Opinion
Civil Action No. CCB-00-3684.
May 31, 2001
MEMORANDUM
In August 2000 the Division of Correction, ("DOC"), adopted a policy allowing prisoners to be fed a special management meal as a type of behavior modification. The meal is provided three times per day in place of regular meals. Drinks are not provided although water is available in the prisoners' cells. Division of Correction Directive ("DCD") 110-18.
The meal is commonly referred to as "food loaf." It consists of whole wheat bread, imitation cheese, carrots, spinach, raisins, Great Northern Beans, vegetable oil, tomato paste, powdered milk, and potato flakes. These ingredients are kneaded into loaves and baked. DCD 110-18, Appendix 2.
Dwayne Doucett is a prisoner housed at the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, ("MCAC"). On August 29, 2000 he was accused of assaulting a correctional officer. In addition to charging him with violating prison disciplinary rules, correctional staff directed he be placed on the special management meal program from August 29 through September 12, 2000. (Paper No. 9, Ex. 3).
A disciplinary hearing was held on September 7, 2000, and Mr. Doucett pled guilty to interfering with or resisting the performance of duties. He was sanctioned with 100 days segregation. (Id., Ex. 4.2, 4.5).
Mr. Doucett filed this action on December 19, 2000 asserting he was denied due process and subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when he was placed on the special management meal program. Named as defendants are the Warden of MCAC and Major Wainwright. Mr. Doucett is seeking damages of $1,500.00. (Paper No. 1). Currently pending is a Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants. (Paper No. 9). Mr. Doucett opposes the motion. (Paper No. 12).
"[I]nmates must be provided nutritionally adequate food, prepared and served under conditions which do not present an immediate danger to the health and well being of the inmates who consume it." Shrader v. White, 761 F.2d 975, 986 (4th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Food loaf is designed to provide approximately 940 calories per serving or 2,820 calories per day. Staff is required to consult with medical staff within two working days of an inmate's placement on the special management meal program to ensure there are no medical reasons why it should not be used. DCD 110-18, § VI.E; Appendix 2. Mr. Doucett does not allege that he suffered from any medical condition which was adversely affected by his placement on the special management meal program. Nor does he allege that he suffered any ill effects from consumption of the meals.
Although it is labeled as a behavior modification tool, see DCD 110-18 § III.A, Mr. Doucett was placed on the special management meal program as a form of punishment for the August 28, 2000 incident. Such placement was not, however, cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution. Adams v. Kincheloe, 743 F. Supp. 1385, 1390-92 (E.D.Wash. 1990); United States v. Michigan, 680 F. Supp. 270, 274-76 (W.D.Mich. 1988).
Mr. Doucett argues he was denied procedural and substantive due process because established review procedures were not followed and there was no evidence he had assaulted a correctional officer. (Paper No. 12). The Due Process Clause, however, does not apply in all situations. It provides for protection only in instances of deprivations of constitutionally protected life, liberty or property interests. While the Constitution itself does not create any liberty interest in prison disciplinary proceedings, a state may create such an interest by setting up a disciplinary system which in effect increases the period of incarceration by revoking diminution credits or which imposes a punishment which is significant and atypical in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 477-84 (1995). Because Mr. Doucett did not lose any diminution credits as a result of the August 28, 2000 incident, he is entitled to the protections of the Due Process Clause only if placement on the special management meal program constitutes a significant and atypical hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Id. at 484. While special management meals are "by no means a culinary delight," Adams, 743 F. Supp. at 1391, in the absence of any adverse health effects they are not a significant and atypical hardship. Johnson v. Gummerson, 198 F.3d 233, 1999 WL 822523 *1 (2nd Cir. Sept. 24, 1999) (unpublished). Because Mr. Doucett was not deprived of a constitutionally protected liberty interest, he was not entitled to the protections of the Due Process Clause in connection with his placement on the special management meals program.
Accordingly, a separate Order will be entered granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative Motion for Summary Judgment.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum, it is, this ___ day of _____ 2001, hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative Motion for Summary Judgment, (Paper No. 9), is Granted;
2. Judgment is entered on behalf of Warden, MCAC and Major Wainwright and against Dwayne Doucett;
3. The Clerk is directed to mail copies of this Order and the foregoing Memorandum to Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendants; and
4. The Clerk is directed to close this file.