A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has * det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe d e t e rmi n a t i o n o f

th i s a p p e a l . S e e F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is O r derand J udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed underthe t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly24,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
M I CH AEL LEE STROPE, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. K A T H L E E N S E B E L IU S , G o v ern o r, S t a t e o f Ka n s a s , WI L L I AM C U M M I N G S, Secr et aryof Co rr e c t i o n s , KDO C, DAV I D R. M C K U N E , W ar den, L ans i ng Corr e c t i o n a l Fa c i l i ty , CO LLEEN W I N K L E B A U E R , D eputyW ar den, L a n s i n g C o rr e c t i o n a l F a c i l i ty, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 3144 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 3 2 8 4 - S AC)

(D . K a n .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

M i chael L ee S trope, a K ansas st at e pri soner, fi l ed thi s pro se c iv il righ tsT hi s i s one i n a s er i es of ci vi l r i ght s compl ai nt s fi l ed byM r . St r ope. See, 1 e.g., S tr o p e v . P ett is, N o . 0 5 -C V -30 5 9 , 2 0 0 6 W L 4 8 2 9 1 5 (D . K an . F eb . 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 ); S tr o p e v . M cK u n e, N o . 0 5 -33 4 4 , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 4 6 1 3 8 (10 th C ir . F eb . 2 , 2 0 0 6 ); S tr o p e v . R o p er, N o . 0 1 -C V -30 0 9 , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 7 9 9 2 1 4 (D . K an . Ju ly1 3 , 2 0 0 5 ); St r ope v. Pet t i s , N o. 03- 3383, 2004 W L 2713084 ( D . K an. N ov. 23, 2004) ; St r ope v. M cK une, N o. 03- 3310, 2004 W L 1737694 ( D . K an. J ul y29, 2004) , aff’ d, 131 F . A p p ’ x 1 2 3 ( 1 0 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ; S tr o p e v . G i b b e n s , N o . 0 1 - C V - 3 3 5 8 , 2 0 0 2 WL 3 1 8 9 8 2 0 4 ( D . K a n . D e c . 1 2 , 2 0 0 2 ) ; S tr o p e v . T h o m a s , N o . 9 8 - C V - 3 3 5 4 , 2 0 0 0 WL 2 1 0 3 9 9 (D . K an . F eb . 1 6 , 2 0 0 0 ). -2- l aw s ui tpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983, al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of the Fi r s t , E i ghth, and F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en ts byK an sas s tat e a n d p ri so n o ffici als (“D efen d an ts”). 1 T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) , and
w e a ffirm in p a rt a n d re v e rse in p a rt. I . F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory In A p ril 2 0 0 3 , M r. S tro p e w a s a p p ro v e d fo r a k o sh e r p riso n d iet. H is l aw s ui tcl ai m s thaton m ul t i pl e occ as i ons betw een M ar ch 2005 and June 2005, the kos herm eal s w er e unac cept abl e. I n part i cul ar , M r . St r ope as s ert s : thata “s our ’ d” tu rk e ysa n d w ich “ m a d e m e sic k to m ysto m a c h w ith se v e re c ra m p s till [s ic] 2 in the morni ng”; thatthe s al ads and or anges ar e r out i nel ys poi l ed; and thaton one occasi on the k osher m eal w as “burnt bey on d recog nit i on . ” H e al l eges that these ar e exa m pl es of an “ every dayand on- goi ng” pr act i ce of the pr i s on, w hi ch he cl ai m s “r out i nel y ” s erves s poi l ed food t o pr i s oner s on a kos herdi et . B eca us e of the pr obl ems w i th the food, M r . St r ope cl ai m s thathe cont i nues t o go t o bed atni ghthungryfr om l ack of p rop er fo ods , and c o n tin u e s to b e d e p riv e d o f a n a d e q u a te k o s h e r d iet, a n d is fo rc e d to buyfood p rod uct s fr om the ca nt een t o s urvi ve and ba l ance outthe-3-

pr opercal or i es , vi t ami ns , i r ons , ni aci n s, pr ot ei ns , and otherr equi r ed e ss e n tials to e q u a l a b a lan c e d d iet. H e a ss e rts th a t th e D e fe n d a n ts in ten tio n a llyfa c ili tate d a n d w e re d e lib e ra tely in d iffe re n t to th e se p ro b lem s. A d d iti o n a lly , h e c laim s th a t th e D e fe n d a n ts co n sp ir ed to retali ate a g ains t him fo r co m p lai n ing ab o u t th e fo o d . F inally , M r. St r ope compl ai ns of the r emoval of s t at e- i s s ued fa ns fr om the “e xces s i vel yhot and i m pr oper l yvent i l at ed” c el l
- hous es . M r . St r ope s eeks decl ar at oryand i nj unct i ve r el i ef, as w el l as compensa t oryand puni t i ve damages forthes e al l ege viol at i on s of his F i rs t , E i gh th, and F ou rt eenth A m end m ent r i gh t s. T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed M r . St r ope’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n f o r ma p a up e ris , butdi s m i s s ed the ac t i on under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) ( r equi r i ng di s m i s s al “i f the courtdet erm i nes that. . . the ac t i on . . . fai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m on w h ich re li ef

m ayb e g ran ted” ). M r. S tr o p e ti m elyap p ea led, an d the d istri ct co u rt gr ant ed hi s m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris o n a p p e a l. I I . D i s cus s i on A . St andard of R evi ew W e r evi ew § 1915( e) di s m i s s al forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m undera de novo stan d ard . P erk ins v . K an . D ep ’to f C o rr. , 1 6 5 F . 3 d 8 0 3 , 8 0 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). D i s m i s s al o f a pr o s e compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m i s pr oper onl y w her e i t i s obvi ous that the pl ai nt i ff cannot pr evai l on the fact s he has al l eged a nd i tw oul d be fut i l e t o gi ve hi m an opportuni ty t o amend. I n det erm i ni ng w hetherdi s m i s s al i s pr oper , w e mustacc eptthe al l egati on s of t he co m plai nt as true an d w e m ustcon strue tho se al l egat i ons , and anyr eas onabl e i nfer ence s thatm i ghtbe dr aw n fr om-4-

them , i n the l ig h t m o st fav orabl e t o the pl ai nti ff. F urther, w e m ust lib e ra llyc o n stru e th e a lleg a tio n s o f a p ro se c o m p lain t. Id. (cit ati o n s o m itted).

B . A n a ly sis 1 . Ei g h t h Ame n d me n t c l a i ms A S tate m u st p ro v id e in m a tes w ith “ n u triti o n a llya d e q u a te fo o d th a t is pr epar ed and s erved undercondi t i ons w hi ch do notpr es entan i m m edi at e dange r t o th e h e a l th a n d we l l b e i n g o f th e i n ma t e s wh o c o n s u me i t . ” Ra mo s v . La mm, 639 F. 2d 559, 570–71 ( 10th C i r . 1980) . “A s ubs t ant i al depr i vat i on of food may b e su fficie n tlyse rio u s to sta te a c o n d iti o n s o f c o n fin e m e n t cla im u n d e r th e E ig h th Am e n d me n t . ” Th o mps o n v . Gi b s o n , 2 8 9 F. 3 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 2 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . To sta te a c laim fo r fo o d d e p riv a tio n , a p riso n e r m u st a lleg e b o th (1 ) a “ su fficie n tly s er i ous ” depr i vat i on of “the mi ni m al ci vi l i zed meas ur e of l i fe’ s nece s s i t i es ” and ( 2) “del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence ” bypr i s on offi ci al s t o a “s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm t o an i nm at e. ” B arneyv. Pul s i pher , 143 F. 3d 1299, 1310 ( 10th C i r . 1998) (qu o tat ion s o m itted). A l though i ti s a cl os e ques t i on, w e conc l ude thatM r . St r ope’ s al l egat i ons ar e bar el ys uffi ci entatthi s pl eadi ng s t age t o r equi r e a r es pons e fr om the governm ent . See A nt onel l i v. Sheahan, 81 F. 3d 1422, 1432 ( 7th C i r . 1996) ( pr i s oners t at ed a c aus e of a ct i on underthe Ei ghth A m endmentbycl ai m i ng “not j us t‘ r ans i d food’ [s i c] , butal s o a ‘ nutr i t i onal l ydefi ci ent ’ di et ”) . M r . St r opeA l though M r . St r ope’ s compl ai nts t at es thathe “c ont i nues t o be depr i ved 2 of an a dequat e kos herdi et , ” he i s notappea l i ng the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s concl us i on that h e “ d o e s n o ta s s e r tth a th e h a s b e e n d e n i e d a Ko s h e rd i e t . ” I n a n ye v e n t , we agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthatM r . St r ope’ s al l egat i ons do nots t at e a c l ai m for d e n ial o f

h is F irst A m e n d m e n t co n stitu tio n a l rig h t to a d iet c o n fo rm in g w ith h is sin c e re re lig io u s b e liefs. S e e L a F e v e rs v . S a ffle, 9 3 6 F .2 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 1 8

– 1 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). -5- cl ai m s thatpr i s oner s on a kos herdi etar e r out i nel ys erved s poi l ed food, l eavi ng th e m w ith a n in a d e q u a te d iet, a n d th a t D e fe n d a n ts a re d e lib e ra telyin d iffe re n t to ( and thattheyi nt ent i onal l yfac i l i t at e) thatpr obl em. H e al s o al l eges fac t s that p rov ide s o m e su p p o rtfo r suc h a c lai m . T h e d istri ct co u rt , in co n clud ing that M r. St r ope fa i l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m , acc ept ed as s ert i ons m ade byD efe ndant s i n r epl i es to M r. S tr o p e ’s g ri e v a n c e s , w h ic h w e re a tta c h e d to M r. S tr o p e ’s c o m p la in t. H o w ev er, t o the e x tent tho se re p li es c o n tr ad ictthe a ll eg ati o n s m ad e in M r. S tr o p e’s c o m p lai n t, w e m u st i g n o re the m at th is st ag e o f th e c ase . W e the refo re re v e rse d ism iss a l o f

M r. S tro p e ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im a s it re late s to h is fo o d d e p r i v a t i o n c l a i m. 2 Itis un clea r w h ethe r M r. S tr o p e se ek s to a p p ea l th e d istri ct co u rt ’s d ism iss a l o f

h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im a s to th e re m o v a l o f fa n s f ro m th e c e llhous es . I n anyevent , w e affi rm the di s m i s s al of thatcl ai m . T he rul e i s that“a sta te m u st p ro v id e w ith in [ a p riso n e r’s ] liv in g sp a c e re a so n a b lya d e q u a te vent i l at i on. ” R amos, 639 F. 2d at568. M r . St r ope cl ai m s thatthe pr i s on l acks a d e q u a te v e n til a tio n , an d th a t fa n s a re n e c e ss a ryto c o n tro l th e “ e x c e ss iv e lyh o t” t emper atur e and t o pr ovi de vent i l at i on. H e furtheras s ert s thatthe hi ghF u rth erm o re, ba sed o n the e x h ibit s att ac h ed to the co m p lai n t, itap p ea rs 3 that fans ar e avail able for purchase i n the pri son can t een, and that the p ri son h as a po l i cyof p rovi ding fan s t o indi gen tpri soners. M r. S trope do es not contes tthese fac t s and does notcl ai m thathe l acks s uffi ci entfunds t o pur chas e a fan. -6- t emper atur es m ake i thar d t o s l eep. A l though thes e condi t i ons ar e no doubt
u n c o m fo rta b le, w e c o n c lu d e th a t M r. S tro p e ’s a lleg a tio n s a re in su fficie n t to sta te a c laim o f

v io latio n o f

th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. 3 2 . R e ta lia tio n c la im W e a lso re v e rse th e d istric t co u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t M r. S tro p e fa iled to st at e a cl ai m of ret al i at i on . “[P ]r i son o ffi ci al s m ayno tret al i at e againstor harass an i nm at e bec aus e of the i nm at e’ s exer ci s e of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ” Fogl e v. Pi er s on, 435 F. 3d 1252, 1263–64 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . A nd, “pr i s oner s have the cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o pet i t i on the G overnm entforr edr es s of thei rgr i evanc es . ” H uds on v. Pal m er , 468 U . S. 517, 523 ( 1984) ; s ee a l s o Penr od
v. Z avar as , 94 F. 3d 1399, 1405 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( “[T] he j ur i s prudence pr ohi bi t i ng re ta lia to ry a c ts a g a in s t p ri s o n e rs fo r r e p o rt in g g ri e v a n c e s is w e ll- e s ta b lis h e d .” ). W e c o n clud e tha t M r. S tr o p e h as “ all eg e[ d ] speci f i c f acts s how i ng r et al i at i on b e c a u s e o f

th e e x e rc is e o f

[ h is ] c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts ,” F o g le , 4 3 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 4 . H e cl ai m s thatthe kos herm eal s w er e s cor ched the dayhe fi l ed one gr i evanc e, and thataft erfi l i ng a gr i evanc e aboutthe burntfood, he w as s erved a s poi l ed turkey s andw i ch thatm ade hi m i l l . W e conc l ude thatthes e al l egat i ons ar e s ubs t ant i al e n o u g h to re q u ire a re sp o n se f ro m th e g o v e rn m e n t.-7-

I I I . C oncl usi on M r. S tro p e m a yv e ryw e ll b e u n a b le to p re v a il o n h is c laim s a s th e re c o rd is f u rth e r d e v e lo p e d . A ll w e a re h o ld in g is th a t itw a s e rro r to d ism iss h is i n a d e q u a t e n u tr i t i o n c l a i m a n d h i s r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m u n d e r§ 1 9 1 5 ( e ) . We th e re fo re R E V E R S E d ism iss a l o f M r. S tro p e ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t n u triti o n a lly i n a d e q u a t e d i e tc l a i m a n d h i s F i r s tAm e n d me n tr e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m a n d RE M AND for further proceedings. W e A F F IR M dis m i ssal of h i s other cl ai m s.

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT D avi d M . E bel C i r cui tJ udge