Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01711/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01711-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1711

___________

Frederick James Davis, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

State of Missouri; St. Louis Clayton *

County; St. Louis County Justice * [UNPUBLISHED]

Services; St. Louis County Justice *

Services Medical Department, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 6, 2010

Filed: August 11, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Frederick James Davis appeals the district court’s preservice

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We grant Davis leave to appeal in forma

pauperis, and we affirm in part and reverse in part. 

We review de novo the dismissal of Davis’s complaint, and we liberally

construe the complaint. See Whitson v. Stone County Jail, 602 F.3d 920, 922 n.1 (8th

Appellate Case: 09-1711 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2010 Entry ID: 3692408
Cir. 2010) (pro se complaint must be liberally construed, and pro se litigants are held

to lesser pleading standard than other parties); Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171

(8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (preservice dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for

failure to state claim is reviewed de novo). 

We agree with the district court that the State of Missouri is not a person for

purposes of section 1983, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64-71

(1989), and that St. Louis County Justice Services and St. Louis County Justice

Services Medical Department are subdivisions of St. Louis County and thus are not

separately suable, see Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir.

1992). We also note that Davis’s request for injunctive relief has been mooted by his

transfer to a Missouri Department of Corrections facility. See Smith v. Hundley, 190

F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir. 1999) (inmate’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief to

improve prison conditions are moot when he is transferred to another facility and is

no longer subject to those conditions). 

We find, however, that the district court erred in dismissing the damages claim

against St. Louis County. Davis alleged that he lost 19 pounds during his 8-month 

stay at the jail because he was denied sufficient food, and that he was always sick and

lacked energy to get out of bed. In our view, these allegations sufficiently state a

claim of denial of adequate food and nutrition. See Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d

446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992) (prisoners have right to nutritionally adequate diet); 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 not frivolous; reversing preservice

dismissal to allow inmate chance to show diet was insufficient to maintain health);

Burgin v. Nix, 899 F.2d 733, 734 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (prisoner has

constitutional right to adequate diet); cf. Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 508 (5th Cir.

1999) (suggesting that inmate claiming inadequate diet under Eighth Amendment

must allege he lost weight or suffered adverse physical effects, or was denied

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-1711 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2010 Entry ID: 3692408
nutritionally or calorically adequate diet). Significantly, Davis alleged that he

complained to the jail about his meals over the 8 months at issue, and we believe that

this sufficiently establishes that the inadequate diet could have been part of a County

policy or custom. See Russell v. Hennepin County, 420 F.3d 841, 846 (8th Cir. 2005)

(municipality may be liable under § 1983 when official municipal policy or custom

caused violation of constitutional rights; by their actions, municipal officials with final

policymaking authority may subject government to § 1983 liability); Burgin, 899 F.2d

at 734 (because control of administrative details of prison remains exclusively in

hands of prison officials, control of diet is within their discretion). 

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the request for injunctive relief and the

claims against the State of Missouri, St. Louis County Justice Services, and St. Louis

County Justice Services Medical Department. We reverse the dismissal of the

damages claim against St. Louis County, and we remand for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. 

______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 09-1711 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/11/2010 Entry ID: 3692408