Wisconsin Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Detainee’s Jail Food Lawsuit
by Michael Thompson
James Clubb was incarcerated in the Marinette County Jail on September 13, 2018, when he bit down on something hard and broke a tooth. At the time, for-profit provisions company Aramark held “the exclusive right to provide food service” to “the County’s inmates, staff and visitors at the Marinette County Jail.” Clubb believed that the object that broke his tooth was a piece of plastic, like “the corner of a cutting board or something.”
At the time of the injury, he reported it to one of the guards but was told to submit a medical request. He submitted four or five requests but received no response until September 24, when he saw the nurse. Three days later, he submitted another request. Subsequently, the physician approved Tylenol and antibiotics for Clubb. The doctor also submitted a dentistry order which would be filled by “the first willing and available provider.” It was only after another visit to the nurse on October 11 that an appointment was set for October 19, more than a month after he broke his tooth.
Clubb filed a lawsuit for state claims on September 19, 2022, four years after the event. He sued against various defendants for violation of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, violation of Wisconsin’s safe place statue, negligent failure to train and supervise, breach of contract, and sought recovery under the direct-action statute and the indemnification statute. After a series of motions by the defendants, he faced only the County, Aramark, and the health provider; the court dismissed his case after a non-evidentiary hearing. The state appellate court subsequently affirmed the district court’s decision.
The appellate court focused on two arguments: that Aramark had “violated” its contract and that Wisconsin statute establishes a “ministerial city” on the county. On the first, the court concluded that as an inmate, Clubb was not a third-party beneficiary to the contract between Aramark and the county. “An indirect benefit incidental to the contract is not sufficient” to make a third-party beneficiary’s claim, the court wrote. He failed on the ministerial claim because the healthcare providers are given discretion on how to treat medical conditions: “[F]or a duty to be ministerial, a public officer must not only be bound to act, but also bound to act in a very particular way.”
Source: Clubb v. Marinette County, 2024AP1969 (2025)
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login