Daley v. Micieli, 2:11-cv-02010

Daley, a former inmate at FCIO, filed a pro se Bivens action in forma pauperis alleging multiple constitutional violations.
Plaintiff claims inadequate clothing for cold/rainy outdoor recreation and lack of cleaning supplies, resulting in frostbite and rashes.
Plaintiff alleges a period of food-related punishment, including denial of adequate nutrition and kosher meals, affecting religious practice.
Plaintiff asserts retaliation by Micieli for reporting alleged misconduct, including placement in a recreation cage with an attacking inmate.
Plaintiff contends falsified documents led to suspension of rights/privileges and a reduced-calorie diet, amounting to due process violations.
District court recommended dismissal with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eighth Amendment – clothing/cleaning supplies	Daley alleges deliberate indifference to health and safety.	Defendants were not deliberately indifferent; discomfort did not rise to cruel punishment.	No deliberate indifference; claim dismissed
Eighth Amendment – denial of food/adequate diet	Daley was denied adequate nutrition and kosher meals as punishment.	Records show alternative meals were provided; no denial of food; religious needs addressed.	No deliberate indifference; claim dismissed
Retaliation	Micieli retaliated for reporting misconduct by placing him with an attacking inmate.	Allegations are conclusory and lack plausible causation.	Insufficient evidence of retaliation; claim dismissed
Falsified documents/Due process	Kizziah and Micieli falsified documents to suspend rights and punish with diet changes.	Punishments do not implicate due process absent atypical, significant deprivation.	No atypical deprivation; claim dismissed

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (U.S. Supreme Court 1991) (minimal civilized life necessities required for Eighth Amendment)
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (U.S. Supreme Court 1981) (confinement restrictions permissible if not cruel and unusual)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (adequate medical care and protection from abuse as constitutional floor)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. Supreme Court 1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective recklessness)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. Supreme Court 1995) (due process requires atypical and significant hardship in relation to prison life)
Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161 (5th Cir. 1995) (retaliation claims require more than conclusory assertions)
Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 1997) (causation needed for retaliation claims)
Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022 (5th Cir. 1998) (frivolity and failure to state a claim standards in prison-conditions cases)
Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953 (5th Cir. 2000) (due process concerns in disciplinary sanctions; typical rights not implicated)
Izen v. Catalina, 398 F.3d 363 (5th Cir. 2005) (Bivens action framework; analog to §1983 standards)
Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 1998) (frivolity/failure to state a claim considerations)
San v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. Supreme Court 1995) (see Sandin v. Conner (duplicate for emphasis))