Kimeo Delmar Conley v. Tami J. Schult

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 27, 2025*
Decided January 27, 2025
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2612
KIMEO DELMAR CONLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TAMI J. SCHULT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 24-C-725
Lynn Adelman,
Judge.
O R D E R
Kimeo Conley, a Wisconsin state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his complaint
alleging that the prison’s food supervisor, Tami Schult, violated his Eighth Amendment
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the brief and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 24-2612 Page 2
rights when she served him contaminated food that made him ill. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
We affirm.
We recite the facts according to the complaint, which we assume to be true, and
documents that Conley attached as exhibits. See O’Brien v. Vill. of Lincolnshire, 955 F.3d
616, 621 (7th Cir. 2020). In early 2024, Conley was served and ate two peanut butter bars
that caused him to become nauseous and vomit. He inspected what remained of the
second bar and noticed metal shavings on the bottom. Conley’s medical records reflect
that he was examined the following day by a prison nurse and no longer reported any
nausea, vomiting, or abdominal pain. About a week later, an x-ray scan showed normal
abdominal findings.
Conley reported the incident through official prison channels, and Schult
promptly responded, asking to look at the second bar and apologizing for what had
happened. She confirmed in her response that “corrective action” had taken place, and
Conley does not allege any subsequent instances of metal shavings in his food. He
reached out to the warden, asking for $1 million in recompense for his injuries. The
warden did not respond to the request, and Conley interpreted the warden’s silence as
agreement to the proposed settlement.
Conley sued Schult for subjecting him to unconstitutional conditions of
confinement when she failed to ensure that he was served safe, sanitary food. He also
sought to enforce his alleged settlement agreement with the warden.
The district court screened Conley’s complaint and dismissed his Eighth
Amendment claim, stating that allegations of a single instance of contaminated food are
insufficient to plead unconstitutional conditions of confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The court also relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over Conley’s state-law claim to
enforce the purported settlement agreement. Finally, the court refused to permit Conley
to amend his complaint, concluding that amendment would be futile because the
complaint and its attachments confirmed that his claim arose out of one isolated
incident.
Conley then filed two postjudgment motions. First, he moved for
reconsideration, arguing that his allegations—specifically, that the food presented a
substantial risk of harm—were sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. He also
moved to amend his complaint, alleging that he received contaminated food trays in the
days leading up to the incident at issue, that other prisoners became ill from the same

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 24-2612 Page 3
incident, and that another prisoner in the facility previously had been directed to
prepare rotten food.
The district court denied both motions, concluding that—even considering the
new allegations—Conley’s claim amounted to a single instance of food containing metal
shavings. The court further determined that Conley’s conclusory allegations about prior
instances of contamination did not plausibly state a claim that the prison’s food-service
practices were constitutionally deficient.
On appeal, Conley challenges the district court’s conclusion that a single incident
of food contamination cannot state an Eighth Amendment claim. He asserts that a
single incident can be unconstitutional if it presents—as he says he alleged—a serious
risk of harm.
The district court properly dismissed Conley’s complaint. To state a claim under
the Eighth Amendment, Conley needed to allege that Schult was aware of but
disregarded serious prison conditions that created an excessive risk to his health and
safety. See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 736–38 (2002); Balle v. Kennedy, 73 F.4th 545, 552
(7th Cir. 2023). But he did not allege facts suggesting, for instance, that Schult was
aware of the risk that metal shavings were present in the food, or that there was any
pattern of metal shavings being found in prison food. See Green v. Atkinson, 623 F.3d
278, 281 (5th Cir. 2010); see also Lunsford v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1574, 1580 (7th Cir. 1994)
(“poorly-prepared food” not sufficient to establish inhumane conditions); Hamm v.
DeKalb Cnty., 774 F.2d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1985) (“The fact that the food occasionally
contains foreign objects or sometimes is served cold, while unpleasant, does not amount
to a constitutional violation.”). What is more, the documents that Conley attached as
exhibits to his complaint show that Schult promptly responded to Conley’s report,
apologized, and took corrective action to ensure that the issue would not recur.
Conley also challenges the district court’s conclusion that amendment to his
complaint would be futile, arguing that he should be given the chance to plead a
pattern of contaminated food and of other prisoners becoming ill. We review de novo a
ruling that amendment would be futile. See Runnion ex rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of
Greater Chi. & Nw. Ind., 786 F.3d 510, 524 (7th Cir. 2015). But because Conley does not
articulate how his claim involved anything more than an isolated and unintentional
instance of contaminated food, we agree that amendment would be futile.

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 24-2612 Page 4
Finally, Conley, believing that the statute of limitations for his state-law claim to
enforce the alleged settlement has lapsed, contends that the district court erred in
relinquishing jurisdiction over it. But the limitations period for contract claims under
Wisconsin law is six years, see W IS . S TAT. § 893.43; Wascher v. ABC Ins. Co., 972 N.W.2d
162, 173 (Wis. Ct. App. 2022), leaving Conley ample time to pursue his claim in state
court.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --