Court Opinion

ID: 9468742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:22:30.447484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:01.892102
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
Appellant Cunningham originally brought this § 1983 action in 1972 alleging that defendant jailers had violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment by serving him only one meal a day for 15 consecutive days during the month of April 1967.
The District Court had dismissed the action, holding that the facts alleged, if true, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. This court vacated and remanded for the District Court to determine “whether the one meal actually provided to Cunningham was sufficient to maintain normal health.” As to this issue the majority of the court placed the burden of proof on the defendants.
*566On remand the case was heard, apparently without objection, on depositions only and without plaintiff’s counsel being present at the deposition. The only actual relevant evidence provided was that of the jail cook, who apparently testified with considerable enthusiasm for her cooking and estimated the caloric content of the noon meals at between 2,000 to 2,500 calories. Newly appointed counsel for plaintiff offered no evidence, stating that his client had already said “all of the things he would say.”
The District Judge then dismissed the claim, finding that the one meal a day furnished was sufficient to maintain normal health for the 15 days involved.
The judgment of the District Court, 567 F.2d 653, is affirmed.