IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31077
Conference Calendar
CHARLES J. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BARON KAYLO; BRENT LEMOINE;
BYRON TATE; RICHARD L. STALDER;
JOHNNY CREED,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-1502
- - - - - - - - - -
April 12, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles J. Taylor, Louisiana prisoner # 342777, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). As
the basis of his complaint, Taylor argues that on November 1,
1999, prison officials failed to provide him with the diet food
tray prescribed by the prison doctor. When he did not receive
the proper meal, he called or “hollered” at the prison guard to
inform him of the oversight. Taylor alleged that as a result of
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-31077
-2-
the incident the prison guard filed a rule violation report, and
Taylor received 10 days in isolation. He does not indicate
whether he eventually received the proper meal on November 1,
1999.
Although Taylor may not have received the proper food tray
on this one occasion, he does not state a constitutional claim
under the Eighth Amendment, because missing one meal does not
rise to the level of a cognizable constitutional injury. See
Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 1999). Nor has he
alleged that a one-day deviation from his dietary plan caused him
to suffer any adverse physical effects. See Berry v. Brady, 192
F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, the fact that Taylor
was placed in isolation for ten days does not implicate a
protected liberty interest or constitutional claim. See Harper
v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 1999); Luken v. Scott, 71
F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did not abuse
its discretion when it dismissed his complaint as frivolous. See
Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998).
In addition to reasserting the underlying merits of his
complaint, Taylor argues that (1) the district court overlooked
his motion to amend the complaint; (2) the district court
violated 28 U.S.C. § 1337 when it denied his various motions;
(3) the district court erred when it granted summary judgment
without ruling on his motion to compel discovery; (4) the
defendants and the district court did not conduct an
investigation; (5) the sentence he received was excessive; and
(6) the district court overlooked a host of cases, laws, and
No. 00-31077
-3-
prison policies when it rendered its decision. Taylor’s
arguments are conclusional and frivolous. See Al-Ra’id v. Ingle,
69 F.3d 28, 32 (5th Cir. 1995) (conclusional assertions
insufficient to maintain civil rights claim). He fails to
explain how the district court’s alleged oversights would cure
his complaint’s fundamental flaw, i.e. he has failed to raise a
cognizable constitutional claim based on the alleged deprivation
of one meal and ten days in solitary confinement. See Palmer,
193 F.3d at 352; Harper, 174 F.3d at 719.
Taylor already has accumulated two strikes under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Taylor v. Kaylo, No. 00-31075 (5th Cir. Feb. 14,
2001)(unpublished). This court’s dismissal of his appeal as
frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as
frivolous count as strikes. He now has at least three strikes
for purposes of § 1915 and is prohibited from proceeding IFP in
any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or
detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Carson v.
Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 819 (5th Cir. 1997).
DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.