Johnson v. Tarska et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 5/12/16. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

DONELL JOHNSON
Plaintiff,
v.
HEATHER TARSKA, et al.
Defendants.

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

No. 1:16-0033
Chief Judge Sharp

MEMORANDUM

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the South Central Correctional Center in
Clifton, Tennessee. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Heather Tarska, a
guard at the prison; and Cherry Lindamood, Warden of the facility; seeking damages.
On April 16, 2016, Officer Tarska allegedly refused to serve the plaintiff a lunch or dinner
tray in his cell.
To state a claim for § 1983 relief, the plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendants,
while acting under color of state law, deprived him of some right or privilege secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981).
The Eighth Amendment imposes upon a state an obligation to provide its prisoners with
reasonably adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, recreation and medical care. Grubbs v.
Bradley, 552 F.Supp. 1052, 1119-1124 (M.D. Tenn.1982). The failure to provide such necessities
is a violation of an inmate's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Bellamy v. Bradley,
729 F.2d 416 (6th Cir.1984).
1

In this case, the plaintiff complains that he did not receive a lunch or dinner tray on a
particular date. He does not allege, however, that he was denied other meals or that he suffered any
type of injury or adverse consequence as a result of missing those meals. Thus, the occasionally
missed meal does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Marr v. Case, 2008 WL 191326
(W.D. Mich.; 1/18/08).
In the absence of a constitutional violation, the plaintiff is unable to prove every element
needed for a claim under § 1983. He has failed, therefore, to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. When a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis has failed to state a claim for relief, the
Court is obliged to dismiss his complaint sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
An appropriate order will be entered.

____________________________
Kevin H. Sharp
Chief District Judge

2