this is not a complaint about the preparation or quality of prison food. Such complaints would generally be far removed from Eighth Amendment concerns. Third, it is not purely

a "one meal a day case.

567 F.2d at 659.

Prisoners who were suffering from heart disease or diabetes were to be afforded regular and reasonably nourishing meals prepared without salt and without saturated fats in Steward v. Henderson, 364 F. Supp. 283 (N.D. Ga. 1973). The court declined, however, to enter an order concerning sugar in the diet since there was insufficient evidence to find that diabetics could not eat safely from the prison diet. 119 The court stated: "It borders on the cruel and unusual to instruct a man that he must not eat certain foods on peril of damaging his health and then provide him with a menu where the only foods offered are the very ones proscribed." 364 F. Supp. at 285. The court further stated:

To prevent misunderstanding,

It is

the court is not directing the
prison officials to provide a full
panoply of dietary foods, desserts,
soft drinks, and the like.
requiring only that petitioners
and others similarly situated be
afforded food of the type now
regularly appearing on the prison
menu prepared without salt and
without saturated fats.

364 F.Supp. at 286.

Collins v. Schoonfield, 344 F.Supp. 257 (D. Md. 1972)

119. See also Owens-El v. Robinson, 442 F.Supp. 1368, 1391 (W.D. Pa. 1978) (possible for diabetic to maintain diet by choosing less starchy items).

testimony in this case that food
should not be denied or curtailed
as a punishment tool is noted. As
to inmates convicted and serving
sentences, the provision or denial
of certain foods, provided there is
in any event no denial of that
quantity and quality of food
required for appropriate nutrition,
may not be unconstitutional regard-
less of whether it is advisable.
As to pretrial detainees, there may
be special situations, such as when
a pretrial detainee persists in
throwing his food in a guard's
face, when use of food curtailment
is justified, again provided that
appropriate basic nutritional
requirements are met. But it is
only in extreme situations that
food curtailment may take place
with regard to a pre-trial
detainee. 120

344 F. Supp. at 278-79.

A district court requirement that prisoners be served at least one fresh green vegetable, one fresh yellow vegetable and one serving of meat or protein was found to be too restrictive in Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373, 379 (5th Cir. 1977). The court stated: "A well-balanced meal, containing sufficient nutritional value to preserve health, is all that is required. "121 553 F.2d at 380.

Lovern v. Cox, 374 F. Supp. 32 (W.D. Va. 1974), dealt with the problem of alleged contamination of food:

120. See also Shapley v. Wolff, 568 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1978) (cold and possibly inadequate food). However, allegations of bad food and miserable living conditions did not state a claim in Marnin v. Pinto, 463 F.2d 583 (3d Cir. 1972).

121. See Sweet v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 529 F.2d 854 (4th Cir. 1975) (court found plaintiff failed to furnish factual support to his claim that diet was inadequate).

Petitioners complain about

the quality of the food they are
served and that on various occasions
hairs from respondents' dogs have
been found on the food. The exten-
sive documentation of the meals
provided inmates, contained in
petitioners' complaint, establishes
that a sufficient diet is provided
and, absent a showing of resulting
illness, no constitutional infringe-
ment is evident . .
Nor does an

occasional incident of a foreign
object discovered in the prison food
raise a question of constitutional
proportions. 122

374 F.Supp. at 35.

An allegation by a prisoner in punitive segregation that he was denied the dessert available to the general population did not state a constitutional violation. Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178, 186 (2d Cir. 1971).1 123

There was no foundation in the record for the district court's order requiring the defendants to provide medical examinations of all food handlers, inmate and civilian employees, at the jail at least once every thirty days and more often if medically required in Campbell v. McGruder, 580 F.2d 521 (D.C. Cir. 1978). The court remanded for clarification.

3. Lack of Sufficient Exercise

Sweet v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 529 F.2d 854 (4th Cir. 1975) decided that under certain conditions lack of exercise violates a prisoner's

122. See also Bolding v. Holshouser, 575 F.2d 461 (4th Cir. 1978) (improper to dismiss complaint alleging defendants failed to provide adequate sanitary food facilities); James v. Wallace, 406 F.Supp. 318, 334 (M.D. Ala. 1976).

123. Cert. denied sub nom.

Sostre v. Oswald, 404 U.S. 1049,

92 S.Ct. 719, 30 L.Ed.2d 740, and Oswald v. Sostre, 405 U.S. 978, 92 S.Ct. 1190, 31 L.Ed.2d 254 (1972).

constitutional rights:

While a restriction of two exercise
periods of one hour each during a
week, as allowed the plaintiff, may
not ordinarily transgress the con-
stitutional standard as fixed by
the Eighth Amendment if confined
to a relatively short period of
maximum confinement, the rule may
be quite different when, as here,
the restriction has extended already
over a period of years and is likely
to extend indefinitely for the
balance of plaintiff's confinement.
Such indefinite limitation on
exercise may be harmful to a
prisoner's health, and, if so,
would amount to "cruel and unusual"
punishment. This issue was apparently
not addressed either by the parties
or by the Court. We accordingly feel
constrained because of the extended
period of plaintiff's confinement
in maximum security to remand the
cause to the District Court in order
that it may take additional testimony
and consider in greater detail
whether the health of the plaintiff
may be adversely affected by the
restricted exercise rights accorded
him and whether it is not practical
for the prison authorities to provide
him with more exercise opportunities.
If the prisoner's health is being
affected or it is practical for the
prison authorities to grant additional
exercise time to the plaintiff,
without unduly imperilling security
or without making unreasonable
administrative difficulties for the
prison authorities, the prisoner's
constitutional rights, it would
seem, are implicated.

529 F.2d at 866.

Kirby v. Blackledge, 530 F.2d 583, 586-87 (4th Cir. 1976) found that plaintiffs' allegation that they were allowed only two hours per week for recreation reached

the level of cruel and unusual punishment when combined with the other conditions.

No constitutional violation was found in Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178 (2d Cir. 1971), 124 where the prisoners were permitted one hour of exercise daily. The plaintiff had refused to participate in the exercise period because he objected to the strip search which was required each time a prisoner entered the exercise yard.

Smith v. Sullivan, 553 F.2d 373, 379 (5th Cir. 1977) affirmed the district court's order that each prisoner be taken into sunlight and fresh air at least once each day and that each prisoner be given an opportunity to engage in physical exercise and recreation at least once each day. However, the court observed that the decision was not based solely on the Eighth Amendment since the state commission on jail standards had promulgated rules which contemplated that inmates must be provided adequate opportunities for outdoor exercise and recreation.

An order requiring that daily outdoor recreation be available for the plaintiffs was affirmed in Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 741, 749-50 (5th Cir. 1977). The court found that both pretrial detainees 125 and convicted inmates must be allowed reasonable recreational facilities:

124. Cert. denied sub nom. Sostre v. Oswald, 404 U.S. 1049, 92 S.Ct. 719, 30 L.Ed.2d 740, and Oswald v. Sostre, 405 U.S. 978, 92 S.Ct. 1190, 31 L.Ed.2d 254 (1972).

125. See Rhem v. Malcolm, 507 F.2d 333 (2d Cir. 1974), where the court affirmed the district court's finding that 50 minutes exercise per week was inadequate for pretrial detainees. See also Ahrens v. Thomas, 434 F.Supp. 873 (W.D. Mo. 1977) (confinement without exercise is Eighth Amendment violation).