Prude v. Clarke

Plaintiff is serving time in a state prison, but was transferred to county jail to attend court proceedings. During two stays, the jail applied a policy of making “nutriloaf” the exclusive diet of prisoners who had been in segregation at the time of transfer, regardless of behavior in the jail. After two days, plaintiff began vomiting and experiencing stomach pains and constipation. He stopped eating nutriloaf and subsisted for eight days on bread and water, losing 8.3 percent of his weight during two stays. A jail infirmary nurse gave him antacids and a stool softener. Upon return to prison he was diagnosed with an anal fissure. In response to his 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit, defendants submitted only a "preposterous affidavit from a sheriff's officer" indicating that nutriloaf is nutritious. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit reversed, in part, noting that defendants' decision "to defy rather than to defend" make it impossible to know the part diet played in making plaintiff sick. It is possible that jail officials were aware that nutriloaf was sickening him yet decided to do nothing, showing deliberate indifference to a serious health problem in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court suggested sanctions against defendants.