UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

STEVEN MARTIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-593 JM 

v. )

)

JILL CHADWELL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Steven Martin, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (DE

# 1.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review a prisoner complaint and

dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief. Courts apply the same standard under Section 1915A as when deciding a motion

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624

(7th Cir. 2006). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must

state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs.,

581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff

pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 603. Furthermore, “[a] document

filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully

pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). To state claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) that defendants deprived him of a federal

constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory

v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). 

Martin is an inmate at the St. Joseph County Jail and complains that on August

15, 2016, he found a bug in his food. Martin showed officers the bug and he was

provided with a new food tray. Following this incident, Martin filed numerous

grievances. Unsatisfied with the result of the jail’s grievance system, he filed this suit

complaining that neither Kitchen Director Jill Chadwell nor Sgt. Melinda Fisher showed

any genuine concern about the incident or apologized for it. He claims that he is now

reluctant to eat the food provided because the defendants have not reassured him that

this will not happen again in the future. He has sued both Jill Chadwell and Melinda

Fisher for money damages based upon “emotional and psychological distress” as well

as “mental anguish.” 

The defendants’ unconcern over the situation is unfortunate, as is the fact that

there was a bug in Martin’s food. However, neither event violated Martin’s

constitutional rights. This is because, typically, words alone (or, presumably, the lack

thereof) do not trigger constitutional protections. See DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612

(7th Cir. 2000) (“[S]imple verbal harassment does not constitute cruel and unusual

punishment, deprive a prisoner of a protected liberty interest or deny a prisoner equal

protection of the laws.”). Moreover, Martin alleges that seeing a bug in his food has

caused him to suffer emotional distress. He does not allege that he has directly suffered

2
any physical injury as a result of these events or comments. Without actual injury

caused by the defendants’ actions or omissions, Martin can not plausibly state a claim in

federal court. See Walker v. Peters, 233 F.3d 494, 502 (7th Cir. 2000). 

No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail,

prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered

while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). 

As explained, this complaint does not state a claim. Though it does not appear

that Martin could state a claim even if he filed an amended complaint, he will

nevertheless be permitted to do so. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir.

2013).

For the these reasons, the court:

(1) DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner Complaint

42 U.S.C. § 1983 form and sent it to Steven Martin;

(2) GRANTS Steven Martin to and including December 5, 2016, to file an

amended complaint; and 

(3) CAUTIONS him that if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the current complaint does not state a

claim for which relief can be granted. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: November 1, 2016

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3