Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bailey v. Aramark Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky

May 3, 2018

DAVID WAYNE BAILEY PLAINTIFF
v.
ARAMARK CORPORATION et al. DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge

         This matter is before the Court on initial review of pro se Plaintiff David Wayne Bailey's third, [1] fourth, and fifth amended complaints (DNs 13, 25 & 31) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons that follow, the action will be dismissed.

         I. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

         Plaintiff brings his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the third amended complaint (DN 13), Plaintiff sues the following Defendants in their individual and official capacities: (1) Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, food services contractor at GRCC; (2) Correct Care Solutions, healthcare contractor at GRCC; (3) Rodney Ballard, Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Corrections (KDOC); (4) John Dunn, Ombudsman at KDOC; and (5) DeEdra Hart, Warden at GRCC. The third amended complaint is not a model of clarity. Nevertheless, it appears that Plaintiff is complaining primarily of two issues that are seemingly interrelated: a medical diet and medical treatment.

         Plaintiff reports that he was transferred to GRCC on September 8, 2016, and he alleges as follows:

Since I arrived, I have determined that Aramark Daniel Powers contacted a dietician and implimented meals directed to one. I was denied by Aramark Powers the dietary information necessary to make an informed decision despite grievances to accept or reject proposed treatment diet, sometimes these meals fall between 40-140F, a.k.a. Danger Zone, bcs bacteria can grow within. Since informing Correct Care Solutions upon arrival and by request for bone density test (asking Dr Younger what can be done about painful cists), I was directed by physician to take vitamins (containing bovine allergen), not even somuchas over the counter treatment for pain, and I think he even laughed at little as he smirked, then said he would order some blood tests to determine why my body could not metabolize calcium. No one has contacted the canteen to give notice of my allergies, and I don't know beforehand what I may purchase. Warden DeEdra Hart hasnt responded to any of my notices of request for hearing, and grievance committee either. Commissioner Ballard's decision, and Dunn's inaction have been forarded to GRCC, and I need help from this court.

         Plaintiff also alleges, “Blood tests have not been performed on me as directed, and the psychologist has not called me to join a group she had tol[d] me was starting up.”

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary and punitive damages, “declarations, ” and the following injunctive relief: “make information available to me [and] treatments.”

         In the fourth amended complaint (DN 25), Plaintiff names Aramark as Defendant in the caption, and in the Parties section of the complaint, he names Mr. Dukes, Kitchen Supervisor at GRCC, [2] and “Mr. Ron, ” Medical Administrator at GRCC, in their individual and official capacities.[3]

         Plaintiff alleges:

I was subjected to technical assault and battery by Aramark and [CCS] because Aramark failed to train it's supervisors to give a copy of Medical Nutritional Therapy to [CCS] . . . and that Medical Administrator was not trained to record what was being provided, as with all medical therapy, for his reference as information that a patient can have enough information to consent to, or reject treatment if an allergen level is low enough to reject treatment.

         Plaintiff claims that Defendant Mr. Ron “refused to obtain a copy of my Medical Nutritional Therapy to provide for my copy or inspection.” He indicates that he has “dairy restrictions” and claims that “[n]o purchase from commissary items have been monitored by medical staff to ensure products including, but not limited to ‘MILK, ' are not purchased by me, or restricted from purchase from club and commercial sales.” He further claims that he stopped ordering eggs when he found out that “eggwhites were listed among allergen antibodies in my blood” and reports that “my cists have somewhat subsided, but still I experience painful pinprick suffering after eating bread, and I do not consume soy sauce either, as soy is listed as well. Peanut butter has in past only caused flem and inflamed my tonsiles slightly and lessening now.”

         As relief in the fourth amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary and punitive damages and a referral to an allergy specialist for diagnosis.

         Finally, in the fifth amended complaint (DN 31), Plaintiff lists Aramark as a Defendant in the caption and does not name any Defendant in the Parties section of the complaint. In the Statement of Claim(s) section of the complaint form, Plaintiff advises that in October 2017, “the Aramark staff in GRCC kitchen stopped giving [him] in this case the three slices of bread with every breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and did replace those with flour tortillas, not corn and no graham crackers either, but still haven't answered a grievance.” He also claims that “Medical staff still doesn't acknowledge the obvious and sebaceous cyst(s), or request for bone density test requested long ago.” Plaintiff contends that “upon information and belief bread served at GRCC by Aramark contains milk, even the sliced bread served to plaintiff for over a year now. No fortified fruit drink served.” Plaintiff further contends that on October 30, 2017, in the GRCC kitchen the following occurred:

at about 6:15 am Betty Hawkins had the plaintiff in this case put into handcuffs by officer Robert Norton when I told her my meal consists of more than 1 once of peanut butter.
[] Betty Hawkins gave [him] 1 once of peanut butter; 4 flour tortillas; 2 small packets of apple jelly, and a bowl of dry cereal and told plaintiff that was within Dr. Slads general outline that I let them see. She copied it before when I had to show it to get them to stop contending many of the allergens it listed as not being allergens.
[] Upon information and belief of Willis Diets, he found all the reciepes in relation to my diet in a drawer that other employees were unaware of.
[] Norton called someone on the phone then let me go because he was not party.

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks damages, an injunction directing Defendants to follow dietary directives, and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.