UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JAMES HENLEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-095 RM

v. )

)

ARAMARK CORP., and )

CORIZON MEDICAL CORP. )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

James Henley, a pro se prisoner, fileda complaint alleging that the defendants caused

him to have hypo-thyroidism by serving him food with a high soy content. “A document

filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, howeverinartfully pleaded,

must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

Nevertheless, the court must review prisoner complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Though “the safety of soy is a topic of current debate and study and has been for

some time[, t]hat is not enough to find an Eighth Amendment violation.” Harris v. Brown,

3:07-CV-3225, 2014 WL 4948229, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137870 (C.D. Ill. September 30, 2014)

(collecting studies and expert opinions). 

Conditions of confinement must be severe to support an Eighth Amendment

claim; “the prison officials’ act or omission must result in the denial of ‘the

minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Farmer [v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 834 (1994)] (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). See

also, Lunsford v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1574, 1579 (7th Cir. 1994) (the Eighth

Amendment only protects prisoners from conditions that “exceed
contemporary bounds of decency of a mature, civilized society.”); Jackson [v.

Duckworth,] 955 F.2d [21,] 22 [(7th Cir. 1992)].

Morissette v. Peters, 45 F.3d 1119, 1123 (7th Cir. 1995) (parallel citations omitted). “An

objectively sufficiently serious risk is one that society considers so grave that to expose any

unwilling individual to it would offend contemporary standards of decency.” Christopher

v. Buss, 384 F.3d 879, 882 (7th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “[N]ot

every deviation from ideally safe conditions constitutes a violation of the constitution.”

French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1257 (7th Cir. 1985) (quotation marks and citation

omitted.) 

Mr. Henley’s soy claim is similar to arguments raised more than 25 years ago

alleging that smoking in prison constituted an Eighth Amendment violation. In that case,

the Seventh Circuit explained that:

Secondary tobacco smoke is common in offices, restaurants, and other public

places throughout the United States and the rest of the world. No one

supposes that restaurateurs who allow smoking are subjecting their other

patrons to “punishment”, or desire to harm them. The guards and

administrators who breathe smoky air in the prison are not punishing

themselves. No one would suppose, either, that the gentlemen tobacco

farmers who wrote and adopted the eighth amendment could have

conceived of smoke as punishment. Evidence since 1791 presents tobacco in

a different light, but debate persists about how severe the effects of

secondary smoke may be.

Steading v. Thompson, 941 F.2d 498, 500 (7th Cir. 1991). 

Today, foods containing soy are widely consumed and federal regulations permit

food labels to advertise the health benefits of consuming food containing soy. See 20 C.F.R.

§ 101.82. As such, there is no general consensus that soy poses a health hazard, much less

2
an unreasonable one. Nevertheless, to the extent that soy products pose a health risk, it is

a risk voluntarily taken by millions of Americans every day. Thus, like slippery floors,

exposing inmates to such risks does not state an Eighth Amendment violation. See 

Reynolds v. Powell, 370 F.3d 1028, 1031 (10th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases) (“[W]hile the

standing-water problem was a potentially hazardous condition, slippery floors constitute

a daily risk faced by members of the public at large. Federal courts from other circuits have

therefore consistently held that slippery prison floors do not violate the Eighth

Amendment.”). 

For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: March 10 , 2015

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, 

United States District Court

3