A former inmate at the State Correctional Institution in Houtzdale, who engaged in a self-imposed hunger strike — but was upset when officers confiscated commissary food he kept in his cell — has lost his lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.

Eric L. Maple, 46, claimed the Department of Corrections violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for confiscating his food purchased at the prison commissary and for charging him a copay for medical services that stemmed from his hunger strike.

A three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court on Wednesday rejected Maple’s claim that he was subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment” and that the prison acted with “deliberate indifference” when his commissary food was removed from his cell.

Prison officials also ended his use of the commissary.

According to the Commonwealth Court opinion written by Judge Michael H. Wojcik, Maple began his hunger strike on Aug. 17, 2019.

As a result of the hunger strike, he became subject to provisions of DOC policy “that require enhanced medical attention in the form of daily consultations with medical staff,” the Wojcik opinion stated.

The prison charged him $5 as copay for each medical consultation provided to him.

In a 2021 ruling, the court upheld DOC’s opposition to Maple’s contention that he was denied due process, but it allowed Maple to move ahead with his Eighth Amendment claim.

Maple was eventually moved from a normal call to the prison’s restricted housing unit which was equipped with continuous camera monitoring — because of the hunger strike.

The Commonwealth Court opinion explained the Eighth Amendment requires the government to provide humane treatment of inmates, which includes food, clothing, shelter, medical care and safety.

The inmate, in making an Eighth Amendment charge, must show “the correctional institution has deprived him of minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities, or exposes the inmate to a substantial risk of serious harm.”

“Although incarceration imposes limitations on constitutional rights, it does not divest inmates of all constitutional protections,” the opinion stated.

It explained that while Maple’s ability to access commissary items was limited by the prison administration, Maple himself began the hunger strike by refusing to eat institutional meals.

He was also closely monitored during his hunger strike, initially by being moved to the RHU, and later by being placed in the prison infirmary.

The opinion indicated also that Maple admitted institutional meals “were offered to him multiple times a day.”

“Because meals were regularly offered and (the) inmate was under continuous medical supervision, the restriction of commissary food during RHU placement does not constitute a denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities, nor does it amount to a sufficiently serious deprivation.

“The provision of food and medical monitoring in the Maple case affirmatively contradicts any allegations of deliberate indifference on the part of DOC officials to the inmate’s health or well-being during his self-imposed hunger strike,” the opinion concluded.

Maple, a Philadelphia native who is serving a life sentence for second-degree murder, is now incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution in Fayette County.