Ford, Willie v. Stroudt, Paula et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
WILLIE D. FORD, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAULA J. STOUDT, PHILLIP BRYANT, AMY
JOHNSON, LAUFENBERG, and SGT. BINDL,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-930-jdp
Plaintiff Willie D. Ford, Jr., proceeding without counsel, alleges that he has a carrot
allergy and that several members of the staff at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility are
responsible for serving him a meal that contained carrots, triggering an allergic reaction that
required emergency medical care. Ford does not identify any legal theories in his complaint,
but he alleges that defendants showed “deliberate indifference to medical needs,” so I
understand Ford to be asserting a claim under the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
The complaint is before the court for screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A, which require the court to dismiss any claim that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant
who by law cannot be sued for money damages. When screening the complaint of a plaintiff
without counsel, I accept the allegations as true and read the complaint liberally. See Arnett v.
Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). But Ford must still “plead a plausible claim for
relief,” Balle v. Kennedy, 73 F.4th 545, 557 (7th Cir. 2023), which means that he must provide
fair notice of his claim and raise his right to relief above the level of speculation, McCray v.
Wilkie, 966 F.3d 616, 620 (7th Cir. 2020). Stated another way, Ford must “present a story
Case: 3:25-cv-00930-jdp Document #: 9 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 1 of 5

2
that holds together” under the relevant law. Taylor v. Salvation Army National Corporation, 110
F.4th 1017, 1028 (7th Cir. 2024).
For the reasons below, I conclude that Ford has not stated a claim under the Eighth
Amendment, but I will give him an opportunity to amend the complaint.
ANALYSIS
The Eighth Amendment is violated when a prison official knows that a prison’s health
or safety is seriously threatened, but the official disregards that risk. Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825 (1994). Ford has not stated a claim under this standard because his complaint
includes no plausible allegations that any of the defendants knew that they were giving food to
him that he could not eat.
Ford alleges the following:
• 	Defendant Bindl, the unit sergeant, told Ford that he was going to call the
kitchen to a get a different meal for Ford because the meal being served
contained carrots.
• 	Bindl later told Ford that he had spoken to Amy Johnson, who told Bindl that
the meal did not contain any carrots and was safe to eat. (Ford does not identify
who Johnson is, but it is reasonable to infer that she was part of the kitchen
staff.)
• 	After Ford had already started eating the meal, Bindl told Ford that Johnson had
called back and told Bindl that the meal did contain carrots after all and Ford
should not eat it.
Case: 3:25-cv-00930-jdp Document #: 9 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 2 of 5

3
• 	Bindl told Ford that Phillip Bryant directed “Laufenberg” to include carrots in
the meal. (Ford does not explain who Bryant or Laufenberg are.)
• 	Ford suffered an allergic reaction requiring two epinephrine injections, albuterol
breathing treatments, and a 50mg dose of diphenhydramine.
The only reasonable inference that can be drawn from these allegations is that
defendants made a mistake. But a mistake cannot provide the basis for an Eighth Amendment
claim. Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 992 (7th Cir. 1996.).
As for Bindl, he was relying on information from someone else. Ford does not allege
that Bindl was trying to trick Ford into eating carrots, and he identifies no reason why Ford
would have known that Johnson was providing incorrect information.
As for Johnson, it is not clear from Ford’s allegations why she initially told Bindl that
the meal did not contain carrots. But it is not reasonable to infer that she knew she was
providing false information at the time. She called Bindl back a short time later, correcting her
mistake and directing Ford not to eat the meal. Ford identifies no way that Johnson would
have known that Ford had already obtained a meal and started eating it.
As for Bryant and Laufenberg, Ford alleges that they decided to include carrots in the
meal. But including a common vegetable in a meal for the general prison population does not
violate the Eighth Amendment. Ford does not allege that either defendant decided to include
carrots in the meal to harm him or that they were aware that someone with a carrot allergy
would consume the meal.
The caption of the complaint also includes a person named Paula J. Stoudt. But the
body of the complaint includes no allegations about her.
Case: 3:25-cv-00930-jdp Document #: 9 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 3 of 5

4
It is not reasonable to infer from the allegations in Ford’s complaint that any of the
defendants knew that they were subjecting Ford to a substantial risk of serious harm. So I will
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
Ford does not say in his complaint whether he wants to assert a negligence claim under
state-law. But even if he does, I could not consider that claim. Generally, a court can consider
state-law claims only if the parties are citizens of different states or if the state-law claim is
related to a federal claim in the same case. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1367. It is not reasonable
to infer that Ford and defendants are citizens of different states, and I am dismissing the federal
claim, so I would not retain jurisdiction over any state-law claim. In any event, Ford does not
allege that he complied with the notice of claim requirements for a state-law claim, and I could
not consider any state-law claims before those requirements are met. Weinberger v. State of
Wisconsin, 105 F.3d 1182, 1188 (7th Cir. 1997).
The general rule is that the court should give plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their
complaint before dismissing the case with prejudice. L. Offs. of David Freydin, P.C. v. Chamara,
24 F.4th 1122, 1133 (7th Cir. 2022). So if Ford believes that he can add allegations showing
that one or more of the defendants knew that they were subjecting him to a substantial risk of
serious harm, he may file an amended complaint.
Case: 3:25-cv-00930-jdp Document #: 9 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 4 of 5

5
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that that the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff Willie D. Ford, Jr., may have until February 6, 2026, to file an amended complaint
that fixes the problems identified in this order. If Ford does not respond by then, I will dismiss
the case with prejudice, direct the clerk of court to enter judgment, and record a “strike” under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 705 (7th Cir. 2011).
Entered January 16, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00930-jdp Document #: 9 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 5 of 5