Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01244/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01244-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH HARRIS, No. CIV S-07-1244-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

LOOK,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 14). 

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion (Doc. 21). 

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s original complaint filed June 1, 2007. 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges defendant denied him two meals on October 17, 2006, both

breakfast and lunch. Plaintiff claims that due to the behavior of his cell mate in knocking over a

milk carton, defendant refused to provide him a breakfast tray then ignored his request and

refused to provide him a lunch tray as well. He claims this treatment was in violation of the

Eighth Amendment.

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-01244-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 06/16/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Defendant brings this motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth facts

sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s

allegation that he missed two meals in one day is not sufficiently serious to pose a substantial risk

of serious harm. Plaintiff’s opposition fails to dispute this argument. Instead, plaintiff’s

opposition raises issues regarding municipality liability and qualified immunity, neither of which

are raised in defendant’s motion.

In considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept all allegations of

material fact in the complaint as true. See Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007). The court

must also construe the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer v.

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); see also Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425

U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). All

ambiguities or doubts must also be resolved in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen,

395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those

drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain

more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 127 S. Ct.1955, 1964-65 (2007). Allegations of specific facts are not necessary so

long as the statement of facts gives the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests. See Erickson, 127 S. Ct. at 2197. 

To determine whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,

the court generally may not consider materials outside the complaint and pleadings. See Cooper

v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 1998); Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453 (9th Cir.

1994). The court may, however, consider: (1) documents whose contents are alleged in or

attached to the complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, see Branch, 14 F.3d at 454;

Case 2:07-cv-01244-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 06/16/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

(2) documents whose authenticity is not in question, and upon which the complaint necessarily

lies, but which are not attached to the complaint, see Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668,

688 (9th Cir. 2001); and (3) documents and materials of which the court may take judicial notice,

see Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 1994), except prison regulations, see Anderson

v. Angelone, 86 F.3d 932, 934 (9th Cir. 1996).

Under these standards, a statute of limitations defense may be raised in a motion

to dismiss. Finally, leave to amend must be granted “. . . [u]nless it is absolutely clear that no

amendment can cure the defects.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per

curiam); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which the

prisoner is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel

and unusual punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth Amendment “embodies broad and idealistic concepts of

dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102

(1976). Conditions of confinement may, however, be harsh and restrictive. See Rhodes v.

Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Nonetheless, prison officials must provide prisoners with

“food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Toussaint v. McCarthy,

801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only

when two requirements are met: (1) objectively, the official’s act or omission must be so serious

such that it results in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities; and (2)

subjectively, the prison official must have acted unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of

inflicting harm. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Thus, to violate the Eighth Amendment, a prison

official must have a “sufficiently culpable mind.” See id. 

“Adequate food is a basic human need protected by the Eighth Amendment.” 

Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237,

1246 (9th Cir. 1982)). “While prison food need not be ‘tasty or aesthetically pleasing,’ it must be

Case 2:07-cv-01244-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 06/16/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

‘adequate to maintain health.’” Id. (quoting LaMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir.

1993)). The deprivation of food may constitute cruel and unusual punishment if it denies a

prisoner the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. See Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211,

214 n.3 (5th Cir. 1998). But whether it “falls below this threshold depends on the amount and

duration of the deprivation.” Id. “[O]nly those deprivations denying ‘the minimal civilized

measure of life’s necessities’ are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment

violation.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S.

337, 347 (1981)). Continuous and substantial denial of food could certainly constitute a denial of

life’s necessities. The Fifth Circuit has found that denying a prisoner one out of every nine meals

is not a constitutional violation. See Talib, 138 F.3d 211. But, the failure to feed a prisoner for

twelve days is unconstitutional. See Cooper v. Sheriff of Lubbock Co., 929 F.2d 1078 (5th Cir.

1991). The Sixth Circuit has found that feeding inmates only once a day for 15 days would

constitute cruel and unusual punishment only if it “deprive[s] the prisoners . . . of sufficient food

to maintain normal health.” Cunningham v. Jones, 567 F.2d 653, 660 (6th Cir. 1977). The

Tenth Circuit has also found withholding food violates the Eighth Amendment when food was

withheld completely from a prisoner for 50 1/2 hours. See Dearmann v. Woodson, 429 F.2d

1288, 1289 (10th Cir. 1970). 

Here, plaintiff alleges defendant denied him two meals in one day. Plaintiff does

not allege that he received this treatment on a continual or sustained basis. He does not allege

this was anything other than a one time incident. Although plaintiff’s experience may not have

been the most pleasant, the experience of missing two meals does not raise to the level of being a

deprivation of sufficient food to maintain normal health, and therefore is insufficient to state a

claim for cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) be granted; and

2. The clerk of the court be directed to enter judgement and close this case.

Case 2:07-cv-01244-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 06/16/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 13, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01244-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 06/16/08 Page 5 of 5