noting that “a complaint about the preparation or quality of prison food . . . would generally be far removed from Eighth Amendment concerns”
How later courts described this case
- noting that “a complaint about the preparation or quality of prison food . . . would generally be far removed from Eighth Amendment concerns”
- providing that where a prisoner’s diet is sufficient to sustain the prisoner’s good health, no constitutional right has been violated
- holding that the deprivation of two out of three meals can support an Eighth Amendment claim when there is no evidence that the one meal served was nutritionally adequate
- finding that 27 the Eighth Amendment requires only that prisoners receive food adequate to maintain health; it need not be tasty or aesthetically pleasing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ENGEL, Circuit Judge
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The district court made certain findings which the majority opinion holds are not clearly erroneous. In my opinion these findings preclude our reaching a different result from that of the district court.
While the majority opinion carefully limits its scope and recognizes that the case is “not purely a ‘one-meal a day’ case,” it *661 seems to me that this is the only meaning which can be attached to the result. This is so because the district court specifically found that another prisoner similarly restricted had gained weight during the period, because the defendant had regular access to counsel during that period and never made a complaint, and because there was no proof that the food served was inadequate in its quality or in minimum quantity. Plaintiff claimed no compensatory dam-, ages.
In my opinion the trial court carefully and conscientiously handled the case and demonstrated a proper understanding of the applicable law. Its conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove a case of cruel and unusual punishment was within the range of the proofs. I would affirm.