Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jess White v. Ronald O. Gregory Michael House
Jess White v. Ronald O. Gregory Michael House, 1 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 1993)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1993-08-23
- Topic
- general
holding that receiving only two meals per day on weekends and holidays does not rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment | affirming dismissal as frivolous inmate’s claim that he received only two meals per day during weekends | affirming district court’s dismissal of inmate’s claim that he received only two meals per day during weekends, because inmate alleged no significant resulting injury | affirming dismissal of prisoner complaint as frivolous because Eighth Amendment claim of only receiving two meals on weekends and holidays was “indisputably meritless” | rejecting as “meritless” a claim based on receiving only two meals a day—that is, being entirely deprived of the normal third meal—on weekends and holidays | upholding dismissal of prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim where no further facts necessary to affirm under a new standard | affirming dismissal of an Eighth Amendment claim about missing one meal as frivolous and indisputably meritless | affirming district court’s dismissal as frivolous of inmate’s claim that he received only two meals per day during weekends, because inmate alleged no significant resulting injury | affirming district court’s dismissal as frivolous of inmate’s claim that he received only two meals per day during weekends, because inmate alleged no significant resulting injury | reviewing for abuse of discretion denial of motion for default judgment | upholding an ALJ’s finding that the plaintiff was not credible where he 2 “made sufficient inquiries into [plaintiff’s] daily routine and medical and work history, and made 3 specific findings to justify her rejection of his pain testimony[.]” (citations omitted) | prisoner’s allegation that he only received two meals per day on weekends and holidays was insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment violation | the deprivation of one meal a day on weekends did not 12 rise to the level of serious injury | prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim should be dismissed if he fails to allege a serious physical or mental injury resulting from the conditions of confinement | the deprivation of one meal a day on weekends did not rise to the 26 1 Subsequently, plaintiff filed a second laundry list of names and additional exhibits. (ECF No. 27 5. | “In Strickler, we held that a prisoner must suffer ‘serious or significant physical or mental injury’ in order to be ‘subjected to cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the’ Eighth Amendment.” | “In Strickler, we held that a prisoner must suffer ‘serious or significant physical or mental injury’ in order to be ‘subjected to cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the’ Eighth Amendment.” | “In Strickler, we held that a prisoner must suffer ‘serious or significant physical or mental injury’ in order to be ‘subjected to cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the’ Eighth Amendment.” | allegation that inmate received only two meals a day on weekends and holidays but three meals a day on weekdays was insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim absent suggestion of deleterious physical or mental effects | allegation that inmate received only two meals a day on weekends and holidays but three meals a day on weekdays was insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim absent suggestion of deleterious physical or mental effects | “[T]he rule denying standing to unsuccessful bidders is not absolute.”
Citator
- Cited by
- 31 opinions
Rita A. Stuart, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, WV, argued, for defendants-appellees.
[4] White's complaint was referred to a magistrate judge, who concluded that White's allegations were sufficient to state a claim underBolding v. Holshouser,575 F.2d 461,465(4th Cir.),cert. denied,439 U.S. 837,99 S.Ct. 121,58 L.Ed.2d 133(1978) (holding that an allegation that prisoners were "not provided with three wholesome and nutritious meals a day" stated a claim). Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that White be granted leave to proceedin forma pauperis.The district court adopted the recommendation and ordered that White's complaint be filed and that Defendants be served.
[5] Defendants did not file an answer within twenty days of service of the complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(a). White moved for a default judgment, which the district court denied. Instead, finding excusable neglect, the court granted Defendants' motion for additional time in which to file a responsive pleading. Defendants then moved for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure12(b)(6).
[6] In support of the motion to dismiss,1House submitted an affidavit in which he stated that White lived in a basement apartment in the Superintendent's (i.e., House's) residence. House stated that White had full access both to House's refrigerator and to a separate refrigerator that White was allowed to keep fully stocked with food. Defendants also submitted the affidavit of Geraldine Lambert, who worked with food services at Pruntytown. Lambert stated that White was allowed to select three to four days worth of food from the prison food supplies for his own refrigerator.
[7] White responded by submitting an affidavit in which he claimed that he only had access "to the kitchen at the Superintendent's house . . . when [he] cleaned it or while cooking House's meals." (J.A. 68A.) In addition, White filed a "Motion Not to Dismiss" in which he stated that "while House was Superintendent, he was not allowed food at the Superintendent's house. And [he] was not allowed to cook at the Superintendent's house for himself." (J.A. at 63A.) White "agree[d] that House had food sent to the Superintendent['s] house[,] but it was state food that House ate[,] not Plaintiff." (J.A. at 63A.) White reiterated this point in his affidavit, claiming that he was unable to get food from the Pruntytown Correctional Center's kitchen because he was restricted to the Superintendent's residence. Finally, in his verified complaint, White claimed that he told House that he was entitled to three meals a day, and that House responded by laughing and saying that "he didn't care what the courts said on feeding three meals a day to inmates." (J.A. at 16A.)
[8] The matter was referred to a magistrate judge who recommended dismissal under § 1915(d) on two grounds. First, the magistrate judge determined that Defendants were acting in their official capacities, and held that they were therefore immune from suitPage 269under § 1983. Second, the magistrate judge determined that White's allegation that "he was denied three meals a day is refuted by affidavits attached to defendants' motion to dismiss." (J.A. at 58A.) The magistrate judge also determined that White's claim for injunctive relief was moot because he was no longer incarcerated at Pruntytown.See Magee v. Waters,810 F.2d 451,452(4th Cir. 1987). The district court accepted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed the complaint.
[10] Dismissals under § 1915(d) are reviewed for abuse of discretion.Id.at ___,112 S.Ct. at 1734. District courts typically will grant a plaintiff leave to proceedin formapauperisonly after making a preliminary finding that the complaint is not frivolous. Since leave to proceedin formapauperisis necessary for service under § 1915(b), most dismissals under § 1915(d) occur before any of the defendants are served. However, even if a complaint has been filed and served, district courts have discretion under § 1915(d) to dismiss the complaint where in the course of litigation it becomes evident that the plaintiff's allegations are clearly baseless in law or fact.See id.at ___-___,112 S.Ct. at 1731-34(holding that dismissal under § 1915(d) is appropriate where affidavits supporting amended complaint indicated that the initial complaint was factually frivolous). Section 1915(d) does not, however, empower district courts to resolve genuine issues of material fact.Id.at ___,112 S.Ct. at 1734.
[11] Although the district court dismissed the complaint here because White's claims appeared factually frivolous in light of the affidavits submitted by Defendants, we do not address whether dismissal on this ground was justified. Instead, we affirm the dismissal under § 1915(d) because White's theory of anEighthAmendment violation is indisputably meritless underStrickler v.Waters,989 F.2d 1375(4th Cir. 1993).
[12] InStrickler,we held that a prisoner must suffer "serious or significant physical or mental injury" in order to be "subjected to cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the"EighthAmendment.Id.at 1381. Here, White admits that he received three meals a day except for weekends and holidays, when he received two meals. He makes no suggestion of any deleterious physical or mental effects from this meal schedule. Dieticians may quibble over whether two meals a day provide a nutritionally balanced diet, but the deprivation alleged here simply does not rise to the level of a "serious or significant physical or mental injury."
[13] We conclude that the facts stated in White's complaint plainly indicate that his claims are indisputably meritless, and hence that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint under28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
[15] Second, White urges that the district court erred in denying his motion for default judgment against Gregory.2We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Gregory additional time to file his answer, and hence that the court did not err in denying White's motion for default judgment.
[16] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
[17]AFFIRMED
[20] Of great importance is the fact that the plaintiff, while he nominally may have been in prison, lived in an apartment in the basement of the home of the prison superintendent. Not only did he have access to the superintendent's kitchen and refrigerator, but he had his own refrigerator in his own apartment which was stocked with food. The following questions and answers from oral argument are quoted here:
The Court: It is not disputed, however, that the man had access to the superintendent's refrigerator during all of this time, is it?
A: Correct.
The Court: Well, it is not denied also that he had his own refrigerator and his basement apartment stocked with a variety of food items, is it?
A: No, it is not, Your Honor.
The Court: Well, how on earth is he claiming that he is under-nourished when he had a refrigerator full of food that he admits?
A: Well, he claims he was not provided three wholesome meals a day . . . .
[21] And I add that, in answer to the first question, stated above, the prisoner's attorney elaborated as follows:
He stated that the food delivered to . . . defendant House's residence was for defendant House. He was not allowed to touch it and he states in his affidavit that his only access to the kitchen was to clean it or to cook defendant House's breakfast. He was not allowed to eat there.
[22] This colloquy makes the very best case for the prisoner that he can make.
[23] As an initial matter, I would find that even an inference that this prisoner was not properly nourished,fn*with admitted unrestricted access to his own refrigerator and restricted access to the superintendent's refrigerator, is simply not well taken. Any affidavit which claims that this prisoner did not have adequate nourishment I would find to be inherently incredible.
[24] The inherent incredibility aside, the admission by this prisoner that he has access to his own refrigerator, stocked with a variety of foods, is a substantive admission of fact from which a court is bound to infer that he is not undernourished.
[25] So, in my opinion, the case is frivolous as a matter of fact as well as a matter of law, and the dismissal of the same by the district court should be affirmed on that account also.Page 1430
- The district court did not address whether the complaint should have been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). Consideration of these affidavits on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion would have been inappropriate and required conversion of the motion into one for summary judgment under Rule 56. Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b). ↩
- Although it appears from the record that White moved for default judgment against both Defendants, White has not appealed the denial of default judgment against House. ↩
- Even though not pleaded. ↩