receiving the next meal is designed to reduce the number of incidents of inmates throwing water, feces, urine, food, and other items out of their cell--a practice that plaintiff allegedly engaged in on that very same day. Plaintiff does not dispute the accuracy of these deprivation orders or allege that there were any additional deprivations.
I find that, under the circumstances, these deprivations are not sufficiently serious to constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Robles v. Coughlin, 725 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1983) (recognizing that no court has explicitly held that denial of food is a per se violation of an inmate's Eighth Amendment rights); Moss v. Ward, 450 F. Supp. 591, 596 (W.D.N.Y. 1978) (recognizing that deprivation of one or two meals may not be cruel and unusual punishment).
Further, although the Superintendent's Office received copies of the two deprivation orders on the date of plaintiff's fall, there is simply no evidence before me that defendant Irvin had any knowledge of these deprivations prior to plaintiff's fall so as to attribute to him deliberate indifference to plaintiff's health and safety.
Plaintiff also alleges that his injuries were caused, in part, by Irvin's policy requiring SHU inmates to keep their personal property on the floor and the deprivation of lighting in his cell. According to Irvin, SHU inmates were able to store their limited amount of property under their beds or on the shelves in their cells. Affidavit of Frank E. Irvin ("Irvin Aff.") P 51. Further, Irvin claims that if an inmate had excess allowable property, the inmate could have requested that the items be stored with his other property, which would be returned to him after his release from the SHU. Irvin Aff. P 51.
Assuming, however, for the purposes of this motion that Irvin did require inmates to store their property on the floor, I still do not find that this is a sufficiently serious condition implicating Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment concerns. Plaintiff also claims, in a very conclusory fashion, that the lights were off in his cell at the time of his fall. He does not claim, however, who turned them off, why they were turned off, or for how long they had been turned off. There is no basis for a claim against Irvin on these facts.
More important, however, is the fact that plaintiff does not allege that Irvin acted with deliberate indifference. For example, plaintiff states in his complaint: "Plaintiff received 40 sutures while unlawfully confined to SHU in Wende Correctional Facility, from the negligent of defendant Irvin, having my lights turn off and making prisoners in SHU to put all of their legal work and letters, books, magazines, clothing: pants, shirt, workshirt, etc. All property is on the floor. I slip on some property that was on the floor and hit my head and cuted my arm on the cell door." Complaint P 24. Plaintiff also alleges in his complaint: "Defendant Irvin, was notified of the negligent of prisoner's property on the floor because there is no place else to put any items which caused plaintiff to receive 40 sutures. Defendant Irvin violated plaintiff's 8th Amendment rights of the U.S. Constitution." Complaint P 30. To establish an Eighth Amendment violation, something more than the mere negligence alleged here is required.
Accordingly, plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Irvin is dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied, and defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DAVID G. LARIMER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: Rochester, New York
December 2, 1997.