×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Muslim Prisoners' Allegation Of Forced Pork Handling States Claim
In this brief opinion, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that
Muslim prisoners who brought a civil rights suit against prison officials
for allegedly forcing them to handle pork stated a claim upon which relief
could be granted.
Plaintiffs, Louisiana state prisoners, brought 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
"alleging that they [were] practicing Muslims, that they 'requested not to
handle pork,' that the requests were denied, and that they were forced to
handle pork by a direct order of an officer."
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana dismissed the
action holding that plaintiffs had not alleged that "the absence of a
special dietary menu had resulted in malnutrition."
The Fifth Circuit held that "the complaint relates not to dietary issues
but to the manner in which the food was served to the inmates, requiring
them to be in contact with the pork." As such plaintiffs stated a claim
upon which relief could be granted.
See: Kenner v. Phelps, 605 F.2d 850 (5th Cir. 1979).
Muslim prisoners who brought a civil rights suit against prison officials
for allegedly forcing them to handle pork stated a claim upon which relief
could be granted.
Plaintiffs, Louisiana state prisoners, brought 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
"alleging that they [were] practicing Muslims, that they 'requested not to
handle pork,' that the requests were denied, and that they were forced to
handle pork by a direct order of an officer."
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana dismissed the
action holding that plaintiffs had not alleged that "the absence of a
special dietary menu had resulted in malnutrition."
The Fifth Circuit held that "the complaint relates not to dietary issues
but to the manner in which the food was served to the inmates, requiring
them to be in contact with the pork." As such plaintiffs stated a claim
upon which relief could be granted.
See: Kenner v. Phelps, 605 F.2d 850 (5th Cir. 1979).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Kenner v. Phelps
| Year | 1979 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 605 F.2d 850 (5th Cir. 1979). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Kenner v. Phelps, 605 F.2d 850 (5th Cir. 10/31/1979)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 79-2446, Summary Calendar.*fn*
[3] 605 F.2d 850
[4] October 31, 1979
[5] CHRISTOPHER X. KENNER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
C. PAUL PHELPS, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
[7] Christopher X. Kenner, pro se.
[8] J. Marvin Montgomery, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., for defendants-appellees.
[9] Before Godbold, Roney and Vance, Circuit Judges.
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[11] Plaintiffs, Louisiana state prisoners, filed this § 1983 case alleging that they are practicing Muslims, that they "requested not to handle pork," that the requests were denied, and that they were forced to handle pork by a direct order of an officer. The incident was more specifically described this way:
[12] Place of violation was the inmate dining hall, service line. The plaintiff(s) were proceeding thru the line and requested not to handle the meat of the meal, pork, yet a direct order by defendant, Lt. Foster Andrews, was given to "place the meat, pork on your tray."
[13] The Magistrate recommended dismissal of the suit on the ground that there were no allegations that the absence of a special dietary menu had resulted in malnutrition, and that plaintiffs were not entitled to special diets if adequate nourishment could be obtained by them from other foods not objectionable to them on religious grounds. The court adopted the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate and dismissed the case.
[14] The complaint relates not to dietary issues but to the manner in which the food was served to the inmates, requiring them to be in contact with pork. Other courts have dealt with Muslims' objections to contact with pork. Chapman v. Pickett,586 F.2d 22, 26 (CA7, 1978); Finney v. Hutto, 410 F. Supp. 251, 270 (E.D.Ark., 1976) aff'd on other grounds, 548 F.2d 740 (CA8, 1977), aff'd 437 U.S. 678, 98 S. Ct. 2565, 57 L. Ed. 2d 522 (1928).
[15] Petitioners did not fail to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
[16] REVERSED and REMANDED.
General Footnotes
[17] *fn* Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 18.
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 79-2446, Summary Calendar.*fn*
[3] 605 F.2d 850
[4] October 31, 1979
[5] CHRISTOPHER X. KENNER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
C. PAUL PHELPS, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
[7] Christopher X. Kenner, pro se.
[8] J. Marvin Montgomery, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., for defendants-appellees.
[9] Before Godbold, Roney and Vance, Circuit Judges.
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[11] Plaintiffs, Louisiana state prisoners, filed this § 1983 case alleging that they are practicing Muslims, that they "requested not to handle pork," that the requests were denied, and that they were forced to handle pork by a direct order of an officer. The incident was more specifically described this way:
[12] Place of violation was the inmate dining hall, service line. The plaintiff(s) were proceeding thru the line and requested not to handle the meat of the meal, pork, yet a direct order by defendant, Lt. Foster Andrews, was given to "place the meat, pork on your tray."
[13] The Magistrate recommended dismissal of the suit on the ground that there were no allegations that the absence of a special dietary menu had resulted in malnutrition, and that plaintiffs were not entitled to special diets if adequate nourishment could be obtained by them from other foods not objectionable to them on religious grounds. The court adopted the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate and dismissed the case.
[14] The complaint relates not to dietary issues but to the manner in which the food was served to the inmates, requiring them to be in contact with pork. Other courts have dealt with Muslims' objections to contact with pork. Chapman v. Pickett,586 F.2d 22, 26 (CA7, 1978); Finney v. Hutto, 410 F. Supp. 251, 270 (E.D.Ark., 1976) aff'd on other grounds, 548 F.2d 740 (CA8, 1977), aff'd 437 U.S. 678, 98 S. Ct. 2565, 57 L. Ed. 2d 522 (1928).
[15] Petitioners did not fail to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
[16] REVERSED and REMANDED.
General Footnotes
[17] *fn* Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 18.