Summary
In McCabe v. Aramark Food Servs., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 264 (N.D.Ill. 2002), a prisoner was diagnosed with diabetes and placed on a diabetic diet. Although the food services group was advised of the prisoner's diet and assured him that he would receive diabetic meals, the prisoner alleged that he never received a diabetic meal.
Summary of this case from Spears v. LappinOpinion
Case No. 01 C 5429.
January 8, 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 later 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. 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 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 prevail on the merits of his claim, his allegations are sufficient 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 is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.