Christians v. Young et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK CHRISTIANS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DARRIN YOUNG,CHIEF WARDEN SDDOC
PRISONS,INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; TROY PONTO,DEPUTY
WARDEN SDSP,INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JESSICA COOK,
ASSOCIATE WARDEN SDSP/JAMESON,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
BRENT FLUKE, WARDEN MDSP,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
REBECCA SCmEFFER, ASSOCIATE
WARDEN MDSP,INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; ALEX REYES,
ASSOCIATE WARDEN MDSP,INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CODY
HANSON, UNIT MANAGER JAMESON,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
SETH HUGHES, UNIT MANAGER
JAMESON,INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; NANCY CHRISTENSEN,UNIT
MANGAER MDSP,INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; LT. MADDOX,
LIEUTENANT MDSP,INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; D. EKEREN,UNIT
COORDINATOR JAMESON,INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DEB EILERS,
UNIT COORDINATOR MDSP,INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; LAURIE
STRATMAN, UNIT COORDINATOR MDSP,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
JULIE STEVENS,CASE MANAGER MDSP,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
JARED,CBM/SUMMIT SITE MANAGER
MDSP,INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; KELLY,CBM/SUMMIT FOOD
SERVICES WORKER MDSP,INDIVIDUAL
4:20-CV-04083-LLP
ORDER GRANTING SUMMIT
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 4:20-cv-04083-LLP Document 54 Filed 06/09/21 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MARTIN C.
SEJONHA,SUMMIT PRESIDENT «&
CEO,INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; JOHN TRIEWEILER,SUMMIT
DISTRICT MANAGER,INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; KEVIN
TRIERWEILER, SITE MANAGER
JAMESON,INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY;PAMELA THOMAS,
EXECUTIVE CHEF,SUMMIT
CORRECTIONS,INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; NAOMI
MCLAUGHLIN,SUMMIT DIRECTOR OF
MARKETING,INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; JEFF GREEN,SUMMIT
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
UNNAMED SUMMIT LICENSED
DIETITIAN(S), INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DIETARY
ASSISTANTS,INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; DIRECTORS OF OPERATIONS,
DIDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
DISTRICT MANAGERS,INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; FOOD SERVICE
DIRECTORS,INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; ASSISTANT FOOD SERVICE
DIRECTORS,INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; FOOD SERVICE WORKERS,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
JUSTIN BARTHEL,DIRECTOR OF
DIETARY SUMMIT,INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND SHANE
SEJNOHA,SUMMIT VP OF OPERATIONS,
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
MIKJE LEIDHOLT,SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,IN HIS
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Mark Christians, filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 26.
Defendants Marlin C. Sejnoha, Naomi McLaughlin, Jeff Green, and Shane Sejnoha(Summit
Case 4:20-cv-04083-LLP Document 54 Filed 06/09/21 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

Defendants) move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Doc. 43.'This
Court screened Christians's Amended Complaint under 29 U.S.C. § 1915A. Doc. 27. His Eighth
Amendment conditions of confinement claim regarding food against Summit Defendants
survived screening./J. at 17.
Summit Defendants claim that the facts asserted in Christians's Amended Complaint do
not show direct involvement of the Summit Defendants. Doc. 43-1 at 1. Summit is a food service
provider for Jameson Annex at the South Dakota State Penitentiary. Doc. 43-1 at 1. Summit
Defendants are Summit executives "who oversee its national operations and are not directly
involved with decision-making at the correctional facility level...." Id. at 2.
I. Legal Background
Rule 12(b)(6) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for motions to dismiss for
"failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When
considering such motions, the court must accept as true the allegations in the complaint and
construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94(2007). The pleaded facts must demonstrate a plausible claim, that is, one in which the
pleader has shown more than an abstract "possibility" that the defendant has engaged in
actionable misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678(2009). The court must assume as
true all facts well pleaded in the complaint. Estate ofRosenberg by Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56
F.3d 35, 36 (8th Cir. 1995). Civil rights and pro se complaints must be liberally construed.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94(2007); Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835, 839(8th
Cir. 2004). Even with this construction,"a pro se complaint must contain specific facts
^ Christians's Amended Complaint lists Marlin C. Sejnoha, Jr., as a defendant. Doc.26^ 20. Marlin
C. Sejnoha moves to dismiss. Doc.43. This Court assumes that this is the same individual and will
refer to Marlin as Marlin C. Sejnoha.
3
Case 4:20-cv-04083-LLP Document 54 Filed 06/09/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

supporting its conclusions." Martm v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985); Ellis v. City
ofMinneapolis, 518 F. App'x 502, 504(8th Cir. 2013). Civil rights complaints cannot be merely
eonclusory. Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152(8th Cir. 1993); Parker v. Porter, 221 F. App'x
481,482(8th Cir. 2007).
In his response to Summit Defendants' motion to dismiss, Christians references a
proposal(RFP #1491) prepared by Marlin C. Sejnoha as the Summit President and CEO.Doc.
47 at 1. Summit Defendants argue that this proposal is outside ofthe pleadings. Doc. 48. After
review of Christians' Amended Complaint, he references a "proposal" but does not specifically
reference proposal RFP #1491. Thus, references to RFP #1491 are outside ofthe pleadings. If
this Court considers matters outside ofthe pleadings, the motion to dismiss must be treated as a
motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). This Court declines to eonsider matters
outside ofthe pleadings and will only reference alleged facts in the Amended Complaint.
II. Factual Background
Here, Christians contends that the food served is not nutritionally adequate to maintain
his health. Doc. 26 ^ 145. In fact, Christians claims that medical professionals have attributed his
extreme weight loss and medical conditions to the food service at South Dakota Department of
Corrections' facilities. Id. 38, 43, 53-54. Christians indieated that his health is endangered
because ofthe lack of nutrients, calories, and small portion sizes. Id. 38, 40, 125. Christians
alleges that the SDDOC and CBM are aware ofthe dietary issues with CRM's food because he
has submitted numerous grievances regarding these issues. Id. 55-67, 69-111, 115-19.
Facts alleged specifically against Summit Defendants are:(1)that Jeff Green is the
Summit Business Development Director and that he "brings focus and meal quality[;]"(2)that
Marlin Sejnoha is the President and CEO of Summit and takes a "hands on approach[;]"(3)that
Case 4:20-cv-04083-LLP Document 54 Filed 06/09/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

Naomi McGlaughlin is the Director of Marketing and "works with [SDDOC]Unit Leaders" and
establishes "best practices[;]"(4)that Shane Sejnoha is Summit Vice President of Operations
and is the "driving operation[][for] performance and [] standards[;]"(5) that Summit Defendants
"are all responsible parties of Summit who deliberately imposed the diets, foods, and lack thereof
to Christians and other inmates, they cannot be ruled out until after their depths ofinvolvement
are discovered\;^ and (6)that Summit violated their proposal because they were allegedly not
monitoring inmate satisfaction through comment cards. Id. 20, 22, 26-27, 99(emphasis
added).
in. Legal Analysis
Christians's Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim regarding food against
Summit Defendants survived screening. Doc. 27 at 17. Conditions of confinement may violate
the Constitution either alone or in combination when they deprive an "identifiable human need
such as food, warmth, or exercise ...." Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991). The Due
Process Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against
cruel and unusual punishment require prisoners to be provided with nutritionally adequate meals
to maintain health. See, e.g., Cody v. CBMCorr. FoodServs., 250 F. App'x 763, 765 (8th Cir.
2007); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 1996); Campbell v. Cauthron, 623 F.2d 503,
508 (8th Cir. 1980).
In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment conditions ofconfinement claim, a prisoner
must prove that:(1)objectively, the deprivation was sufficiently serious to deprive him ofthe
minimal civilized measures of life's necessities, or to constitute a substantial risk of serious harm
to his health or safety; and (2)subjectively, the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the
risk of harm posed by the deprivation. Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 875 (8th Cir.2004);
Case 4:20-cv-04083-LLP Document 54 Filed 06/09/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

Simmons v. Cook, 154 F.3d 805, 807(8th Cir. 1998). To show deliberate indifference, an inmate
must demonstrate that a prison official knew the "inmate face[d] a substantial risk of serious
harm and disregard[ed] that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it." See Farmer
V. Brennan, 511 U.S. 842, 847(1994); Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778, 786 (8th Cir.1997).
Mere negligence does not constitute deliberate indifference. Warren v. Missouri, 995 F.2d 130,
131 (8th Cir.1993).
Here, Summit Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint does not contain facts to
support that they had knowledge of Christians's dietary requests. Doc. 43-1 at 2, 6. The alleged
facts in Christians's Amended Complaint must demonstrate a plausible claim, that is, one in
which the pleader has shown more than an abstract "possibility"that the defendant has engaged
in actionable misconduct.Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678(emphasis added). When a complaint contains
no allegations that the defendant had any personal involvement relating to the events giving rise
to the lawsuit, dismissal ofthat party from the action is proper. See, e.g., Eaton v. MinnAtty.
Gen. Office, 2010 WL 3724398, at *5(D. Minn. 2010)(dismissing a party to a lawsuit when
"there [were] no allegations within Plaintiffs complaint which suggest that the [defendant]
played any role in any ofthe events giving rise to this lawsuit.").
Although Summit Defendants are in executive positions with the company that provides
food to the SDDOC facilities, Christians's Amended Complaint only alleges an abstract
possibility that Summit Defendants were personally involved in the alleged violation. His
Amended Complaint states the Summit Defendants' general role within the company and he
claims that they "are all responsible parties of Summit who deliberately imposed the diets, foods,
and lack thereofto Christians and other inmates, they cannot be ruled out until after their depths
ofinvolvement are discovered.'' See Doc. 26 20, 22, 26-27, 126(emphasis added).
Case 4:20-cv-04083-LLP Document 54 Filed 06/09/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

Christians's allegations amount to general job descriptions and speculation about Summit
Defendants' possible involvement. Further, his claim that Summit Defendants "deliberately
imposed" the diet and food is a legal conclusion and not supported by alleged facts. Christians's
Amended Complaint only presents an abstract possibility that Summit Defendants were
personally involved. Thus, Christians's alleged facts in his Amended Complaint do not support a
claim that Summit Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his alleged conditions of
confinement. For these reasons, Summit Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED;
1. That Summit Defendants' motion to dismiss. Doc. 43, is granted.
2. Claims against Summit Defendants are dismissed without prejudice.
DATED June M ,2021.
AJ^T:
mAtje Lawrence L. Piersol
United States District Judge
Case 4:20-cv-04083-LLP Document 54 Filed 06/09/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>