Opinion
No. 7:02-CV-217-R
October 9, 2002
ORDER
This is an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by an inmate confined in the Allred Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in Iowa Park, Texas. Plaintiff claims that, on October 31, 2001, Defendant Mitchell was serving food and failed to give him his juice. Complaint ¶ V. He further alleges that, on November 2, 2001, Mitchell did not feed him and that she "wrote a case" on him stating that he threatened to kill her. Id. Plaintiff seeks 3 million dollars in damages. Id. at ¶
VI.
To satisfy constitutional requirements in the area of food service, a state must furnish its prison inmates with reasonably adequate food. George v. King, 837 F.2d 705, 707 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding one incident of food poisoning insufficient to state a claim under § 1983). The deprivation of food constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment if it denies an inmate the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2324 (1991) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2399)). In determining whether a deprivation of food falls below this threshold, the Court looks to the amount and duration of the deprivation. Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 214 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1998).
In the case at bar, Plaintiff complains that he was denied juice at one meal and, two days later, missed a meal. While the Court does not condone the withholding of meals from inmates, such a deprivation does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See id. (expressing doubt as to any constitutional violation where the plaintiff claimed that he missed "about fifty meals in five months and lost about fifteen pounds."). Plaintiffs remedy, if any, lies not with the federal courts, but with the prison grievance system and/or the Texas Commission on Jail Standards. See e.g., Tex. Gov. Code Ann. § 511.0071 (West 2002); Valles v. Texas Comm'n on Jail Standards, 845 S.W.2d 284, 290 (Tex.App. — Austin 1992, writ denied); Starks v. Bowles, 682 F. Supp. 891, 893 (ND. Tex.), aff'd, 851 F.2d 1419 (5th Cir. 1988); Taylor v. Sterrett, 600 F.2d 1135, 1141-45 (5th Cir. 1979).
To the extent that he seeks redress for wrongful disciplinary action, James has failed to state a colorable claim under § 1983. An inmate who is entitled to mandatory supervised release may have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in earned good time credits such that due process attaches to any proceeding in which such credits are revoked. Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 769 (5th Cir. 1997). However, where a favorable determination in a civil rights action would automatically entitle a prisoner to accelerated release, he must obtain a favorable habeas judgment prior to seeking redress under § 1983. Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1151, 119 S.Ct. 1052 (1999); Orellana v. Kyle, 65F.3d 29, 31 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1059, 116 S.Ct. 736 (1996); see also, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827 (1973) (holding that the proper avenue to seek restoration of lost good-time credits is a habeas corpus proceeding rather than a civil rights action).
Assuming, arguendo, that James lost previously earned good time credits and that he is entitled to mandatory supervised release, he has not shown that the results of the disciplinary proceeding have been reversed, invalidated or otherwise called into question. Thus, his civil rights claims are currently barred under the Supreme Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994). See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-48, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 1588-89 (1997) (holding that a claim based on allegations that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a disciplinary hearing is not cognizable in a civil rights action unless the disciplinary action has been reversed, expunged or otherwise invalidated).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous.
SO ORDERED