King v. Lewis , 358 F. App'x 459 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7076
    TONEY RECOE KING,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    ROBERT C. LEWIS; ROBERT COOPER; PATRICK CHILDRESS; NORTH
    CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
    Defendants – Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.   Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00165-GCM)
    Submitted:    December 4, 2009              Decided:   December 31, 2009
    Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Toney Recoe King, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Toney Recoe King appeals from the district court order
    dismissing, for failure to state a claim, his complaint in which
    he alleged that he was provided insufficient food at the Avery
    Mitchell    Correctional         Institution,   in   violation        of   
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2006).          We find that King’s complaint survives 28 U.S.C.
    § 1915A (2006) review and therefore vacate the district court’s
    order and remand for further proceedings.
    A pro se litigant’s complaint should not be dismissed
    unless it appears beyond doubt that the litigant can prove no
    set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to
    relief.     Gordon v. Leeke, 
    574 F.2d 1147
    , 1151 (4th Cir. 1978).
    Construing the complaint liberally, see De’Lonta v. Angelone,
    
    330 F.3d 630
    , 633 (4th Cir. 2003),               King alleged that the food
    served     at    each     meal    was   inadequate   in        both   quantity      and
    nutritional standards.            He asserted that the “vegetables served
    only add up to less than two (2) teaspoonful, eggs served during
    breakfast add up to even less; meats served is often less than
    two (2) ounces.          Most meals would not add up to six (6) ounces
    total.”         King also asserted that the prison used access to food
    as a punishment by limiting canteen purchases for inmates who
    violate prison rules.            Additionally, he asserts that he suffers
    more   than      “fortunate      prisoners”   because     he    cannot     afford    to
    2
    purchase       food    items    from        the    canteen     to     supplement         the
    inadequate food provided at meals.
    Allegations of inadequate food for human nutritional
    needs or unsanitary food service facilities are sufficient to
    state     a    cognizable       constitutional           claim,     see      Bolding       v.
    Holshouser,      
    575 F.2d 461
        (4th       Cir.    1978),     so    long     as   the
    deprivation       is    serious       and    the       defendant     is     deliberately
    indifferent to the need.           Wilson v. Seiter, 
    501 U.S. 294
     (1991).
    Here, the basis of King’s complaint is that the prison serves
    nutritionally         inadequate      food    portions      and     that    he     suffered
    “physically due to periodic pain associated with hunger” and
    “mentally because [he] cannot focus on his rehabilitation he
    must continue to worry about food or the lack there of.”
    We find that, liberally construing King’s complaint,
    these allegations are sufficient to survive the initial review
    under § 1915A.         See De’Lonta, 
    330 F.3d at 633
    ; see also Berry v.
    Brady, 
    192 F.3d 504
    , 508 (5th Cir. 1999) (suggesting that to
    state Eighth Amendment claim inmate must allege “he lost weight
    or   suffered     other     adverse     physical         effects    or     was    denied    a
    nutritionally         and   calorically       adequate       diet”);       Antonelli       v.
    Sheahan, 
    81 F.3d 1422
    , 1432 (7th Cir. 1996) (prisoner stated a
    cause of action under the Eighth Amendment by claiming “not just
    ‘ransid       food’    [sic],    but    also       a     ‘nutritionally          deficient’
    diet”); Wishon v. Gammon, 
    978 F.2d 446
    , 449 (8th Cir. 1992)
    3
    (holding that prisoners have the right to nutritionally adequate
    food); Rust v. Grammer, 
    858 F.2d 411
    , 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (diet
    without fruits and vegetables might violate Eighth Amendment if
    it were regular prison diet).
    Liberally construing the complaint, we find that King
    may be able to prove sufficient facts to support his Eighth
    Amendment claim, Gordon, 
    574 F.2d at 1151
    , and thus conclude
    that       dismissal   prior    to   a   response      from   the   Defendants   was
    premature. *      We therefore vacate the district court’s dismissal
    order and remand this case to the district court for further
    proceedings.        We dispense with oral argument because the facts
    and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
    before      the   court   and   argument       would   not    aid   the   decisional
    process.
    VACATED AND REMANDED
    *
    We express no opinion as to the ultimate disposition of
    this claim.
    4