Fourth Circuit Revives Deliberate Indifference Claim for Baltimore Detainee Served Rotten Food
by David Reutter
On July 23, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed dismissal of a pretrial detainee’s civil rights complaint that alleged he was served “rotten and unsafe food” and denied the ability to engage in Jum’ah (Friday prayer). The matter was remanded for further proceedings and the appointment of counsel.
Terrance E. Hammock alleged that while he was held at Baltimore County Detention Center (BCDC) from September 20, 2019, until the filing of his complaint on February 28, 2022, he was served rotten apples and meat bitten by mice. He further alleged that BCDC officials prevented him from attending Jum’ah, a core tenant of his Muslim religion. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Hammock appealed.
The Fourth Circuit found error in dismissing both claims. As to the food claim, the Court found Hammock alleged both Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, saying that prisoners have a right to “nutritionally adequate food that is prepared and served under conditions that do not present immediate danger to the health and well-being of the inmates who consume it.” See: Schrader v. White, 762 F.2d 975 (4th Cir. 1985). To succeed, the prisoner must allege “serious medical … deterioration attributable to” the challenged conditions. See: Lopez v. Robinson, 914 F.2d 486 (4th Cir. 1990).
Hammock, acting pro se, met the pleading requirements to defeat a motion to dismiss. He alleged the rotten apples and mice-bitten food made him sick, causing him to lose weight. That Hammock did not detail the symptoms of his sickness was not fatal to his claim at the pleading stage. Hard evidence of the serious “medical and emotional deterioration” is required at the summary judgment stage. The allegations that the condition continued over a two-year period showed the problem was not short-lived. Finally, Hammock demonstrated deliberate indifference by stating he repeatedly got sick from eating the rotten and tainted food, causing him to purchase food from the commissary, and that BCDC officials were aware of the situation via his oral complaints and via two complaint letters.
The Fourth Circuit also found that Hammock adequately alleged a First Amendment Free Exercise claim. Hammock alleged a sincere belief in the Muslim practice of participating in Jum’ah every Friday. He further alleged that the Defendants prevented him from attending Jum’ah during the relevant time periods.
The Defendants asserted a legitimate penological interest in preventing contact during COVID-19. However, there was nothing in the record to support a denial of Jum’ah participation before and after COVID-19 restrictions. The Fourth Circuit, therefore, rejected that defense at this stage of the proceedings.
The district court relied upon an interest not presented by the Defendants: that Hammock was in protective custody. The Fourth Circuit found that reliance was error and that no penological interest was properly before the court for evaluation.
Firstly, it was not the court’s role “to simply invent possible objectives that the Defendants have not even claimed were the basis for their policy.” See: Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F.3d 861 (4th Cir. 2017).
Secondly, the district court improperly used a response statement from a request form as the basis for its decision. The request was attached to show Hammock requested to attend religious services. “In cases where the plaintiff attaches or incorporates a document for purposes other than the truthfulness of the document, it is inappropriate to treat the contents of document as true.” See: Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2016).
Finally, the Fourth Circuit found that both rights asserted by Hammock were clearly established. Therefore, the Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. The district court’s order of dismissal was reversed. On remand, the district court was directed to recruit counsel to represent Hammock. See: Hammock v. Watts, 146 F.4th 349, (4th Cir. 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
Related legal case
Hammock v. Watts
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 146 F.4th 349, (4th Cir. 2025) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |