What is the ruling on the supplication of a person whose food and clothing are unlawful without his volition?

If the phrase "against his will" means the absence of choice (as is the case for someone in dire necessity or a mad person), then the absence of choice lifts the burden of responsibility, and no threat applies to such a person. We hope that the threat of being denied the answer to prayer does not apply to him due due to his state of duress.