GRAND RAPIDS, MI - A man locked up for killing his brother with a butcher knife complained when the waffles, a popular breakfast item in prison, ran out, and inmates were left with only peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

It wasn't his only grievance: Leftover peach cobbler replaced bread pudding, the announced dessert, and reconstituted scrambled eggs were substituted when grilled-cheese sandwiches ran out.

Iatonda Taylor, 44, who killed his brother, Moise Taylor, 36, in Grand Rapids in May 2006, filed a federal lawsuit against Aramark, the former food-service provider for the state Department of Corrections.

He alleged that unsatisfying food substitutions put Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility at risk of a riot, leaving him at risk of injury beyond nutritional deficiency.

U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney in Kalamazoo wasn't buying Taylor's claim. In an 11-page opinion dismissing the case, the judge said the prisoner failed to show a constitutional rights violation.

Taylor said the near-riot happened May 2, when Aramark ran out of waffles before everyone had been served. Instead, they got a couple of slices of bread and peanut butter and jelly. Prisoners became agitated and threatened they would not move if more waffles weren't brought to the prison from a nearby store.

Taylor said he started to leave the line, but other prisoners told him he would be a "sell-out" if he left. Prison officers threatened inmates with handcuffs and segregation, and after additional officers arrived, they did handcuff and remove some prisoners.

Taylor was not among them, and he was not disciplined. But he said he now lives in constant fear of a riot.

"To the extent that Plaintiff claims Defendants' food-substitution decisions placed Plaintiff at risk of a riot, he essentially alleges that Defendants failed to protect him from other inmates," Maloney wrote in his opinion.

He said Taylor had a constitutional right to personal safety but he would have to show defendants were deliberately indifferent to his risk of injury, and that reasonable fear for his safety was justified.

"Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that his fear of injury is reasonable," the judge wrote.

"Plaintiff alleges only one occasion on which the food substitutions caused prisoners to become obstreperous. On that occasion, prison guards were available and were fully able to calm the situation by handcuffing a few agitators before anything more than angry comments were made.

"While the situation may have been tense, Plaintiff fails to allege facts supporting his claim that he reasonably remains at substantial risk of serious injury from last-minute food substitutions."

He also dismissed a claim inmates were deprived of essential, nutritious food. The meals were adequate to sustain normal health.

The judge determined that there exists no good-faith basis for appeal.

If Taylor wants to appeal, he will have to pay a $505 filing fee.

Inmates who file three lawsuits that are dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim fall under the "three-strikes" rule, which bars them from filing other lawsuits without paying a fee.

Without the payment, prisoners must seek court permission to proceed forma pauperis, or as a pauper without funds to pay fees.

John Agar covers crime for MLive/Grand Rapids Press E-mail John Agar: jagar@mlive.com and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/ReporterJAgar