## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 11

- 2811 T ERRANCE P RUDE , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. D AVI D A. C LA R KE, J R ., e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 2:1 0-cv-00 16 7-JPS

—J. P. S tadtmuel ler , Judge

.
S UB MI TT ED M AR CH 7, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 27, 2012

Befo re P OSNER, W OO D , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Th e plaintiffi n th is prisoner’s ci vi l r i g ht s su i t br o ug ht unde r 42 U. S

. C. § 1 98 3 co m pl ai ns th athe was s ubj ec te d t o c r ue l a nd un us ual puni sh m en t by perso nnel o fthe M ilw au kee County J ai l

. ( H e has a se co nd, l es s su bs ta nt ial c la i m tha t we di sc us s atthe e nd of th e op inion.) H e ap p eals from the gran t of su m m ary j ud gm en t to the four d efend an ts, w ho are th e Sheriff2 N o. 11

- 2811 of M il w au kee C ou nt y, tw o C o u nt y I ns p ectors w ho w ork a tthe j a i l, a nd a g ua r d. The pla i nti f fi s s er vi ng ti m e i n a W isc on sin state pri son, but w as tr ansferre d to the c ounty j ai l o n sev er al occa si ons to enabl e hi m to at te n d court proce edi ngs r el a t i ngt o a p o s t c o nv i c t i o n pe t i t i o n t ha th e h a d fi l e d. On the s ec o nd a nd thi r d s ta y s, whi chl aste d a wee ka nd 10 d ay s re sp ec tiv ely , th e jail fed h i m o n l y “ n u tr iloa f,” pu rs uant to a new poli cy the j ai l had adopted of m ak i ngnut r i l o afthe e xc l us i ve di eto f pr i so ne r s who h ad be en in s eg r e g a tio n in p ris on atth e t im e o f th eir tr ansferto the j ai l, ev en i fthei r behavi ori n th e j ai l was e xe mpl a r y . Nut r i l o a f( a l s o s pe l l e d “ nu t r a l o a f ” ) i s a b a dta s t i n gf o o d g i v e n t o p r i s o n e r s a s a f o r m o fp u n i s hm en t (i t is coll oqu ial ly kn ow n as “p ris o n l o af” or “discip li na ry l oaf”)

. S ee, e. g. , J effRuby, “Din in g Cri ti c Tri es N utra
loaf, the Pri son Foo d fo r M i sbehav i ng I nm ate s, ” Chic ago M agazi ne, S ept. 20 10, ww w . ch icag om ag. com /Chi cago M agaz ine/Sep tem ber-2010 /Dining -Critic-Tries-N ut raloafth e- Pr i so n- F o o d- f o r - M i sb eh av i ng -I nm at es ; Ari n Gr ee nw oo d, “T as te -T es tin g N u tr alo af : The Pri son Loaf That J ust M i ght Be U nconsti tuti onal l y Bad, ” S la te, J un e 2 4 , 2 0 0 8 , www. s l a t e . c o m/ a r t i c l e s / ne ws

_ a nd

_ p olit ics /jur is p r u d e n c e/20 08 /0 6/ ta st et es tin g_n u tr alo af.h tm l; M atthew Purdy, “Our Towns: W hat’ s W or se Than So l i tar y Confi nem ent? J ust Tast e Thi s, ” N .Y . Tim es , A ug. 4, 2002 , ww w . nyti m es. com /2 002/ 08/ 04/nyre gi on/ our- townsw hat- s - wo r s e - t ha n- s ol i tar y- conf i nem ent- j ust- tas teth is. ht m l (al l visited M arch 15, 2012 ).N o. 11

- 2811 3 On his thi rd st ay, aftertwo days on t h e nutr i l oafdi et, th e pl ai nt i f fb eg anv o m i tinghi s m ea l s an d e xpe riencing sto m ach pai ns and cons ti pati on . ( H e had vo m i ted dur i ngthe s ec o nd st ay as wel l

. ) He s to pped ea ting nutri l oafand subsi ste d fo r the e i ght r em ai ni ng da ys of hi s s tay o n br ead and w ate r ( i t’ s uncl earhow he obta in ed th e b re ad ). H e h ad w eig h ed 1 6 8 p ou n d s b efo re h is secon d and third stays at th e ja il, had l ost either 5 or 6 p o u n d s d u r i n g t h e s e c o n d s t a y , h a d n o t r e g a i n e d t h e m, and by the end of the thi rd st ay w as dow n to 15 4 pounds: he ha d l o st8
. 3 per ce nto fhi s wei g ht a s a r es ul t o fthe tw o stays (and he h ad not bee n ove rw eight at 168 ). A gua r d s en t hi m t o the i nfi rm ar y a fte r o ne o fthe vom i ti ng i nci dents duri ng h i s thi rd st ay, and the nurses th er e gave hi m a nt ac i ds an d a s to o l s o fte ne r a nd o ne of t he m t o l d hi m h i s we i g ht l o s s wa s “ a l a r mi ng . ” Up on hi s retu r n t o s ta te pr i so n h e co nt i nue d e xpe r i en ci ng p ain ful defe cati on a nd bl oo dy sto ol s, and he was di agn os ed with a n analfi ssur e that the defendants have n ot d en ied h ad d ev elo p ed w h ile h e w as in t h e c ou n ty j ail. The d efe n dants’ r esponse to hi s s uithas been contum aci ous, and w e a re surpri sed that the dist ri ct j ud ge did not i m po se sa nc ti o ns . The de f en dan ts i g no r ed th e pl ai nti f f’ s di sco ver y dem an d s, i gnor ed the j ud ge’ s o rderthat th ey co m p l y w ith th os e d em an d s, an d co n tin u ed th eir d efia n ce e ven a fterthe j ud ge thre ate ned to i m pose sanctio n s. B u t th e jud ge failed to ca rry th ro u gh on h is thre at, so the thre at prove d em pty. T h e o n ly ev id en c e th e d efe n d an ts su b m itt ed in supp or t o fthei r m otion f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent was a4 N o. 11

- 2811 p re p os te ro u s a ffid av it fr o m a sh er iff’s o ffice r w h o is al so an ass i sta nt chi ef of a suburban W i sco nsi n fi re d epartm ent. Th e affid avi t s tat es onl y, so f aras bea rs o n the a pp eal, that“N utra l oafhas b ee n deter m i ned to be a nutri ti ous s ubstance f orr egul arm eal s. ” The defen d an ts ma d e n o e f f o r tt o qu a l i fy h i m a s a n e x p e r twi t n e s s . As a la y w i tness , he was notautho ri zed to o f f erhear say evid en ce (“ha s been de term ined to be .

. . nu triti ou s”). N o evi dence w as prese nted conce rni ng the re ci pe f or o r i ng r edi en ts o fthe nut r i l o aftha t was s er ve d a t the cou nt y j aildu ring the p laint i ff’ s soj ou rns th ere. “N ut ril oaf” i sn’ t a pro pri eta ryf oo d l i ke H ost ess Tw i nki es but, l i ke “m eat l oaf” o r “bee fst ew , ” a te rm f ora com posi te food the r eci pe ofwh i ch can v ar y fro m i nsti tuti on t o i ns ti tu ti o n, o r ev enfr o m da y t o da y wi th i n a n i ns ti tu
ti on; nutri l oafco uld m eetr equire m ents f orcal or i es an d p rotein one d ay yet be poisonou s th e n e x t i f, f o r e xa mpl e , ma de fr o m le ft o v e r s tha th a d s po i l e d. The r ec i pe was a m o ngth e i te m s o fi nf o r m at i o n tha t th e pla i nti f fso ught i n dis cove ryand that the defendants re fused to pro du ce. E ven an affi d avit from an ex p ert stating after a d eta i l ed chem i cal anal ysi s that “nutri l oaf m eet s all di et ar y r equi r ement s” woul d b e w o r th l es s unl es s th e expert knew a nd sta ted that nutri l oaf i nvar i ably w as m a d e the sam e w ay in the i ns titution
. Th e assistan t fi re ch i ef’ s affi dav i t sa y s no suchthi ng

— and he w as not an expert
. I n a ddi ti o n t o s to ne wal li ng the pl ai nt i f fa nd the d ist ric t jud ge , th e d e f e n d a n ts failed to file a b rie f in t h isN o. 11

- 2811 5

cour t a nd f ai l ed to r espon d t o our or der t o show cause w hy they hadn ’ t fi l ed a bri ef

. They see m to th in k t h at th e fe d er al c ou rt s h av e n o jur isd ict ion ov er a c ou n ty j ail. Del ibe r at e wi thho l di ngo fnut rit i o us f o o d o r s ubs ti tu
ti o n oftai nt ed o r o th er wi se s i ck en i ngf o o d, wi ththe eff ect ofcausi ng subs tanti alweight l oss , vo m i ti ng, s t o ma c h p a i n s , a n d ma yb e a n a n a l fi s s u r e ( wh i c h i s no fun at all, see htt p : //en.w iki p ed ia. org/w iki/A na l_fissure (vis ite d M ar c h 1 5, 20 12 )), o r ot h er se ve re h ar d sh ip , w ou ld vi o l a t e th e E igh th A m en d m en t. Se e, e.g ., H utto v. Fin ney, 43 7 U .S. 67 8, 68 7 (1 97 8); Atki ns v. C ity of Chi cago , 63 1 F.3 d 82 3, 83 0 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ); Sa nv ille v. M cC a ug htry , 26 6 F .3d 72 4, 73 4 (7 th C ir. 20 01 ); Si m m o ns v. Cook, 15 4 F.3 d 80 5, 80 8 (8 th C ir. 19 98 ). N ot t h at all n u tr iloa f is un h e a l t h fu l, th o u g h a l l i s r e p u t e d t o h a v e a n u n p l ea sa nt tas te. But w e do not know the r eci pe f orthe nutri l oaf t ha twa s s e r v e d the p l a i nt i f f, o r wh e t he r the i ng r e di e nt s we r e t a i n t e d o r o t h e r wi s e u n h e a l t h fu l, b e c a u s e o ft he defe nd ants’ f ai l ure to com plywith the pl ai n ti f f’ s di scove rydem ands. The defendants deci ded to defy r ather than to defend. The uncontr adic ted ev i dence i s that o th erpr i so ne r s in t he j ai l a l so v o m i te d a fte r e at i ngthe nutri l oaf, and thi s s ugges ts that i t was i nd eed i nedibl e. T he only poss ibl e j us tification for the d istri ct cou rt’s rej ecti on o fthe pla i nti f f’ s Ei ghth Am endm en t cl ai m , at thi s e ar l y s tag e o fthe l i ti gat i on, i s that he m ay not h av e s u ed th e rig h t d efe n d an ts , sin c e h e c an p re va il ag a i n s ta d e f e n d a n to n l y b y p r o v i n gth a tth e d e f e n d an t w as d eliberat ely i nd ifferent to h is health. Th e gua rd who se nthi m t o the i nfi r m ar y k ne w he had vo m i te d, b ut6 N o. 11

- 2811 th e g u ar d se n t h im for m e d ica l at te n tio n an d th er e is n o su gg es tio n th at h e w as re sp on sib le for th e c o m p os itio n of th e n u tr iloa fo r h ad an y re as on to su sp ec t it s ill eff ects unti l the pla i nti f fgo t sic k. The nurses m ay have r ea l i ze d tha t th e pl ai nt i f fwoul d s uff ers er i o us l y i fhe w er en ’t g ive n a d iffer en t d iet, a n d m ay b e t h ey sh ou ld have done so m ethi ng o therthan j u st t reat hi s s ym ptom s, but th ey ar e no t defen dan ts
. W e do n’ t k no w the p recise role th at an y of th e four d efend an ts— th e s he riff, w ho ru n s t h e jail, the tw o i ns p ectors, and the j ailguard ( whet he r h e wa s th e g u a r d wh o s e n tth e p l a i n t i f ft o the i n fi r ma r y o r s o me o t h e r g u a r d i s ano t h e r th i n gwe d o n ’ tk n o w)

— p l a y e d i n ma k i n gth e p l a i n t i f fsi c k

. He fi l ed a g ri evance with the j ai l, a lthough afterhi s l ast soj ourn ther e, wh en he w as backi n sta te pri son wi t h i t s a d e q u a t e d i e t
. T h e g r i e v a n c e s t a t e s t h a tt he defe nd ant i nspector s had autho ri zed the nutri l oaff or th e pr i so ne r s i n the pa rt ofthe j ai l i n whi chthe pl aint i f f was ho us ed an d th at th ey ’ d do ne this pur su an t to p oli cy esta bli sh ed by the de fend an t she riff. Com pl a i nt s fi l e d b y u nr e pr e s e nt e d p r i s o ne r s a r e s up p os ed to be co n st ru ed libe ra lly. E .g., M c N eil v. U nited St at e s, 50 8 U .S. 10 6, 11 3 (1 99 3); H a ines v . Kern er, 40 4 U .S

. 5 19 , 520 (19 72 ) (p er cu ria m ); M ars hal l v. Knight, 44 5 F.3 d 96 5, 96 9 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); Ch a vis v. Chappi us , 61 8 F

. 3d 16 2, 1 70

- 71 ( 2d C ir
. 2 01 0)

. The r e ar e i nt i m at i o ns i n the re c or d th at j ail offic ials

— who m ayha ve i nc l ude d o ne or m or e o fthe nam ed defe nd ants

— we r e a wa r e o fthe pla i nti f f’ s pligh t, and i t i s a pp ar ent that no thi ng was do ne to re pl ac e th e nut r i l o afdi ettha t was s i ck en i ng hi m , th o u g h h e wa s ab l e s o me h o w t o o b t a i n b r e a d

. T heN o. 11

- 2811 7

re cor d contai ns st ate m ents thathe ha d “tr i ed to so l ve th i s probl em by speak i ng with a [ cor re cti onalo f fi cer ],” th at after a secon d in c id e nt of vom iting he “told officers aga i n, ” that he w as “tak en to th e c lin i calo f fi ce t o be seen by a nu rse” (p resu m ably gua rd s took him there), th at ot h er inm at es w er e vo m itin g t h eir n u tr iloa f m ea ls (w hich m us t h ave been observed by correctiona l officers), an d th a t h e h ad w rit te n th e s h er iff info rm in g h im about t hei r vom i ti ng. A du l t v om i ti ng o therthan bec au se of i ll ne ss o r dru nk en ne ss is r are

— heal thy, so ber adults do notvo m i t a m ealj ust be cau se it d oes n’tta ste goo d

— and i f t h e pla i nti f fi s be i ng tr uthfulther e was a ver i tabl e epi dem i c of vom i ti ng du ri ng hi s sta y. “A ri sk can be so o bvi ous that a j ury m ay re aso nabl y i nfe r actualkno w l edge o n the part ofthe defe nd ants. ” H a ll v. B enne tt, 379 F. 3d 462, 464 ( 7th Cir

. 2004 ) ; se e Far m e rv. Bre nna n , 51 1 U .S. 825, 84 2- 43 ( 1994 )

. The defendants have subm itted no co ntra ryev i dence, o nce the i nadm i ssib le a ffid av it fro m th e as sis ta n t fire ch ief is ru led ou t. It i s a po ss ibl e th o ug h c er ta i nl y no t an i ne vi tabl e i nf er en ce fr o m the r ec o r d ( an d fr o m the de f en dan ts’ c o nt um acy) thatj ai l o f fi ci al s were aw ar e that the nutr i l oaf being f e d t h e prison ers w he n th e plaintiffw as th ere w as si ckeni ng hi m ye t deci de d t o do nothi ng ab out i t. That w oul d be del iber ate i nd i f f er ence to a s er i ous he al th p r o b l e m a n d th u s s t a t e a n E i g h t h A me n d me n tc l a i m. The di smi ss alo fthe s ui t was pr ematur e. S i nc e th e pla i nti f f has departed f ro m the county j ai l an d th e case i nvol ves m edi cali ssues , we sugge st thatthe dist ri ct c ou rtreq u es t a law ye r to as sis t h im in li t i g a t i n g h is8 N o. 11

- 2811 cl ai m . The co urt shoul d al so consi der i m posi ng sa ncti ons on the defendants. T h e p lain tiff’s ot h er cla im is th at th e d efe n d an t jail gu ard offered h im a sand w ich (and not of nu tril oaf, either) i fhe woul d spy on othe r pri son er s, and that he had refused

. Bribing p risoners in a non fede ral j ailto i nform on o therpri sone rs does notvi ol ate any fed er all aw o f w hich w e’re aw are. T he f ail ure to gi ve th e plaintiff the s andw i ch co uld notbe thought cru el an d unu sual p u n ish m en t fo r h i s re fu sin g t o t ak e t h e b rib e, for it m ade hi m no w or se offthan he would have bee n had no br ibe b een o f f er ed

— stuckwi tha nutr i l o afdi et
. The secon d cla im ad d s noth ing to the first, so w e affirm i ts r ej ec ti o n. The j ud gm ent i s a f fi rm ed i n part, r eve rs ed i n part, and rem anded

. W e o rderthe defe nd ants to show cause w i t hi n 1 4 da y s o f t he da t e o f t hi s o r de r why they sh ou ld n ot be sa n c tio n ed for c o n tu m ac iou s c on d u c t in th i s c o ur t
. I f t he y i g no r e t hi s o r de r t o s ho w c a use l i ke the l asto ne, theywil l fi nd them sel ves i n deep tr oubl e.

3- 27- 12