Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_20-cv-00124/USCOURTS-ared-3_20-cv-00124-0/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

PLENNEY P. BARKDULL,

#166596 PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 3:20-cv-124 LPR-BD

DOE DEFENDANT

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedure for Filing Objections

This Recommendation for dismissal has been sent to Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. 

Plaintiff Plenney P. Barkdull may file written objections with the Clerk of Court. 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 Mr. Barkdull does not file objections, he risks waiving the right to appeal 

questions of fact. And, if no objections are filed, Judge Rudofsky can adopt this 

Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. 

II. Discussion

Plaintiff Plenney P. Barkdull, a pretrial detainee in the Poinsett County Detention 

Center, filed this civil rights lawsuit without the help of a lawyer. (Doc. Nos. 2) In his 

complaint, Mr. Barkdull alleges that “Mrs. Wonda,” the Detention Center cook, prepared 

soup beans for the evening meal on April 15. Unfortunately, Mrs. Wonda failed to 

discover a rock that had made its way into the pot of beans. Mr. Barkdull unwittingly bit 

down on the rock as he took his third bite of beans and broke a tooth. (Doc. No. 2). For 

Case 3:20-cv-00124-LPR Document 4 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 2
2

purposes of reviewing the complaint, the Court will assume Mr. Barkdull’s allegations 

are true. 

The Court sympathizes with Mr. Barkdull’s situation and has no reason to doubt 

that the broken tooth has caused pain. Even so, there is nothing to indicate that Mrs. 

Wonda’s failure to notice the rock was anything other than a mistake. Negligence – even 

gross negligence—is not enough to hold a defendant liable in a civil rights case such as 

this. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994) (negligent conduct cannot support

a § 1983 cause of action); see also, Whitney v. Morse, 2016 WL 908268, *8-9 (W.D. Ark. 

2016) (no constitutional violation when inmate twice found foreign objects in food); and

Danneman v. Schoemehl, 601 F. Supp. 1017, 1018 (E.D. Mo. 1985) (isolated instance of 

insects in a prisoner’s food did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation). As 

regrettable as the incident was, it was not a constitutional violation.

III. Conclusion

The Court recommends that Mr. Barkdull’s claims be DISMISSED, without 

prejudice. This dismissal should count as a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 29th day of April, 2020.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-00124-LPR Document 4 Filed 04/29/20 Page 2 of 2