Prude v. Clarke, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6236

Prude, a prison inmate, sues Milwaukee County Sheriff, two jail inspectors, and a guard under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment violations while housed in Milwaukee County Jail.
During second and third stays, he received nutriloaf as the sole diet due to a jail policy affecting inmates transferred from prison while in segregation.
He began vomiting, suffered abdominal pain and constipation on the third stay, and lost about 8% of his body weight.
Afterward, he was diagnosed with an anal fissure developed during the jail stay and continued to experience symptoms after returning to state prison.
Discovery demands were ignored by defendants, the district court issued sanctions threats that were not enforced, and defendants did not file briefs in this court; the district court ultimately dismissed the suit, which the Seventh Circuit partly reversed.
The court concluded that the nutriloaf evidence and defendants’ conduct could support deliberate indifference and remanded for further proceedings, while the bribery claim regarding a sandwich to induce spying was rejected as non-constitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether nutriloaf feeding violated the Eighth Amendment.	Prude asserts deliberate indifference by officials.	Defendants deny deliberate indifference and rely on insufficient evidence.	Premature dismissal reversed; Eighth Amendment may be implicated.
Whether the record shows defendants’ conduct was deliberately indifferent.	Defendants ignored obvious risk; they were aware others vomited.	No direct evidence tying all defendants to the diet decision.	Inferences possible; immunity of discovery failures not dispositive.
Whether discovery misconduct warrants sanctions and affects dismissal.	District court should sanction defendants for contumacy.	Defendants contested; no briefing; sanctions uncertain.	Sanctions appropriate on remand; dismissal premature.
Whether the bribery claim about a non-nutraloaf sandwich adds a constitutional violation.	Refusing bribery could be punitive punishment.	No federal offense implicated; no greater harm.	Second claim rejected; no new constitutional violation.
Whether the case should be remanded for counsel and further proceedings.	Proceed with expert and discovery development.	No change in liability without evidence.	Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded with sanctions decision pending.

Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (U.S. 1978) (eighth-amendment food deprivation concerns; cruel and unusual punishment)
Atkins v. City of Chicago, 631 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 2011) (deliberate indifference standard; weight loss context)
Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2001) (medical needs and deliberate indifference framework)
Simmons v. Cook, 154 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 1998) (Eighth Amendment standards for prison conditions)
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (liberal construction of complaints by unrepresented prisoners)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (per curiam; liberal construction of prose pleadings)
Hall v. Bennett, 379 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2004) (risk can be inferred from obvious knowledge by officials)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (prisoner health risk and supervisor liability standard)