## Facts

- South Dakota contracted with CBM, Inc. to provide food services at Department of Corrections facilities, including prisons.
- The contract required an average daily caloric range of approximately 2,500–2,700 calories and contemplated food substitutions for religious avoidances.
- Charles E. Sisney, an inmate at the South Dakota State Penitentiary, is Jewish and requested a kosher diet.
- In April 2007, CBM changed the kosher meals served to inmates who requested them.
- Sisney filed an administrative grievance alleging the new kosher meals (1) fell 400–500 calories below the contract’s minimum and (2) did not satisfy his religious requirements.
- Prison Operations Director Douglas Weber denied the grievance, stating Sisney’s caloric assessment was incomplete and understated the meals’ content.
- Sisney filed a pro se civil action alleging CBM breached its contract with the State; he sought damages as an asserted third-party beneficiary and also brought federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985.

## Issues

1. Whether an inmate receiving kosher meals was an intended third-party beneficiary of the State’s public contract with a prison food-service vendor and could sue for breach.
2. Whether allegations tied to a kosher diet stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, including the requirement of race-based discrimination in contracting.
3. Whether the complaint alleged the elements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim, including class-based discriminatory animus.
4. Whether dismissal for failure to state a claim was proper on the pleaded theories, including where the State asserted immunity.

## Decision

- The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- Sisney lacked standing to sue for breach because he was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the State–CBM public contract.
- The complaint failed to plead facts establishing a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because the alleged wrongdoing was tied to religion, not race-based discrimination in contracting.
- The complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, including conspiracy and class-based discriminatory animus.
- The circuit court’s dismissal of the State on immunity grounds was left undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- A third party may enforce a contract only if the contract was made expressly for that party’s direct benefit and the parties’ intent to confer enforceable rights is clear.
- For public contracts, private individuals are generally treated as incidental beneficiaries unless the contract uses plain, clear language showing an intent to create enforceable rights in that class of persons.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1981 targets race-based discrimination affecting the right to make and enforce contracts; allegations of discrimination based on religion, without race-based facts, do not state a § 1981 claim.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) requires allegations supporting a conspiracy, an overt act, injury, and class-based discriminatory animus; conclusory assertions without supporting facts are insufficient under failure-to-state-a-claim review.

## Conclusion

The court held that the State’s food-service contract did not plainly confer enforceable rights on inmates as intended third-party beneficiaries and that the pleaded federal civil-rights theories failed because the complaint did not allege race-based contracting discrimination under § 1981 or the factual elements of a class-based conspiracy under § 1985, warranting dismissal at the pleading stage.


Sisney v. State, 754 N.W.2d 639 (S.D. 2008)