Courts from around the country have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Davis v. Doe 1, No. 24-CV-00425-SPM, 2024 WL 4678947, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2024) (dismissing claims alleging vomiting and headaches from food containing bugs and citing cases reaching similar result); Wilson v. Byrd, No. 15-00160-KD-N, 2016 WL 1573265, at *7 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 14, 2016) (finding plaintiff's allegation that he became ill from tainted food served on one occasion, did not, alone, amount to a constitutional deprivation); Bennett v. Misner, No. 02-1662-HA, 2004 WL 2091473, at *20 (D. Or. Sept. 17, 2004) (discussing that isolated instances of food poisoning, temporary lapses in sanitary food service, or service of meals contaminated with maggots have been found to be not sufficiently serious to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation), affd, 180 Fed.Appx. 732 (9th Cir. 2006).
Courts from around the country have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Davis v. Doe 1, No. 24-CV-00425-SPM, 2024 WL 4678947, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2024) (dismissing claims alleging vomiting and headaches from food containing bugs and citing cases reaching similar result); Wilson v. Byrd, No. 15-00160-KD-N, 2016 WL 1573265, at *7 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 14, 2016) (finding plaintiff's allegation that he became ill from tainted food served on one occasion, did not, alone, amount to a constitutional deprivation); Bennett v. Misner, No. 02-1662-HA, 2004 WL 2091473, at *20 (D. Or. Sept. 17, 2004) (discussing that isolated instances of food poisoning, temporary lapses in sanitary food service, or service of meals contaminated with maggots have been found to be not sufficiently serious to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation), affd, 180 Fed.Appx. 732 (9th Cir. 2006).
Courts from around the country have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Davis v. Doe 1, No. 24-CV-00425-SPM, 2024 WL 4678947, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2024) (dismissing claims alleging vomiting and headaches from food containing bugs and citing cases reaching similar result); Wilson v. Byrd, No. 15-00160-KD-N, 2016 WL 1573265, at *7 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 14, 2016) (finding plaintiff's allegation that he became ill from tainted food served on one occasion, did not, alone, amount to a constitutional deprivation); Bennett v. Misner, No. 02-1662-HA, 2004 WL 2091473, at *20 (D. Or. Sept. 17, 2004) (discussing that isolated instances of food poisoning, temporary lapses in sanitary food service, or service of meals contaminated with maggots have been found to be not sufficiently serious to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation), affd, 180 Fed.Appx. 732 (9th Cir. 2006).
Courts from around the country have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Davis v. Doe 1, No. 24-CV-00425-SPM, 2024 WL 4678947, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2024) (dismissing claims alleging vomiting and headaches from food containing bugs and citing cases reaching similar result); Wilson v. Byrd, No. 15-00160-KD-N, 2016 WL 1573265, at *7 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 14, 2016) (finding plaintiff's allegation that he became ill from tainted food served on one occasion, did not, alone, amount to a constitutional deprivation); Bennett v. Misner, No. 02-1662-HA, 2004 WL 2091473, at *20 (D. Or. Sept. 17, 2004) (discussing that isolated instances of food poisoning, temporary lapses in sanitary food service, or service of meals contaminated with maggots have been found to be not sufficiently serious to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation), affd, 180 Fed.Appx. 732 (9th Cir. 2006).
; Kinner v. Moore, No. 15-2105-JDT, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47657, at *7, 26-27 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 8, 2016) (finding that inmate's allegations that “trays are dirty, food products are expired and outdated, meats and other food products are raw or undercooked, the food is cold and inedible, and the portions are inadequate” did not meet the objective standard for an Eighth Amendment claim); Lewis v. Taylor, No. 3:16cv63/RV/EMT, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128360 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2016) (allegations of service of substandard and spoiled food while in segregation fail to meet objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim); Bennett v. Misner, No. 02-1662-HA, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19568, at *63 (D. Or. Sept. 17, 2004) (“Neither isolated instances of food poisoning, temporary lapses in sanitary food service, nor service of meals contaminated with maggots are sufficiently serious to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.”). Plaintiff also alleges that he was at times forced to go without eating a meal or part of a meal because of the food items he was served.
This is insufficient to state a claim. See LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993); Islam v. Jackson, 782 F.Supp. 1111, 1114-15 (E.D. Va. 1992) (serving one meal contaminated with maggots and meals under unsanitary conditions for thirteen days was not cruel and unusual punishment, even though inmate suffered symptoms of food poisoning on one occasion); Willard v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., No. 19cv1074-AWI-SAB (PC), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188512, at *22 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2019) (isolated and sporadic claims of contaminated food insufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment); Johnson v. Dickinson, No. CV 14-3390-VBF (SP), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236182, at *27 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2017) (single, isolated occurrence, in which plaintiff neither ate the food nor suffered injury from it insufficient to state Eighth Amendment claim); Bennett v. Misner, No. Civ. 02-1662-HA, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19568, at *63 (D. Or. Sept. 17, 2004) (“Neither isolated instances of food poisoning, temporary lapses in sanitary food service, nor service of meals contaminated with maggots are sufficiently serious to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation”)
Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted); See also, Bennett v. Misner, 2004 WL 2091473 *20 (D. Or. 2004) (“Neither isolated instances of food poisoning, temporary lapses in sanitary food service, nor service of meals contaminated with maggots are sufficiently serious to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.”)
Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted); See also, Bennett v. Misner, 2004 WL 2091473 *20 (D. Or. 2004) (“Neither isolated instances of food poisoning, temporary lapses in sanitary food service, nor service of meals contaminated with maggots are sufficiently serious to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.”).
Chavis v. Fairman, 51 F.3d 275 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that occasional service of spoiled food cannot be said to deprive inmates of basic nutritional needs); Kinner v. Moore, No. 15-2105-JDT, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47657, at *7, 26-27 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 8, 2016) (finding that inmate's allegations that “trays are dirty, food products are expired and outdated, meats and other food products are raw or undercooked, the food is cold and inedible, and the portions are inadequate” did not meet the objective standard for a conditions-of-confinement claim); Wiley v. Dep't of Corr., No. 11-97-HRW, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166385, at *23 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 21, 2012) (holding that one incident of discovering a dead rat in soup was not actionable); Bennett v. Misner, No. 02-1662-HA, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19568, at *63 (D. Or. Sept. 17, 2004) (“Neither isolated instances of food poisoning, temporary lapses in sanitary food service, nor service of meals contaminated with maggots are sufficiently serious to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.”). Therefore, Plaintiff's allegation in the complaint that he was served an unsanitary food tray on one occasion is not sufficient to meet the objective standard of a deliberate-indifference claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiff's allegations regarding inadequate food service on several occasions in August 2022, even if true, would not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. See Bennett v. Misner, 2004 WL 2091473 *20 (D. Or. 2004) (“Neither isolated instances of food poisoning, temporary lapses in sanitary food service, nor service of meals contaminated with maggots are sufficiently serious to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.