Aery v. Beitel
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-00114
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 15
In Aery v. Beitel, Judge Menendez granted summary judgment to defendants, dismissed federal claims with prejudice, and dismissed state claims without prejudice.
James Paul Aery’s federal claims against Ernie Beitel, Calandra Allen, and Summit Food Service, LLC were dismissed with prejudice. Any remaining state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice after the court declined supplemental jurisdiction.
What happened
James Paul Aery, who represented himself, sued Ernie Beitel, Calandra Allen, and Summit Food Service, LLC, alleging that inadequate food at Beltrami County Jail harmed his health and violated federal and state law. He specifically alleged that meal trays sometimes lacked the margarine listed on menus and that food portions were insufficient.
The court reviewed Aery’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation and rejected them. It concluded that Aery had not provided enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the defendants violated his constitutional rights, including through inadequate nutrition, deliberate indifference, or excessive force. The court also found no reason to reconsider rulings denying his discovery, sanctions, and counsel-related requests.
Judge Katherine Menendez accepted the recommendation, granted Summit’s motion for summary judgment, and granted Beitel and Allen’s motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed Aery’s federal claims with prejudice and declined to decide any remaining state-law claims, which it dismissed without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Aery v. Beitel · No. 0:22-cv-00114
- Katherine Menendez
- Sept. 4, 2024
Background
James Paul Aery sued Ernie Beitel, Calandra Allen, and Summit Food Service, LLC. He alleged that, while confined at Beltrami County Jail, he received insufficient food and nutrition. Among other allegations, he claimed that margarine listed on the menus was removed from his meal trays and that Summit served less than the listed portions. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, based on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as state-law claims.
The court had previously allowed Aery’s inadequate-nutrition claims against Beitel and Allen in their individual capacities to proceed while dismissing other claims against the county defendants. Summit, and Beitel and Allen, later moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence presents a real dispute requiring a trial. A magistrate judge recommended granting both motions, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.
Review of the Objections
Aery objected to the recommendation and to the magistrate judge’s rulings on several non-dispositive motions. Those motions sought additional menus, sanctions related to discovery and alleged destruction of electronically stored information, more time for discovery, and appointment of advisory counsel. The district court reviewed those rulings under the deferential standard for decisions that are clearly mistaken or contrary to law and found no such error. The court also noted that the sealing of the recommendation and order had already been lifted.
Aery argued that his inadequate-nutrition claims covered a much longer period than the February-to-March 2022 period the court had previously identified. The court rejected that argument, finding that his amended complaint did not clearly plead a claim covering eighteen to twenty years and that he had not sought permission to amend the complaint to assert a broader claim.
Federal Claims
The court upheld summary judgment for Summit. It agreed that Aery had not identified evidence creating a genuine factual dispute about his constitutional claims. The court stated that the Eighth Amendment did not apply because Aery was a pretrial detainee, while also stating that even if the Eighth Amendment applied during some part of the relevant period, the outcome would not change.
As to the Fourteenth Amendment claims, the court found insufficient evidence that Summit maintained an arbitrary or excessive food policy that amounted to punishment, or that Summit deliberately ignored a known substantial risk to Aery’s health. The evidence included menus reviewed and approved by a certified dietitian and evidence that Summit changed its menu after learning about the margarine issue. The court also found that the record did not support Aery’s claim that he was denied a vegetarian diet.
The court separately upheld summary judgment for Beitel and Allen. It found evidence that the food provided was nutritionally sufficient, that Aery’s health was not shown to have been harmed, and that the defendants responded to his concerns rather than deliberately ignoring them. The court noted evidence that Aery gained weight during portions of 2022 and that Allen followed up with Summit and requested weekly weight checks.
The court also rejected Aery’s Fourth Amendment theory that the food practices amounted to excessive force. It found that he identified no evidence of a seizure, which the court described as a required threshold element of an excessive-force claim.
Disposition
The court overruled Aery’s objections and accepted the Report and Recommendation. Judge Menendez ordered that Summit’s motion for summary judgment be granted and that Beitel and Allen’s motion for summary judgment be granted. All of Aery’s federal claims were dismissed with prejudice. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and those claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court ordered judgment to be entered.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.