositions, affidavits, or otherwise, show that there are 

specific facts that must be decided at a trial. Fed. R. Civ. P . 56(e); Mosley v. City of 

Northwoods, 415 F.3d 908, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted) (“The 

nonmoving party may not rest on mere allegations or denials but must demonstrate on the 

record the existence of specific facts which create a genuine issue for trial.”)

IV. Facts

Mr. Immel was held at the Detention Center from July 12, 2019, through

September 14, 2019. (Doc. No. 20-1, p.1) During that time, he filed a number of 

grievances complaining that the food was not up to standards and did not provide him 

with substantial nutrition. (Doc. No. 20-1, pp.7, 9, 10, 11, 19, 29, 34) At no time, 

however, did Mr. Immel submit any grievances complaining about weight loss or make 

any medical requests complaining of any injury related to the meals or lack of food. 

(Doc. No. 20-1, pp. 4-55)

Case 3:19-cv-00221-KGB Document 25 Filed 03/25/20 Page 2 of 5
According to Defendant Rorex, the jail administrator, inmates at the Detention 

Center are served fresh, nutritional food with sufficient calories. (Doc. No. 20-1, p.2) All 

detainees are offered three meals at regular intervals each day, and food is served at the 

proper temperature and in quantities that provide an adequately balanced diet. (Doc. No. 

20-1, p.86) Sedentary inmates receive meals with 2,300 calories a day; active inmates 

receive meals with 2,700 calories a day. (Doc. No. 20-1, p.2) 

The menus for the meals provided at the Detention Center are reviewed once or 

more annually by a registered or certified dietician. (Doc. No. 20-1, p.86) Kyleigh Glass, 

a licensed Arkansas Dietician, reviewed the Detention Center menu for the years 2018

through 2020 and found that the menus were compliant with the guidelines of the 

Arkansas Criminal Detention Facility standards. (Doc. No. 20-1, p.56)

Defendant Rorex testified that Detention Center employees followed the food 

service policy; and dietician-approved menus were served throughout Mr. Immel’s 

detention. (Doc. No. 20-1, p.2)

Mr. Immel responded to the motion for summary judgment, stating that he lost 23 

pounds over the one-month period he was held in the Detention Center. (Doc. No. 23) He 

further alleges that he was taken to Doctor Houchin (not a named Defendant) several 

times while at the Detention Center, and that Dr. Houchin wrote a script requiring the 

Detention Center to double his food intake due to his weight loss. (Doc. No. 23) In one of 

the grievances he filed while at the Detention Center, Mr. Immel wrote that, “Dr. Houhin 

put me on a double tray script.” (Doc. 20-1, p. 40) Defendant Ramey responded that that 

the kitchen had been informed. (Doc. 20-1, p. 40)

Case 3:19-cv-00221-KGB Document 25 Filed 03/25/20 Page 3 of 5
V. Analysis

The failure to provide prisoners with nutritionally adequate meals is an Eighth 

Amendment violation. Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446 (8th Cir.1992). To succeed on 

such a claim, however, a prisoner must show that “the food he was served was 

nutritionally inadequate or prepared in a manner presenting an immediate danger to his 

health, or that his health suffered as a result of the food.” Id.

A. Official Capacity Claims

Mr. Immel’s claims against the Defendants in their official capacities is, in effect, 

a claim against Poinsett County.1 Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993, 997 (8th Cir.2010). 

Local governments are not generally liable under § 1983 for injuries inflicted solely by 

their employees or agents. Monell v. New York Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 

(1978). Rather, a county is liable for the acts of its employee only if the employee 

violates a plaintiff’s rights by carrying out a county policy or custom. Id.; Jenkins v. 

County of Hennepin, Minn., 557 F.3d 628, 632 (8th Cir. 2009). 

Here, Mr. Immel has not come forward with evidence to rebut the Defendants’ 

evidence that Poinsett County’s policy was constitutional. In other words, he has not 

come forward with any evidence to show that Poinsett County had an unconstitutional 

policy or custom that caused him harm.

 1 Mr. Immel has indicated that he is suing the Defendants in their official capacities only. 

(# 2) However, because he is pro se, the Court will construe his complaint as stating 

claims against the Defendants in both their official and individual capacities.

Case 3:19-cv-00221-KGB Document 25 Filed 03/25/20 Page 4 of 5
B. Individual Capacity Claims

The Defendants have offered proof that Mr. Immel was provided nutritionally 

adequate meals while he was held at the Detention Center. Mr. Immel has not offered 

sufficient evidence to refute the Defendants’ proof. See Frevert v. Ford Motor Co., 614 

F.3d 466, 473-74 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that, to avoid summary judgment, “the plaintiff 

must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would permit a 

finding in the plaintiff's favor”). Even assuming Mr. Immel lost 23 pounds in one month

and received a prescription for double food rations, that fact does not demonstrate that he 

was receiving nutritionally inadequate food or that the quantity of food he received was 

the cause of his weight loss. 

In fact, Mr. Immel complained about multiple medical issues while at the 

Detention Center, including pain from wisdom teeth, a cyst that would not heal, pain due 

to some medical issue that he declined to disclose but claimed was serious, and internal 

bleeding. (Doc. No. 20-1, pp. 4-6, 25, 39, 41) There simply is no evidence that the food 

Defendants provided was a proximate cause of his weight loss. 

VI. Conclusion

The Court recommends Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 19) 

be GRANTED and that this lawsuit be DISMISSED, with prejudice.

Dated this 25th day of March, 2020. 

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-00221-KGB Document 25 Filed 03/25/20 Page 5 of 5