Inmate William Mayo’s lawsuit over what he claimed was his “cruel and unusual” prison diet can be summed up in three words – “Hold the onions!”

The answer a Commonwealth Court panel gave him Friday is even shorter.

“No,” the judges said.

They refused to alter Mayo’s menu in an opinion by Judge Anne E. Covey, who agreed with a Fayette County judge that Mayo’s culinary complaint is frivolous.

The squabble began with Mayo’s contention that he is allergic to onions. Given that claim, he was placed on a special diet in the state prison at Fayette that excluded onions. It also excluded tomatoes, peppers and spices.

The absence of those latter foods prompted Mayo to complain to the prison dietary department. He was told he had to get clearance from the medical department to change his dietary restrictions.

Mayo sued over that refusal, seeking $2,000 in damages and a diet that excluded only onions.

Then, he underwent medical testing for allergies. The tests showed he is not, in fact, allergic to onions, Covey noted, so he was taken off the special diet roster.

In response, Mayo expanded his complaint to claim he was being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment banned by the U.S. Constitution. He sought a court order requiring that he receive special no-onion meals.

Covey found Mayo’s civil rights weren’t violated because he “did not assert that he was deprived of nutritious food.”

“So long as Mayo’s special diet was nutritious, the ancillary deprivation of tomatoes, peppers and spices did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment,” she wrote. “Nor was Mayo subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when he was denied a new onion-free diet, given that he has no onion allergy.”

Mayo, 40, will have plenty of time to adjust to his new regimen of prison food. He is serving a life sentence for a 2002 murder committed in Philadelphia.