# Alford Lee Cunningham v. Russell Jones, Jailer

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · December 6, 1977 · 567 F.2d 653

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464409

## Case

- **Full name:** Alford Lee CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Russell JONES, Jailer, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 6, 1977
- **Citations:** 567 F.2d 653; 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5743
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Engel
- **Judges:** Edwards, Peck, Engel
- **Cited by:** 123 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464409

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “a complaint about the preparation or quality of prison food . . . would generally be far removed from Eighth Amendment concerns”
- 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
- holding that prison food must be adequate for a prisoner to “maintain normal health”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9464409. Public record. Not legal advice.