Harry Rodriguez v. Kenneth R. Briley

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding there was no Eighth Amendment violation where a plaintiff missed meals because he refused to comply with a rule to store belongings in a storage box
• explaining that an inmate cannot be permitted to “engineer” a constitutional violation
• stating that prison’s policy that forbid inmate to leave his cell if he refused to follow the rule requiring him to stow certain items while outside his cell did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment even when inmate missed meals due to failure to follow rule
• “[D]eliberate noncompliance with a valid rule does not convert the consequences that flow automatically from that noncompliance into punishment.”
• “At some point, refusal to eat might turn suicidal and then the prison would have to intervene.”
• prisoner cannot “be permitted to engineer an Eighth Amendment violation” by “going on a hunger strike and blaming the prison for his resulting loss of weight”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).