Moreover, the Court notes that "allegations of verbal abuse and threats by the prison officers [do] not state a claim because the defendants never carried out these threats and verbal abuse alone is insufficient to state a constitutional claim." Hernandez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 281 F. App'x 862, 866 (11th Cir. 2008). Based on a liberal reading of the Amended Complaint as a whole, it appears that Ramos' claim of sexual harassment is based upon verbal abuse regarding child molestation and homosexuality.
Notably, Plaintiff's allegations of verbal harassment, threats, and taunts do not create a constitutional violation. Hernandez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 281 F. App'x 862, 866 (11th Cir. 2008) ("[V]erbal abuse alone is insufficient to state a constitutional claim."); see also Allen v. Stevens, No. 3:12-cv-334, 2012 WL 4510866, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2012) (collecting cases). Plaintiff pleads no facts (other than the deprivation of breakfast) which demonstrate that Defendant Tarver physically harmed him or acted upon her threats, nor does he show Defendant's comments placed him in greater danger of violence from other inmates.
To the extent Plaintiff is claiming harassment and verbal abuse, such allegations do not state a claim of federal constitutional dimension. See Hernandez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 281 F. App'x. 862, 866 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citing Edwards v. Gilbert, 867 F.2d 1271, 1274 n.1 (11th Cir. 1989)) ("Hernandez's allegations of verbal abuse and threats by the prison officers did not state a claim because the defendants never carried out these threats[,] and verbal abuse alone is insufficient to state a constitutional claim."), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1184 (2009).
Edwards v. Gilbert, 867 F.2d 1271, 1273 n.1 (11th Cir. 1989) (alterations in original). In an unpublished decision, this Court has gone further and concluded that prison officers' threats that were never carried out were insufficient to state a constitutional violation. Hernandez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 281 Fed.Appx. 862, 866 (11th Cir. 2008).
See Hernandez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 281 Fed.Appx. 862, 866-67 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (rejecting claim where the plaintiff failed to allege decision making officials took specific actions amounting to a constitutional violation); Asad v. Crosby, 158 Fed.Appx. 166, 170-72 (11th Cir. 2005) (affirming district court's dismissal of supervisory liability claims against two defendants because the record failed to show that they “personally participated in the alleged constitutional violations, or that there was a causal connection between the supervisory defendants' actions and an alleged constitutional violation”).
Missing sporadic food items or meals over a limited period of time does not violate Blake's constitutional rights. See Hernandez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 281 Fed.Appx. 862, 865-66 (11th Cir. 2008) (concluding that the district court did not err by finding the plaintiff “failed to state a claim regarding the routine deprivation of lunch to him five days per week for about five months”).
Indeed, “[u]nder the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner [is] only [] entitled to reasonably adequate food.” Hernandez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 281 Fed.Appx. 862, 865 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Hamm v. DeKalb Cnty., 774 F.2d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1985)). “[F]eeding a prisoner a minimal amount of food for a limited number of days” does not violate the Eighth Amendment.
Indeed, Plaintiff fails to allege that he suffered physical harm from missing one meal, and his allegations wholly fail to suggest that such deprivation “posed an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his health.” Hernandez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 281 Fed.Appx. 862, 866 (11th Cir. 2008). Thus, Plaintiffs claim against Defendants Tucker, Albertson, and McKennezey for missing one meal is due to be dismissed.
Here, Defendant Maddox misinterpreted Plaintiff's claim, arguing that “verbal abuse and threats” by a prison official does not state a claim. ECF No. 19 at 9 (citing to Hernandez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 281 Fed.Appx. 862, 866 (11th Cir. 2008)). The holding in Herdandez - that “allegations of verbal abuse and threats by the prison officers did not state a claim because the defendants never carried out these threats and verbal abuse alone is insufficient to state a constitutional claim”
. With respect to Plaintiff's assertion that he was verbally abused and suffered mental and emotional injuries, the Court noted such allegations “do not state a claim of federal constitutional dimension.” Id. (citing Hernandez v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 281 Fed.Appx. 862, 866 (11th Cir. 2008); Paylan v. Dirks, 847 Fed.Appx. 595, 601 (11th Cir. 2021)).