A federal judge last month dismissed the claims of a toothless detainee in the Jefferson County jail who sued the sheriff and the jail’s medical and food contractors over an inability to eat the meals they provided him without his mouth bleeding or hurting.

Brian L. Brackett, who entered the Jeffco jail in August 2021, alleged he lost 25 pounds and did not receive the same calorie intake as other detainees because staff refused to deviate from the menu and accommodate his lack of teeth.

“There were times I showed the deputies my mouth that was full of blood cuz I was hungry and had to eat something,” wrote Brackett, who represented himself in court. “Knowing I have no teeth they take away things like cakes and such that are soft and put carrot sticks (and) hard cookies.”

He also faulted the defendants for “not taking me to go get teeth,” even though Medicare was reportedly paying for the treatment.

In response, Sheriff Jeff Shrader, food services provider Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, and medical contractor Wellpath, LLC pointed the finger at each other. 

“Plaintiff has specifically alleged that Medical directed that he receive this special diet, but he claims that these instructions were disregarded by the kitchen,” wrote Wellpath.

“Jefferson County and not Aramark … decides which inmates are to receive a specific meal,” Aramark countered.

“Brackett’s substantive allegations never even reference the Sheriff, let alone demonstrate that he personally participated in any alleged constitutional violation,” said the county.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty interpreted Brackett’s lawsuit to mean he was challenging as unconstitutional the conditions of his confinement, as well as alleging the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his need for dentures and food he could eat without injuring himself.

For Aramark, Hegarty noted Brackett had failed to identify a policy that prompted any constitutional violation, which is required when holding a government contractor liable. Further, Brackett needed to show a “sufficiently serious” deprivation of nutrition in the jail – other than his stated inability to eat what he was given.

“He does not otherwise describe the food he regularly received beyond mentioning a few items and stating that he was given hard food that he could not chew,” Hegarty wrote. “Therefore, the court finds that plaintiff does not allege facts to support ‘sufficiently serious’ deprivation.”

The magistrate judge likewise detected no allegations that would have subjected Wellpath to liability for the delay in receiving dentures. Finally, Brackett had not alleged the sheriff himself had a role in any of his issues or otherwise knew of Brackett’s serious medical needs but failed to take action.

On Nov. 21, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer adopted Hegarty’s recommendation and dismissed the lawsuit. Although he barred Brackett from refiling claims against Shrader and Wellpath, Brimmer agreed with the magistrate judge’s analysis to permit an amended complaint to be filed against Aramark.

Hegarty believed Brackett may be able to state a viable claim against the food contractor if, for example, Brackett were able to identify an Aramark policy that barred him from receiving food he could eat without injury. The magistrate judge also speculated Brackett could gain traction by describing the food he received in greater detail, addressing whether the low intake of calories posed a serious risk to his health, or establishing that an alleged offer Brackett received to have his food blended into shakes was never a serious alternative.

Brimmer permitted Brackett until Dec. 12 to file a new lawsuit.

The case is Brackett v. The Jefferson County Sheriff et al.