899 F.2d 733 (8th Cir. 1990), 89-2241, Burgin v. Nix

Docket Nº89-2241.
Citation899 F.2d 733
Party NameLaurence BURGIN, Appellant, v. Crispus NIX, Warden, ISP; John Henry, Head of Security, ISP; and John Sanders, No. 220, Unit Manager, ISP, Appellees.
Case DateMarch 30, 1990
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 733

899 F.2d 733 (8th Cir. 1990)

Laurence BURGIN, Appellant,

v.

Crispus NIX, Warden, ISP; John Henry, Head of Security,

ISP; and John Sanders, No. 220, Unit Manager,

ISP, Appellees.

No. 89-2241.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

March 30, 1990

Submitted Feb. 16, 1990.

Anuradha Vaitheswaran, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellant.

Robert W. Pratt, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellees.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, BEAM, Circuit Judge, and WOODS, [*] District Judge.

Page 734

PER CURIAM.

On June 20, 1985, plaintiff, Laurence Burgin, an inmate in the custody of the ISP, while being served a "nonsacked" meal, 1 threw a carton of milk toward a guard. The contents splashed upon the latter. Without notice or a hearing, Burgin was immediately placed on incorrigible inmate status and served sacked meals, pursuant to ISP Policy 573A. That policy states, in pertinent part:

DEFINITIONS:

  1. Incorrigible Inmates: For the purposes of this policy, incorrigible inmates are those inmates that have thrown, attempted to throw or have threatened to throw water, urine, feces, food, etc. on staff members that are attempting to provide services to them.

    ...

  2. Provision B

    In some cases, in order to provide safety for staff members, additional precautions must be taken to keep the inmate from receiving items that can be thrown on the staff members. In those cases, with the Warden's approval, they will be placed on a diet of sack lunches:

    On June 27, 1985, the plaintiff was taken off incorrigible inmate status, which must be reviewed every seven days. However, he was returned that day, again without notice or a hearing, when he threw his lunch out of his cell. He remained on this status through July 3, 1985.

    On August 30, 1985, the plaintiff filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, challenging the defendants' failure to provide him with a hearing prior to placing him on incorrigible inmate status and serving him "sacked" meals, thereby violating his fourteenth amendment right to due process. The district court found that ISP Policy 573A created a liberty interest protected by the fourteenth amendment. We reverse.

    The focus of our inquiry is ISP Policy 573A. This policy contains two substantive provisions, A and B. Provision A mandates that a prisoner on incorrigible inmate status comply with certain requirements before being provided with an institutional service, e.g., turn on his light, remove any visual obstruction, stand in such a manner that he is clearly visible to a "staff member." He does not challenge the requirements outlined in this provision. Rather, his challenge is to provision B which permits prison officials to serve "sacked" meals to prisoners on incorrigible inmate status.

    The initial step in this type of due process inquiry typically requires us to determine whether ISP Policy 573A creates a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 practice notes
  • 863 F.Supp.2d 836 (N.D.Iowa 2012), 11-CV-4055-DEO, Scott v. Benson
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit
    • April 30, 2012
    ...in the hands of prison officials, control of the diet is within their discretion, assuming it is adequate." Burgin v. Nix, 899 F.2d 733, 734 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (citations omitted). The plaintiff has the burden to show that his diet is not sufficient to maintain his health. See......
  • Scott v. Benson, 032112 IWNDC, C11-4055-DEO
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit
    • March 21, 2012
    ...exclusively in the hands of prison officials, control of the diet is within their discretion, assuming it is adequate.” Burgin v. Nix, 899 F.2d 733, 734 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (citations omitted). The plaintiff has the burden to show that his diet is not sufficient to maintain his hea......
  • Porter v. Correctional Case Manager, 012521 MOEDC, 4:20-cv-01034-SRC
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Eastern District of Missouri
    • January 25, 2021
    ...have a right to nutritionally adequate food. Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992). See also Burgin v. Nix, 899 F.2d 733, 734 (8th Cir. 1990) (“One constitutional protection retained by the prisoner is the right to an adequate diet”). While control of ......
  • Scott v. Benson, 121113 IWNDC, 13-CV-4028-DEO
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Northern District of Iowa Western Division
    • December 11, 2013
    ...(7th Cir. 1991) (unpublished). Persons in confinement have no constitutional right to be served a particular type of meal. Burgin v. Nix , 899 F.2d 733, 734-35 (8th Cir. Persons in confinement have no constitutional right to purchase snacks or gifts from the Commissary or similar setting. T......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
61 cases
  • 863 F.Supp.2d 836 (N.D.Iowa 2012), 11-CV-4055-DEO, Scott v. Benson
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit
    • April 30, 2012
    ...in the hands of prison officials, control of the diet is within their discretion, assuming it is adequate." Burgin v. Nix, 899 F.2d 733, 734 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (citations omitted). The plaintiff has the burden to show that his diet is not sufficient to maintain his health. See......
  • Scott v. Benson, 032112 IWNDC, C11-4055-DEO
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit
    • March 21, 2012
    ...exclusively in the hands of prison officials, control of the diet is within their discretion, assuming it is adequate.” Burgin v. Nix, 899 F.2d 733, 734 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (citations omitted). The plaintiff has the burden to show that his diet is not sufficient to maintain his hea......
  • Porter v. Correctional Case Manager, 012521 MOEDC, 4:20-cv-01034-SRC
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Eastern District of Missouri
    • January 25, 2021
    ...have a right to nutritionally adequate food. Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992). See also Burgin v. Nix, 899 F.2d 733, 734 (8th Cir. 1990) (“One constitutional protection retained by the prisoner is the right to an adequate diet”). While control of ......
  • Scott v. Benson, 121113 IWNDC, 13-CV-4028-DEO
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Northern District of Iowa Western Division
    • December 11, 2013
    ...(7th Cir. 1991) (unpublished). Persons in confinement have no constitutional right to be served a particular type of meal. Burgin v. Nix , 899 F.2d 733, 734-35 (8th Cir. Persons in confinement have no constitutional right to purchase snacks or gifts from the Commissary or similar setting. T......
  • Request a trial to view additional results