aware of his need for medically prescribed diabetic meals
(Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14) and that “plaintiff was not receiving
ADA Diabetic meals” (Paragraph 13). Plaintiff also alleges that
Defendant Rady, after being repeatedly told about Plaintiff's
medical condition and dietary needs, informed Plaintiff that there
is no such thing as a “diabetic diet” and that if Plaintiff didn’t
like what he was being served, he didn’t have to eat it. While
Plaintiff may not ultimately establish the facts necessary to

ient

prevail on the merits of his claim, his allegations are suffi
to make out a claim of “deliberate indifference” under Section
1983. See Taylor v. Anderson, 868 F. Supp. 1024 (N.D. Ill. 1994)
(denying defendant’s motion to dismiss Section 1983 claim for
failure to provide prisoner with diabetic meals).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

va
is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

- Uw

Harry Lf Déinénweber, Judge
Unitéd States District Court

a ? Gnu they bi qa 2



232, 236 (1974). A motion to dismiss should not be granted unless
it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of
facts that would support his claim for relief. Hentosh v. Herman
M, Finch Univ., 167 F.3d 1170, 1173 (7th Cir. 1999). When deciding
a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts all well-plead allegations
in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in
favor of the plaintiff. Lachmund v. ADM Investor Services, Inc.,
191 F.3d 777, 782 (7th Cir. 1999). Finally, when deciding a motion
to dismiss, complaints drafted by pro se litigants are held to a
less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. McCormick
v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 325 (7th Cir. 2000).
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff alleges that Rady and Aramark failed to provide him
with foods that satisfy his medically prescribed dietary
requirements, thereby demonstrating “deliberate indifference” to
his serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment
rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Defendants
argue that Plaintiff has not made out a claim under Section 1983
because he fails to allege facts which support his claim that
Defendants acted with deliberate indifference. Defendants further
contend that even under a liberal reading of the Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff fails to allege that the meals he is provided with do not
comply with ADA guidelines. We disagree. In the Amended

Complaint, Plaintiff clearly alleges that Rady and Aramark were


a “ oe i

Minute Outer Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Harry D. Leinenweber Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 5429 DATE 1/8/2002
CASE Jerry Lee McCabe vs. Aramark Food Services, et al
TITLE

{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) O Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) ia] Brief in support of motion due

(3) oO Answer brief to motion due___._ Reply to answer brief due.

(4) oO Ruling/Hearing onset for___ at

(5) a Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on_____setfor_ at.

(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__—s—sat_—
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for] on at.

(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to_____at

(9) ao This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OFRCP4(m) O General Rule2i] [© FRCP41(a)(1)  FRCP41{a)(2).

(10) =< [Other docket entry] ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss is denied. Ruling date stricken. Status hearing set for January 29, 2002 at 9:00 a.m.

dl) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

Document
Number

No notices required, advised in open court,

No notices required. number of notices

Notices mailed by judge's staff. dA

Notified counsel by telephone.

YS | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to juclge/magistrate judge.

date mailed notice

courtroom 00:3 Wa Uy ay 0
wap deputy’s .
initials

Date/time regejved in, a - ;
echtrat Clerk's Office nailing deputy initials



EILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Noy -8
EASTERN DIVISION 2002
tee Rarmy dD Leinenwebie
JERRY LEE McCABE, Sct Cou
Plaintiff,

Case No. 01 C 5429
v.
Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber
ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES and CHRIS

RADY, POCKET -

Defendants. JAN 1 0
2002

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Jerry Lee McCabe brings this pro se complaint
against Chris Rady and Aramark Food Services, providers of food
services at the Joliet Department of Human Services Treatment and
Detention Facility where he is confined, alleging infringement of
his Eighth Amendment rights in contravention of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6).

BACKGROUND

Mr. McCabe is currently and has, at all relevant times, been
confined to the Department of Human Services Treatment and
Detention Facility (the “DHS") in Joliet, Illinois. In February
2001, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with diabetes and on March 23
2001, a Department of Human Services doctor ordered that Mr. McCabe

be placed on a 2200 calorie, American Diabetes Association (the

“ADA diet") diet. According to the complaint, the doctor \ |


changed this to a 1800 calorie ADA diet. According to Mr. McCabe,
the defendants Aramark and Chris Rady were repeatedly notified by
Mr. McCabe and others regarding his special dietary needs. Chris
Rady, an Aramark supervisor, allegedly assured DHS administrators
and medical personnel that Mr. McCabe would receive “diabetic
meals.” Plaintiff alleges that, despite such assurances, he has to
date never received meals conforming to his medically prescribed
1800 calorie ADA diet and continues to receive food which he cannot
eat because of his condition. Plaintiff further alleges that
Defendants’ refusal to provide him with his medically prescribed
diabetic diet puts him at substantial risk of suffering
hypoglycemic shock and other medical complications arising from
diabetes. McCabe filed this Section 1983 claim against Aramark and
Rady claiming that Defendants’ failure to provide him with his
medically prescribed diabetic diet amounts to deliberate
indifference to his medical needs in violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6).
DISCUSSION
Standard

A motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) does not test whether the plaintiff will
ultimately prevail on the merits; the motion tests whether the

plaintiff has properly stated a claim. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.