Opinion
C. A. 4:24-00123-BHH-TER
03-07-2024
Michael J. Coffy, #0001602171, Plaintiff, v. Aramark Correctional Services LLC; Mr. Isaih Williams, Aramark Food Services Supervisor, Tom Crocker, Aramark Food Service Director, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Thomas E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge
This is a civil action filed by a pretrial detainee, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and District of South Carolina Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), the undersigned is authorized to review all pretrial matters in such pro se cases and to submit findings and recommendations to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se complaint filed in this case. This review has been conducted pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir.1995) (en banc); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir.1983).
The Complaint has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” “is frivolous or malicious,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A finding of frivolousness can be made where the complaint “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 31. Hence, under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
This court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Such pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Id.; Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Even under this less stringent standard, however, the pro se complaint is subject to summary dismissal. The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which plaintiff could prevail, it should do so, but a district court may not rewrite a complaint to include claims that were never presented, construct the plaintiff's legal arguments for him, or conjure up questions never squarely presented to the court. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985); Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1993); Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 1999). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990) (The “special judicial solicitude” with which a [court] should view such pro se complaints does not transform the court into an advocate.).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff was informed via court order of deficiencies in his Complaint that would subject his Complaint to partial summary dismissal and was given an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff availed himself of the opportunity and filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20); however, some deficiencies persist, and the action is subject to partial summary dismissal.
Liberally construed, Plaintiff's allegations may involve conditions of confinement and medical deliberate indifference. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights as to failure to provide adequate foods required for dialysis patients resulting in deprivation of essential nutrition. (ECF No. 20 at 4). Plaintiff alleges Defendants Crocker and Williams are state actors working under the umbrella of Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, who has a contract with the government. (ECF No. 20 at 4). Plaintiff alleges the food he is actually receiving does not meet the guidelines of the FDA, DHEC, Plaintiff's nephrologist, or Aramark's own dieticians. Plaintiff alleges for over two years, Crocker and Williams are intentionally refusing to provide proper meals in rotation for dialysis patients and the meals do not meet Plaintiff's nutritional needs per Plaintiff's nephrologist Mulloy. Plaintiff alleges he is being served the same three meals every single day. (ECF No. 20 at 5). Plaintiff alleges he has filed twelve grievances over more than two years with no answers as to why the individual defendants are not following Plaintiff's needed dietary plan. (ECF No. 20 at 6). Plaintiff alleges Aramark sent three dieticians to the jail in 2023 on two occasions to “fix the dialysis meal rotation problem.” Plaintiff alleges Aramark dieticians spoke to Plaintiff and the dialysis nurse; Plaintiff alleges the dieticians assured Plaintiff his meals would be corrected. (ECF No. 20 at 7). Plaintiff alleges “it is apparent [Defendants Crocker and Williams] are not ordering the foods to serve the correct meals as specified by the dieticians.” Plaintiff alleges Aramark personnel are simply refusing to adhere to guidelines lined out for them by Aramark. (ECF No. 20 at 7). Plaintiff alleges being fed soy, processed meats, and canned high sodium vegetables and fruits is continuously injuring him, causing elevated blood pressure. (ECF No. 20 at 7). Plaintiff alleges Crocker and Williams ignore his grievances and refuse to follow orders given by dieticians. (ECF No. 20 at 8). Plaintiff alleges at times he vomits, has diarrhea, chills, and becomes weak and lightheaded. (ECF No. 20 at 10-11). Plaintiff alleges his specialist prescribed a high protein diet for him. (ECF No. 20 at 12). Plaintiff requests monetary damages. (ECF No. 20 at 13). Plaintiff alleges every time Aramark dieticians leave the jail, then the kitchen staff goes right back to serving the same foods again. (ECF No. 20 at 15).
Plaintiff's allegations liberally construed are sufficient to withstand summary dismissal as to Defendants Crocker and Williams, and this same day service and issuance of summonses as to only these Defendants has been authorized by separate order.
Defendant Aramark is a private corporation, even though it may be contracted to perform services for government entities. The Fourth Circuit has addressed private corporation liability under § 1983:
We have recognized, as has the Second Circuit, that the principles of § 1983 municipal liability articulated in Monell and its progeny apply equally to a private corporation that employs special police officers. Specifically, a private corporation is not liable under § 1983 for torts committed by special police officers when such liability is predicated solely upon a theory of respondeat superior. See Powell v. Shopco Laurel Co., 678 F.2d 504 (4th Cir.1982); Rojas v. Alexander's Dep't Store, Inc., 924 F.2d 406 (2d Cir.1990); see also Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 975-76 (8th Cir.1993) (concluding that private corporation is not subject to § 1983 liability under theory of respondeat superior regarding acts of private security guard employed by corporation); Iskander v. Village of Forest Park, 690 F.2d 126, 128 (7th Cir.1982) (same). Rather, a private corporation is liable under § 1983 only when an official policy or custom of the corporation causes the alleged deprivation of federal rights. See Rojas, 924 F.2d at 408; Sanders, 984 F.2d at 976; Iskander, 690 F.2d at 128.Austin v. Paramount Parks, Inc., 195 F.3d 715, 727-28 (4th Cir. 1999)(emphasis added). Plaintiff has not alleged any actions Aramark did or any policies enacted by Aramark that caused Plaintiff harm. Plaintiff alleges Aramark dieticians came in and set the special medical menu, and then once Aramark dieticians left, it was not followed by the individual staff. With no allegations aligned with the above law against Aramark in the Complaint, Aramark is not amenable to suit under § 1983 solely based on Aramark being the employer of an individual defendant. See Austin, 195 F.3d at 728. Aramark is subject to summary dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is recommended that the district court partially dismiss the complaint in this case. Specifically, it is recommended that Defendant Aramark be summarily dismissed with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. In a separately docketed order, the court has authorized the issuance and service of process on the remaining Defendants Crocker and Williams.
It is recommended Defendant Aramark be dismissed without further leave to amend. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790 (4th Cir. 2022).
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
Plaintiff is advised that he may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk of Court
United States District Court
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29601
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).