Jackson, Kaland v. Peterson, Gregory, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KALAND D. JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGORY PETERSON, JASON THOMPSON, SEAN
SOMERS, N. GUICHARD, WANDA WILSON, and J.
BAILEY,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
24-cv-767-jdp
Plaintiff Kaland D. Jackson, proceeding without counsel, alleges that defendants,
employees of Oakhill Correctional Institution, knowingly served him foods containing bananas
and peanut butter, which caused him to suffer two severe allergic reactions. Jackson brings an
Eighth Amendment claim based on the conscious disregard of his safety.
Defendants move for summary judgment. Dkt. 23. The undisputed facts show that no
defendant was personally involved in the preparation, labeling, or delivery of the foods
containing bananas and peanut butter. Even if any defendant had been involved in those
operations, there’s no evidence that any defendant realized that Jackson would be served any
food containing bananas or peanut butter. I will grant defendants’ motion and close the case.
Jackson’s motion filed in opposition to defendants’ motion will be denied.
UNDISPUTED FACTS
I begin with a word about Jackson’s summary judgment opposition. On summary
judgment, this court requires the moving party, here defendants, to set out a statement of
proposed facts with citations to admissible supporting evidence. See the attachment to
Case: 3:24-cv-00767-jdp Document #: 38 Filed: 03/05/26 Page 1 of 8

2
Dkt. 8 at 2–4. The party opposing the motion, here Jackson, must state whether each fact is
disputed, and if it is, support the opposition with a clear citation to admissible evidence.
Id. at 4–5. Responses to proposed facts must be succinctly stated and not inflated with lengthy
argument. See id. at 2, 4. The responding party must not respond to proposed facts with
additional facts that are not directly responsive to the original proposed fact. Id. at 4. If a
response to a proposed fact relies on inadmissible evidence or otherwise does not comply with
the court’s procedures, the court takes the original factual statement as true and undisputed.
See id. at 8. All litigants must comply with the court’s orders and rules. See Allen-Noll v. Madison
Area Tech. Coll., 969 F.3d 343, 349 (7th Cir. 2020).
Jackson’s opposition to defendants’ proposed facts doesn’t comply with the court’s
summary judgment procedures. Jackson often fails to cite admissible evidence to support his
opposition, and the evidence he cites mostly fails to dispute defendants’ proposed facts. Also,
many of Jackson’s responses are excessively argumentative and contain immaterial information.
I will consider Jackson’s amended complaint, which he signed under penalty of perjury,
as admissible summary judgment evidence in ruling on defendants’ motion. See Dkt. 12. But
most of the amended complaint’s factual statements are not specific and don’t directly dispute
defendants’ proposed facts. Except for defendants’ proposed facts 3 and 84, which Jackson
properly disputes, I will accept defendants’ proposed facts as undisputed. See Allen-Noll, 969
F.3d at 349; Hedrich v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 274 F.3d 1174, 1177–78 (7th
Cir. 2001).
With that background, the following facts are undisputed except where noted.
Jackson says that he is severely allergic to bananas and peanuts. While incarcerated at
Oakhill Correctional Institution (OCI), Jackson unknowingly ate a banana muffin on May 6,
Case: 3:24-cv-00767-jdp Document #: 38 Filed: 03/05/26 Page 2 of 8

3
2023, and a peanut butter cookie on July 8, 2023. Both times, according to Jackson, he suffered
a severe allergic reaction.
Defendant Gregory Peterson is the food services administrator at OCI. Peterson is
responsible for the policy, training, and planning of food services at OCI, but he does not
personally prepare, label, or deliver meals to prisoners. OCI had specific policies and practices
in place to prevent prisoners with allergies from being exposed to known allergens and, for the
most part, those measures were successful. For instance, bagged diet meals were prepared for
prisoners with allergies that could be triggered by ingredients in a certain meal. Peterson was
notified that Jackson was allergic to bananas and peanuts around December 2021.
On May 6, 2023, even though “Muffins, no banana” was listed on the breakfast menu,
kitchen staff asked if they could make banana muffins because there were extra bananas. A
food service leader who is not a party to this case approved the change. When a food service
leader approves a menu change, Peterson expects that person to inform both him and the
prisoner kitchen staff who prepare bagged diet meals, and to update the daily menu. The food
service leader forgot to take these measures on May 6. After Jackson informed Peterson that
he ate a banana muffin, Peterson spoke to kitchen staff to ensure that they were aware of
potential allergen cross-contamination and that he must approve ingredient substitutions.
On July 8, 2023, “assorted cookies” was listed on the lunch menu. Chocolate chip
cookies were prepared the day before for lunch on July 8. For unknown reasons, kitchen staff
added peanut butter to the cookie mix. Although the cookies were labeled “assorted cookies,”
they looked like regular chocolate chip cookies. Jackson says that he unknowingly ate a cookie
with peanut butter, which caused him to have a severe allergic reaction. After Peterson learned
Case: 3:24-cv-00767-jdp Document #: 38 Filed: 03/05/26 Page 3 of 8

4
about that incident, he instituted a policy prohibiting the use of tree nuts, peanuts, and peanut
butter in any bakery products.
Defendants Jason Thompson, Sean Somers, and Wanda Wilson were employed at OCI
when the events occurred. Thompson was the management services director. In this capacity,
Thompson was not involved in the day-to-day operations of OCI’s kitchen and did not
personally prepare, label, or deliver meals to prisoners. Thompson was not at work on May 6
or July 8, 2023.
Somers was a food service manager. In that capacity, Somers was responsible for the
supervision, training, and evaluation of food service leaders and prisoner workers in OCI’s
kitchen. In general, Sommers did not personally prepare, label, or deliver meals to prisoners.
Somers was not at work on May 6, 2023. Somers worked on July 8, 2023, when Jackson
ate a cookie with peanut butter. But Somers was on vacation the day before, when those cookies
were prepared.
Wilson was a food service leader. In that capacity, Wilson was responsible for
instructing 	and 	supervising 	prisoner 	workers 	regarding 	the 	production 	of 	meal 	items,
maintaining hygiene, and loading unit meal delivery carts.
Wilson was not at work on May 6, 2023. Wilson worked on July 7 and 8, 2023, from
9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Wilson does not recall seeing kitchen staff add peanut butter to the “assorted
cookies” that were served on July 8. By the time Wilson arrived at 9 a.m., the bakers had
already mixed their baking ingredients and were in the process of finalizing their baked items.
Peterson says that defendants Jackilyn Bailey and Nicole Guichard were not employed
at OCI when the events occurred. Peterson says that Guichard was hired as a food service leader
in August 2024, and that Bailey was hired as a food service leader in March 2025. Jackson
Case: 3:24-cv-00767-jdp Document #: 38 Filed: 03/05/26 Page 4 of 8

5
notes that defendants said in their amended answer to the amended complaint that Bailey and
Guichard worked at OCI when the events occurred. Dkt. 17 ¶ 2.
ANALYSIS
Jackson is proceeding on allegations that defendants knew about his allergies and failed
to tell him that certain menus contained foods that he’s allergic to.
A prison official’s conduct violates the Eighth Amendment if “the official knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
(1994). I will assume for purposes of this opinion that Jackson’s consumption of bananas or
peanuts would pose an excessive risk to his health and safety. The issue is whether Jackson has
shown that defendants consciously disregarded that risk.
Conscious disregard means that the official knows of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he actually draws that
inference. See id. Conscious disregard involves intentional or reckless conduct, not mere
negligence. Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010). Even gross negligence does
not show conscious disregard. See McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2010).
The conscious disregard standard is individualized; a defendant’s liability turns on his
or her own acts or omissions, or the knowledge he or she possesses. See Burks v. Raemisch, 555
F.3d 592, 594 (7th Cir. 2009); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). Individual
liability requires personal involvement in the alleged denial of health or safety. See Colbert v.
City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Iqbal, 566 U.S. at 676; Burks, 555
F.3d at 594.
Case: 3:24-cv-00767-jdp Document #: 38 Filed: 03/05/26 Page 5 of 8

6
The 	undisputed 	facts 	show 	that 	no 	defendant 	was 	personally 	involved 	in 	the
preparation, labeling, or delivery of the banana muffin and cookie with peanut butter whose
consumption Jackson says made him suffer severe allergic reactions. Peterson had an
administrative position and did not personally prepare, label, or deliver meals to prisoners.
Likewise, as management services director, Thompson was not involved in day-to-day kitchen
operations and did not personally prepare, label, or deliver meals to prisoners. Sommers, a food
service manager, did not personally prepare, label, or deliver meals to prisoners and was not at
work when Jackson ate the banana muffin. Sommers was at work when Jackson ate the cookie
made with peanut butter, but she was on vacation a day earlier when those cookies were made.
Wilson, a food service leader, was responsible for instructing and supervising prisoner
workers regarding the production of meal items. But Wilson was not at work when Jackson ate
the banana muffin. Wilson was at work when Jackson ate the cookie made with peanut butter,
but she does not recall seeing kitchen staff add peanut butter to those cookies, which looked
like chocolate chip cookies. Even if Wilson was involved in the preparation or delivery of those
cookies to Jackson, there is no evidence that she realized that they contained peanut butter.
That leaves defendants Bailey and Guichard, food service leaders. The parties dispute
whether Bailey and Guichard worked at OCI when the events occurred. But even if they did,
there’s no evidence that either defendant had any involvement in the preparation, labeling, or
delivery of the foods at issue to Jackson, or that either defendant realized that those items
contained bananas and peanut butter.
In his brief in opposition, Jackson contends that defendants caused him to consume the
banana muffin and cookie with peanut butter by failing to adequately supervise kitchen staff.
See Dkt. 31 at 6. But defendants’ supervisory authority over kitchen staff alone is not enough
Case: 3:24-cv-00767-jdp Document #: 38 Filed: 03/05/26 Page 6 of 8

7
to impute staff’s actions or omissions to defendants, see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676, let alone to find
that defendants realized that Jackson would consume foods that he was allergic to unless they
took greater action. Jackson also faults Peterson for failing to act in response to his complaint
about having been served a banana muffin, which Jackson contends led him to consume the
cookie made with peanut butter. But it’s undisputed that after Jackson informed Peterson that
he had eaten a banana muffin, Peterson spoke to kitchen staff to ensure that they were aware
of potential allergen cross-contamination and that he must approve ingredient substitutions.
Similarly, after Peterson learned that Jackson received a cookie made with peanut butter, he
instituted a policy prohibiting the use of tree nuts, peanuts, and peanut butter in any bakery
products. Peterson did not disregard Jackson’s concerns. I will grant summary judgment to
defendants.
I will deny as unnecessary Jackson’s motion in opposition to defendants’ motion
because Jackson did not need to request permission to oppose that motion. Jackson’s brief in
opposition and other summary judgment materials served that purpose.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 23, is GRANTED.
2. 	Defendant Kaland D. Jackson’s motion in opposition to defendants’ summary
judgment motion, Dkt. 30, is DENIED as unnecessary.
3. 	The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Case: 3:24-cv-00767-jdp Document #: 38 Filed: 03/05/26 Page 7 of 8

8
Entered March 5, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-00767-jdp Document #: 38 Filed: 03/05/26 Page 8 of 8