A detainee launched legal action in a bid to force Canberra's jail to scrap a photocopy fee for inmates and give him a vegetarian roll.
Isa Islam filed a civil claim against prison authorities in the ACT Supreme Court last month, arguing their management of inmates' food requests and photocopying practices were at odds with the Human Rights Act.
Islam, a former street preacher, bashed a fellow inmate at the Alexander Maconochie Centre in 2013.
The victim was hospitalised for four weeks, including five days intubated in intensive care.
That bashing occurred while Islam was behind bars for paralysing a victim in a frenzied stabbing attack outside an Ainslie takeaway shop in 2008.
He was found guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm, and was sentenced to nine years with a non-parole period of 4½ years.
An appeal against that sentence was later dismissed.
Islam has launched numerous civil actions for supposed failings at the ACT prison in recent years.
In the latest proceedings, Islam, who is self-represented, argued the prison's management of detainees' food requests was inadequate and breached the ACT's Human Rights Act.
He sought an order for the prison to take reasonable steps to implement either "the current food ordering system" or "a competent food ordering system".
"He further specifically complains about failing to receive a vegetarian roll on [July 2, 2017], and seeks a replacement vegetarian roll," court documents said.
In a separate claim, Islam took issue with the prison's printing practices and sought an order to make authorities stop charging inmates 20 cents per page to print educational material, or allow inmates a certain amount of free printing.
The government tried to have the case thrown out of court, arguing there was "no relevant legal right or entitlement that had been affected and that was capable of being enforced".
Associate Justice Verity McWilliam, in a decision published this week, found while the grounds set out in Islam's claims didn't show a reasonable cause of action and should be struck out, the substance of the complaints raised a reasonably arguable case.
She said the claim about the vegetable roll was "insufficient" as it didn't detail which human right had been breached.
"Although it might be inferred ... that the plaintiff is vegetarian by reason of either religion or belief, that is not set out, and the defendant's requests for such detail have not been answered, due ... to a misunderstanding by the plaintiff."
Associate Justice McWilliam said Islam's case shouldn't be dismissed and instead gave permission for him to file amended claims within 28 days.
"He may not ultimately succeed either at law or on the facts, but he is entitled to come before the Supreme Court and put the case."