Court Opinion

ID: 9485735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:28:25.263249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:19.566350
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion. Nevertheless, I would add a word, for, in my opinion, the district court was correct in the action it took in dismissing the plaintiffs case.
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....
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.
This colloquy makes the very best case for the prisoner that he can make.
As an initial matter, I would find that even an inference that this prisoner was not properly nourished,* 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.
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.
So, in my opinion, the ease 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.

 Even though not pleaded.