Talib v. Gilley

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that prisoner has no constitutional claim for inadequate nutrition when he was not served meals after refusing to put hands behind back, noting prisoner “carried the keys to the kitchen cupboard”
• concluding that “missing one out of every nine meals is hardly more than that missed by many working citizens over the same period” and therefore not “anything close” to a denial of a minimal measure of life's necessities
• noting that denial of one out of every nine meals is not a constitutional violation
• stating that an IFP complaint “lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory”
• stating that whether the deprivation of food falls below acceptable threshold of “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” depends on the amount and duration of the deprivation
• finding that “a policy requiring prisoners on lockdown to kneel facing the wall with their hands behind their backs when served meals” did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).