Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04356/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04356-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4356

___________

Richard Delon Day, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; Larry May, * Appeal from the United States

Deputy Director, Arkansas Department * District Court for the

of Correction; Ray Hobbs, Chief * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Deputy Director, Arkansas Department *

of Correction; M.D. Reed, Warden, * [UNPUBLISHED]

East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; *

R.G. Lay, Warden, ADC; Marvin *

Evans, Warden, ADC; David White, *

Warden ADC; Kim Luckett, Assistant *

Warden, ADC; Mike Huckabee, *

Governor of Arkansas; Arkansas Board *

of Correction, Administrative Agency; *

John Does, 1 (Food Service *

Administrator) and 2 (ADC dietician), *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 30, 2007

 Filed: February 26, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 05-4356 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2007 Entry ID: 3281884
-2-

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Richard Day appeals the district court’s preservice dismissal,

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he claimed

violations of his rights under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Eighth

Amendment. We grant Day leave to proceed in forma pauperis. After de novo

review, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we

affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part. 

Dismissal was proper as to Day’s claim that certain defendants violated his

rights under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. We agree with the district court that

Day merely sought to obtain privileges enjoyed by prisoners in other state and federal

facilities, but that Arkansas, where Day committed his crime, was competent to enact

statutes and policies establishing the prison conditions for inmates who commit crimes

within its borders. Cf. Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U.S. 717, 722 (1988) (Full Faith

and Credit Clause does not compel state to substitute statutes of other states for its

own statutes dealing with subject matter concerning which it is competent to

legislate).

As to Day’s Eighth Amendment claim that he was subjected to unsafe

conditions because he was exposed to snakes and mosquitos, dismissal was also

proper: Day’s allegations were insufficient to demonstrate that any defendant knew

of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Day. See Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 828, 834, 837 (1994) (Eighth Amendment violated where prison

officials are deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to inmate);

Stephens v. Johnson, 83 F.3d 198, 200 (8th Cir. 1996) (mere negligence or

inadvertence is insufficient to constitute deliberate indifference).

We conclude, however, that dismissal was premature with respect to Day’s

allegations that he was served a prison diet that did not provide him adequate

Appellate Case: 05-4356 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2007 Entry ID: 3281884
-3-

nutrition. Day alleged that he was often served meals which did not meet the

standards of a 2,000-calorie diet plan; the food portions were small and the quality of

food was nutritionally inferior; milk was served only at certain units; only 4 ounces

of fruit juice was served and the vegetables were “often rotten” and “sometimes”

contained dirt or other foreign objects; he was served powdered eggs which made him

sick; and food service workers did not always wash their hands before food

preparation, sometimes dripped sweat or purposefully placed other body fluids in the

food, and were not adequately tested for communicable diseases. Day also alleged

that, as a result of the inadequate diet, he had lost weight, was fatigued, and suffered

hunger pangs and mental anguish. At this stage of the litigation, such allegations are

sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. See Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d

446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992) (prisoners have right to nutritionally adequate food); Divers

v. Dep’t of Corr., 921 F.2d 191, 193-94 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (finding inmate’s

allegation of insufficient amounts of cold unappetizing food prepared from restricted

menu and delivered through unsanitary food slots in cell doors not frivolous; reversing

preservice dismissal to allow inmate chance to show diet insufficient to maintain

health); Rust v. Grammar, 858 F.2d 411, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (diet without fruits and

vegetables might violate Eighth Amendment if it were regular prison diet); Martin v.

Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (inmate’s allegations of inadequate diet

stated Eighth Amendment claim); cf. Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 508 (5th Cir.

1999) (suggesting that to state Eighth Amendment claim inmate must allege “he lost

weight or suffered other adverse physical effects or was denied a nutritionally and

calorically adequate diet”).

Accepting the allegations in Day’s complaint as true, Arkansas Department of

Correction defendants Food Service Administrator John Doe #1, dietician John Doe

#2, Deputy Director Larry May, Chief Deputy Director Ray Hobbs, and Wardens

M.D. Reed, R.G. Lay, Marvin Evans, David White, and Kim Luckett were aware that

Day was receiving inadequate nutrition. See Fruit v. Norris, 905 F.2d 1147, 1151 (8th

Cir. 1990) (supervisors can be liable for personal involvement in constitutional

Appellate Case: 05-4356 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/26/2007 Entry ID: 3281884
-4-

violation, and may also be liable when their corrective inaction amounts to deliberate

indifference to or tacit authorization of constitutionally violative practices); Martin,

780 F.2d at 1338 (to survive dismissal, prisoner need not plead more than that warden

was directly involved in decision which created unconstitutional conditions).

Accordingly, we reverse as to Day’s inadequate-nutrition claim against these

defendants. We affirm as to the other claims and the other defendants. We remand

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4356 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/26/2007 Entry ID: 3281884