Monthly Law Journal Article: Prisoner Diet Legal Issues, 2007 (7) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Forced Feeding or Medication of Prisoners, 2007 (12) AELE Mo. L. J. 301.
     A prisoner failed to show that his right to a religiously required kosher food diet had been denied, when there was "undisputed evidence" that rabbis advising facility officials had repeatedly concluded that a kosher food preparation area there was satisfactory. Boles v. Dansdill, #09-1145, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 724 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Muslim inmates complained that they were only provided with Halal meat, produced in accordance with the requirements of their religion, twice a year, while Jewish prisoners received kosher meat four to five times a week. Prison officials agreed to provide Halal meat with the same frequency in exchange for the dismissal of the lawsuit, which the trial court approved. A federal appeals court ruled that the prisoners were prevailing parties, entitled to an award of attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, since they accomplished a "material alteration" on the complained of issue, and that the caps on attorneys' fees in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(d), applied to the case despite the fact that some of the plaintiffs were released from prison after they filed the lawsuit, but before it was settled. Fees of $99,658.48 were awarded. On remand, the trial court was instructed to determine a reasonable attorneys' fee award for the time spent on the appeal. Perez v. Westchester Cty. Dep't of Corr., #08-4245, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 25396 (2nd Cir.).
    A Muslim prisoner failed to show how content restrictions and screening procedures for videotapes violated his religious freedom, and a ban on inmate personal possession of videotapes did not violate his First Amendment rights, since there were legitimate security concerns that the tapes could be used as weapons. The fact that Muslim services were offered in a generic way as opposed to being services for specific sects of Muslims was justified by compelling governmental interests, including security problems, staffing limitations, and space constraints. The prisoner also failed to show that the alternative food offered to Muslim prisoners violated the requirements of his Nation of Islam religion. Jones v. Shabazz, #08-20697, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 24308 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
    Prisoners claimed that they were denied the right to practice their religion, Tulukeesh, requiring adherents to engage in sparring and prohibiting them from appearing nude in front of non-members. They are also allegedly required to eat a non-soybean based vegan diet. A federal appeals court found that restrictions on sparring and limiting the practice of Tulukeesh to individual cells, as well as mandatory strip frisks on certain occasions were supported by legitimate security concerns. Further proceedings were required, however, on the alleged denial of the prisoners' requested religious diet, as the defendant prison officials failed to show that the religious meatless alternative menu offered was the least restrictive means of furthering compelling administrative interests. Jova v. Smith,  #08-2816, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 21205 (2nd Cir.).
     A Jewish prisoner sued over his temporary removal from a prison's kosher meal program. The appeals court found that claims for injunctive relief were moot because of the plaintiff's subsequent transfer to another facility, that a damage claim was barred against state officials under the Eleventh Amendment, and that the prisoner failed to show a relationship between the incidents he mentioned and his removal from the kosher meals program that would constitute unlawful retaliation for protected conduct in violation of the First Amendment. Berryman v. Granholm, #07-2081, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 18068 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     A prisoner failed to show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a purported risk to his health posed by his diet and the failure to provide him with requested dietary supplements. The prisoner claimed both that his vegan diet provided was nutritionally inadequate, and that, as a follower of the African Hebrew Israelite religion, he should have been given supplements considered to be "religious necessities": including blackstrap molasses, sesame seeds, kelp, brewer’s yeast, parsley, fenugreek, wheat germ, and soybeans. The prisoner failed to refute the prison's assertion that providing the supplements would have involved security risks. The appeals court ruled, however, that the prisoner's claims concerning strip searches should have been allowed to go to a jury, since there was evidence from which it could be found that the searches were conducted with the intent to harass. Mays v. Springborn, #05-3630, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15749 (7th Cir.).
     A prison substantially burdened a prisoner's right to religious freedom under both federal and Illinois law by difficult procedural requirements to receive a religious diet and refusal to provide meat-free meals during Lent and on Fridays. Further proceedings were ordered to determine if the defendants were acting to further a compelling governmental interest, were using the least restrictive means to do so, and whether they violated clearly established law. Nelson v. Miller, #08-2044, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 14240 (7th Cir.).
     In a lawsuit against a prison official under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claiming failure to accommodate a religious request for a kosher diet, the statute does not allow a claim for damages against an official in their individual capacity, so the complaint was properly dismissed. Rendelman v. Rouse, #08-6150, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13659 (4th Cir.).
     A correctional services company showed that it "substantially performed" its obligations under a consent decree to provide kosher meals during the 2006 and 2007 Jewish Passover holidays, serving the plaintiff inmate 23 out of 25 required meals. The appeals court, therefore, upheld a trial court decision in favor of the company. Miles v. Aramark Correctional Service, Inc., #07-3622, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7233 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     A prisoner enrolled in a Bureau of Prisons religious diet program, providing special meals to inmates whose religious beliefs prevented them from eating the food generally offered at the prison. He was suspended from the program, however, on three occasions, after he was seen buying and eating non-kosher food, or trading the kosher meal he was provided for a non-kosher meal. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment in favor of the Bureau of Prisons on the prisoner's claim that these suspensions violated his right to practice his religion. The court noted that the prisoner conceded that he broke the rules of the religious diet program by buying non-kosher food from the commissary, and the court found that those rules did not "substantially burden" religious freedom. Daly v. Davis, #08-2046, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 6222 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
     A prisoner with a number of misconduct charges pending was transferred to a facility that did not serve kosher meals and placed in temporary segregation there. When the warden learned that he was refusing to eat non-kosher meals, she had him transferred to another facility where he could receive them. The warden was entitled to summary judgment, as there was no evidence that she knew of the problem earlier, and it appeared that she acted to correct it as soon as she did know. Cardinal v. Metrish, #08-1562, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8689 (6th Cir.).
     A correctional officer was not entitled to qualified immunity in a prisoner's lawsuit claiming that she had deprived him of 16 meals over a 23-day period. The court ruled that, if this were true, a jury could find that the officer acted in deliberate indifference to an obvious risk of harm. The obligation to provide prisoners with nutritionally adequate meals is clearly established under existing law. Foster v. Runnels, No. 06-15719, 554 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 2009).
    Prisoners have no right to compel a prison to comply with its internal regulations. The prison made a reasonable effort to serve hot meals, and the prisoners were not entitled to an order either under California law or the Eighth Amendment requiring it to comply with a regulatory mandate to serve two hot meals a day. In re Cannon, #A121142A121143, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 2357 (1st Dist.).
     The plaintiff prisoners' purchase of non-kosher food items from the prison store provided prison officials with some objective factors to use in determining whether their request for a kosher diet was based on a sincere religious belief. A policy of removing, temporarily, such prisoners from the kosher meal program while they possessed non-kosher food did not violate the First Amendment. Ketzner v. Williams, No. 4:06-CV-73, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 90500 (W.D. Mich.).
     Wardens who delegated to the assistant warden the job of reviewing inmate grievances could not be held liable for refusing to provide a prisoner with a vegan diet that he claimed was religiously required. The wardens therefore were not personally involved in the alleged violation of the plaintiff's rights, as they did not personally review his grievances. The prisoner, who was no longer incarcerated, was not entitled to injunctive relief. Wofford v. Sutton, Case No. 3:03-cv-725, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 78319 (S.D. Ill.).
     The hair length and facial hair policies of the Arkansas Department of Corrections were justified by the need to minimize the smuggling of contraband and reduce opportunities for prisoners disguising themselves by removing hair, and did not violate religious freedom rights under the First Amendment or under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc et seq. The court also rejected an equal protection claim based on valid reasons for differing hair length requirements for men and women. Additionally, there was evidence that longer beards created security and safety concerns absent when a prisoner is either clean shaven or has facial hair no longer than quarter-inch long. Appeals court also upholds an award of $1,500 to a prisoner on a claim that he was improperly not provided with Kosher meals. Fegans v. Norris, No. 06-3473, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 17072 (8th Cir.).
     Correctional officials were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for damages in a lawsuit concerning alleged failure to accommodate a prisoner's religious beliefs when his "Hebrew Israelite" religion was not yet officially recognized, and the sincerity of his beliefs had been questioned in a prior lawsuit. The prisoner sufficiently pursued his claim for daily kosher meals through the grievance procedure, and further proceedings were ordered as to whether the denial of such meals was the least restrictive means to accomplish a compelling governmental interest. Walker v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, No. 06-1839, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18631 (8th Cir.).
     Depriving a prisoner of lunch five days a week for five months, with no resulting physical harm and no deprivation of other meals did not state a claim for violation of his constitutional rights. Hernandez v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, No. 07-15147, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12491 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
     Muslim prisoner could pursue his claim that correctional officers violated his right to exercise his religion under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc et seq. by allegedly throwing away his Ramadan food during a search of his cell. Harnett v. Barr, No. 9:06-CV-1044, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 19236 (N.D.N.Y.).
     Prisoner who admitted that he had not suffered any physical injury because of allegedly contaminated food trays, and who also stated that he was not aware that anyone else had suffered such injuries failed to show a violation of the Eighth Amendment. There was a lack of evidence that the defendants had acted with deliberate indifference. Barrow v. Texas Dept. of Corrections, No. 07-40274, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6709 (5th Cir.).
     Prisoner with AIDS adequately alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by delaying him from seeing a doctor for months, not permitting him to take his AIDS medications because of his housing assignment, and failing to provide him with medical attention on an occasion that he passed blood, as well as denying him adequate food, which affected his health. The prisoner failed, however, to establish a viable claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, since the mere fact that he had AIDS was inadequate standing alone, to show that he had a disability. Carter v. Taylor, Civ. No. 06-561, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25158 (D. Del.).
     Prisoner's claim that he requested a non-meat diet for religious reasons was found to be sincere. Prison officials had refused to provide a non-meat diet because they argued that such a diet was not required by the religious group, and the prisoner failed to submit to the prison chaplain a written verification of his membership in a religious group and its beliefs. The federal appeals court found that the defendant correctional officials failed to provide any evidence that their basis for denying the request served any compelling governmental interest, as required by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc et seq., or that the rules used were the least restrictive means of advancing such an interest. Further proceedings were ordered on the prisoner's claims. Koger v. Bryan, No. 05-1904, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 8825 (7th Cir.).
     Prisoner failed to show that a private company providing food at a county jail or jail officials knew that problems with the food served posed an excessive risk to his health in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, but disregarded this risk. While the prisoner claimed that he was served spoiled meat, spoiled milk, and inadequately cooked chicken, the evidence supported a finding that the company took measures to make sure that food and milk were safe, including discarding expired milk and old meat. Further, each time the plaintiff complained about a problem, the defendants took measures to attempt to remedy the complained of problems. After the detainee claimed he received undercooked chicken, he was given a replacement meal, and retraining of the kitchen staff took place. McRoy v. Aramark Correctional Services, Inc., No. 06-3922, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5560 (7th Cir.).
     The refusal to provide a daily "Halal" menu to Muslim inmates who are members of the Nation of Islam was a "substantial burden" on their exercise of their religion. For purposes of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc-1 et seq., the Massachusetts Department of Corrections failed to show that this refusal served a compelling state interest. The Department failed to produce support for its argument that providing such meals would have created conflicts among prisoners, particularly in light of the Department's long standing practice of giving Jewish, Buddhist, and Seventh Day Adventist prisoners with religious dietary accommodations. The court also found than an "alternative vegetarian" diet did not satisfactorily replace a Halal diet. The court also ruled that the prisoners should be provided with closed circuit television access to Jum'ah services. The court rejected, however, the prisoners' claims relating to alleged deprivation of prayer rugs. Hudson v. Dennehy, No. 01-CV-12145, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16672 (D. Mass.).  
     Minnesota prison's failure to provide Muslim prisoner with a Halal religious diet, instead providing him with a special vegetarian diet, did not impose a substantial burden on his right to practice his religion. The vegetarian diet, further, was nutritionally adequate. Additionally, the prisoner's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot because the prisoner had been moved to a federal facility. Pratt v. Corrections Corporation of America, No. 06-3556, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4977 (8th Cir.).
     Prisoner was not entitled to a jury instruction on punitive damages in his lawsuit contending that correctional officials' serving of a pork substitute showed an unlawful preference for Muslim and Jewish prisoners since they rejected his own Hindu religious request for a modified diet. Even if his allegations were true, they did not allege conduct amounting to evil intent or reckless or callous indifference to his constitutional rights, and he was therefore not entitled to punitive damages. The jury awarded him $629 in damages against one defendant and $1 against a second, on equal protection claims. Patel v. Wooten, No. 07-1030, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3216 (10th Cir.).
     A prison's alleged failure to provide two hot meals a day did not violate a prisoner's constitutional rights. While there is a right to a nutritionally adequate diet, there is no constitutional right to hot meals. Laufgas v. Speziale, No. 06-5062, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2514 (3rd Cir.).
     After a Muslim prisoner was allowed to have a vegetarian diet on a religious basis, he claimed that he suffered adverse health effects from it, which interfered with his religious activities. He therefore claimed that he should receive a meat-based protein diet and that a kosher meat diet being provided to Jewish prisoners would satisfy his religious needs. A federal appeals court overturned the trial court's summary judgment for prison officials. Further proceedings were needed as to the extent of the burden on the prisoner's religious activities from the denial of the meat kosher diet, and the amount of burden on correctional resources that providing it would impose, as well as whether there were less restrictive alternatives that would still satisfy his needs. The court did find that the prisoner's beliefs were sincere, so that the denial did involve the Free Exercise of Religion clause of the First Amendment. Shakur v. Schriro, No. 05-16705, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 1255 (9th Cir.).
     Muslim prisoner failed to present sufficient evidence to establish whether his right to practice his religion was violated by federal prison officials' alleged failure to provide him with "appropriate meals" to satisfy his religious beliefs. The record in the case failed to indicate whether the prisoner requested, or would have been allowed to store halal food from the prison kitchen in his cell so that he could eat a halal meal on days that kosher meat entrees were served. The prisoner also failed to show that the defendants acted with any discriminatory purpose. Patel v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-3819, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2423 (8th Cir.).
     Prisoner failed to provide any supporting evidence for his allegation that he was served tainted food in retaliation of his pursuit of prior litigation, or that his snack food was tampered with. Ali v. Suchocki, No. 06-5160, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 26233 (3rd Cir.).
     While a prisoner had a right to receive a kosher food diet based on his religious beliefs, prison officials had not intentionally denied him such food. He was unintentionally deprived of kosher food when he was briefly transferred to a facility that did not serve kosher food, but he was transferred again to one which did when officials discovered that he qualified for kosher meals. Under these circumstances, the temporary deprivation did not "substantially" burden the exercise of his religion, justifying the dismissal of his lawsuit. Williams v. Howes, Case No. 1:06-CV-168, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 64766 (W.D. Mich.).
     Prisoner failed to show that the serving of vegetarian meals to all inmates at a jail during Lent improperly forced him to practice a religious tenet of the Catholic religion. The jail did not engage in the serving of the vegetarian meals for the purpose of advancing Catholicism or inhibiting other religions, but for the secular purpose of feeding the prisoners. The prisoner's "equal protection" claim lacked merit, because all inmates were served such meals, regardless of their religion. Finally, the prisoner's refusal to eat vegetarian meals was not constitutionally protected conduct. Travillion v. Leon, No. 06-2136, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 22203 (3rd Cir.). See also related proceeding at Travillion v. Coffee, No. 06-1873, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21959 (3rd Cir.), rejecting similar claims against the private company which provided the meals to the jail.
     Prisoner did not show that the alleged failure to provide him with a diet prescribed for his hypertension, diabetes, and high cholesterol created any immediate danger to his health or even that his health suffered at all, and therefore did not establish a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Cody v. CBM Correctional Food Services, No. 06-1474, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19502 (8th Cir.).
     A New York prisoner failed to show that correctional officials violated his due process rights by putting him on a restrictive diet that he claimed aggravated his existing mental health condition, resulting in him suffering a mental breakdown. There was no violation of due process, based on the fact that a medical clearance was given before the diet was implemented. A federal appeals court, however, reinstated the prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim, finding that the trial court used too high a standard, requiring the prisoner to show that correctional officials acted in a sadistic and malicious manner, rather than with deliberate indifference to his health or safety. The prisoner adequately alleged that correctional officials knew about the seriousness of his mental condition, and intentionally used a false charge to impose the restricted diet which caused his breakdown, requiring further proceedings. Guilbert v. Sennet, No. 05-6594, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13401 (2nd Cir.).
     A prisoner who alleged a denial of access to a law library for only a short time failed to show that this denied him a constitutionally protected right of access to the courts, since he did not show how this hindered his litigation efforts. Further, his claim that he was denied access to an inmate grievance procedure did not state a claim for violation of due process, since he had no constitutionally protected right of access to such a grievance procedure. The appeals court also rejected the prisoner's claim that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because he was fed "nutra-loaf" while placed in isolation for twenty days. Thomas v. Warner, No. 06-10883, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13265 (11th Cir.).
     A Muslim inmate who was an Egyptian citizen failed to show that the vegetarian meal plan offered him violated any of his personal religious beliefs, and a nutritional analysis of the food offered indicated that it satisfied recommended dietary allowances. Additionally, the plan offered was created after consultation with a Muslim clergyman. The court also found that the prisoner did not have an unqualified or absolute right to send confidential mail from the prison to the Egyptian embassy or consulate, so that the alleged refusal to allow him to do so could not be the basis of a civil right claim. Sefeldeen v. Alameida, No. 05-15809, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13508 (9th Cir.).
     Florida Orthodox Jewish prisoner could proceed with his claim that he was improperly denied kosher meals, but failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a), on a number of other claims, including alleged denial of permission to wear religious clothing, and denial of some supplies for observing the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. Lawson v. McDonough, No. 4:04-cv-00105, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 37821 (N.D. Fla.).
     Appeals court orders further proceedings on prisoner's claim that prison officials violated his rights by delaying in providing him with a vegan diet after he converted from Islam to the African Hebrew Israelite religion. The prisoner's claim could properly be analyzed under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5, even though the prisoner cited the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which could not be applied to the states, in his response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The prisoner was not required to cite the specific statute he was relying on in his complaint, and therefore did not waive his rights under the RLUIPA by failing to cite it. Whitfield v. Illinois Department of Corrections, No. 06-2245, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12786 (7th Cir.).
     Muslim prisoner was not entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring that the prison serve fish to him as part of his diet. He did not show why fish was an absolute requirement of his practice of his religion, but instead merely asserted that fish was important in his religion because it was among the foods identified by Muhammad as "good" to eat. The vegan diet being provided to him sufficiently satisfied his needs for a religious diet, and the legitimate interest of the prison in efficiently preparing meals outweighed his personal preferences as to what to eat. Pasco v. Donald, No. 5:06-CV-141, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 22809 (M.D. Ga.).
     The alleged removal of an inmate's mattress from his cell during the daytime did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights, when he did not claim that he was deprived of the mattress at night during hours that he would sleep. Federal appeals court also rejects argument that serving the plaintiff "food loaf" violated the Eighth Amendment. Further proceedings were ordered, however, on his claim that cold temperatures in his cell constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Alex v. Stalder, No. 05-30982, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9921 (5th Cir.).
     Inmate's claim that he did not receive enough food and had lost nearly 60 pounds since his incarceration did not establish a violation of his civil rights since there was no evidence that his current weight of 190 pounds was detrimental to his health. Jacobs v. Frank, No. 06-3478, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 5980 (7th Cir.).
     Prisoner could not pursue his federal civil rights lawsuit complaining that he was improperly served meals without the main course when he also stated that he went on hunger strikes. The prisoner's lawsuit was properly dismissed as frivolous. Ibarra-Villalva v. USP-Allenwood, No. 06-2723, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 487 (3rd Cir.). [N/R]
     Inmate in Wisconsin county jail failed to show that sheriff was involved in the alleged refusal to provide him, as an Orthodox Jew, with kosher meals, or that the jail had a policy of refusing such requests. His claim for money damages against the State of Wisconsin were also barred, first because he failed to show that the State was involved in any way in denying him the kosher meals, and secondly because claims against the state for money damages were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court also rejects arguments that the prisoner had a right to be involved in supervising how his meals were prepared, or that the jail had to spend additional funds to purchase prepackaged kosher meals for him. Andreola v. Wisconsin, No. 06-1491, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31210 (7th Cir.). [N/R]
     In prisoner's lawsuit alleging that his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc et seq., were violated by the denial of kosher meals, his claim for money damages against the State of Virginia were barred by Eleventh Amendment, but the state, since it accepted federal funds for its correctional facilities, could be sued for non-monetary relief. The statute, the court held, was a valid use of the spending power of Congress. Madison v. Commonwealth of VA, No. 06-6266, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32053 (4th Cir.). [N/R]
     Two prisoners adequately allegedly that they had been harmed by allegedly nutritionally inadequate diets after their previously prescribed medical diets were revoked. Court allows claims for deliberate indifference to continue against prison dietary manager and prison doctor. Orr v. Dawson, No. CV06-53, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68943 (D. Idaho). [N/R]
     Muslim prisoner's case manager was not liable for alleged violations of his religious freedom rights based on the alleged serving of pork to him, and the refusal to provide him with his meals after sundown during Ramadan, when there was no showing that the case manager was personally involved in those actions. Additionally, prisoner failed to show that he could distinguish between pork and pork substitute, as he claimed, or that prison official's alleged mocking of his religion was anything more than a "de minimis" (minimal) violation of his rights, insufficient to support liability. Omar v. Casterline, No. Civ. A. No. 02-1933, 414 F. Supp. 2d 582 (W.D. La. 2006). [N/R]
     Muslim prisoner sufficiently stated federal civil rights claims against one prison cook and one food service manager for allegedly violating his right to free exercise of his religion by intentionally misleading him into consuming food (turkey ham) containing pork. Lewis v. Mitchell, No. 04CV2468, 416 F. Supp. 2d 935 (S.D. Cal. 2005). [N/R]
     Muslim prisoner's right to religious freedom under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42. U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc-1, were not violated by prison regulations and policies allowing him the use of only a prayer towel rather than a prayer rug, and limiting the quantities of prayer oil he could possess. Court also upholds a policy permitting the purchase of religious items only from prescreened vendors. Prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity on prisoner's claim that providing him with pork-free or vegetarian meals, rather than a "halal" meat diet was inadequate to satisfy his religious requirements, because a reasonable official could have believed that the prisoner did not have an established right to halal meat. Ahmad v. Department of Correction, 845 N.E.2d 289 (Mass. 2006). [N/R]
     Denial of food to prisoner, causing him to lose 45 pounds during a 2-1/2 year period, was the result of his own refusal to obey prison rules concerning receipt of meals, and was not cruel and unusual punishment. Freeman v. Berge, No. 05-2820, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 7194 (7th Cir.). [2006 JB May]
     State prison officials did not violate diabetic prisoner's rights by requiring a prison to serve a "heart healthy" diet to all inmates. The prisoner did not show that the diet was medically improper for a diabetic or that the diet was the cause of diabetic complications he allegedly suffered. Baird v. Alameida, No. CV 02-06887, 407 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (C.D. Cal. 2005). [N/R]
     Muslim inmate could proceed with his claim that he suffered severe emotional and psychological injuries from the alleged denial of "Halal" meals required by his religion. His claims were not barred by the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e) requiring that he show a physical injury before being able to recover damages for mental and emotional injuries because his alleged loss of 30 pounds of weight while eating vegetarian meals which he asserted lacked adequate nutrition was sufficient to show a physical injury. Further, his lawsuit was not rendered moot because of his transfer to another facility when it was run by the same private company as operates the first facility. Pratt v. Corrections Corporation of America, No. 04-2413, 124 Fed. Appx. 465 (8th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Prisoner who stated that he was lactose intolerant and allergic to eggs alleged sufficient facts to present a viable claim that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by the failure to provide him with a "therapeutic diet," and that the meals provided to him were nutritionally inadequate. Jackson v. Gordon, No. 04-2005, 145 Fed. Appx. 774 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Muslim prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit against state correctional authorities in their official capacity, claiming that they violated his right to religious freedom and equal protection of law by failing to provide him with ritually slaughtered meat while providing kosher meals to Jewish inmates was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. His lawsuit against the defendants in their official capacity was, in essence, a lawsuit against the State itself, and the State of Kansas had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. The prisoner failed to sue the defendants, the Secretary of the state Department of Corrections, and the warden, in their individual capacities. Johnson v. Simmons, No. CIV.A.02-3020, 338 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Kan. 2004). [N/R]
     The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000cc-1, does not create a cause of action against the federal government or its agencies, so the plaintiff prisoner had no claim against federal prison authorities for allegedly depriving him of kosher meals in alleged violation of his right to practice his religion. Additionally, there is no such entity as the "U.S. Department of Corrections," but even if the prisoner meant to sue the federal Bureau of Prisons, he had no viable claim under the statute he cited. Yerushalayim v. U.S. Dep't of Corrections, No. 03-0076, 374 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Correctional facility did not violate a Catholic prisoner's freedom of religion by failing to provide him with "religious meals" of fish and unleavened bread on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and all Fridays during Lent. Evidence showed that Catholic Church only required that he refrain from eating meat on those days, and did not necessitate the eating of fish and unleavened bread. The facility offered the prisoner meatless meal options for those days, which adequately met the requirements of his religion. Cape v. Crossroads Correctional Center, No. 03-172, 99 P.3d 171 (Mont. 2004).[N/R]
     Intention of Iowa correctional officials to charge a co-payment for kosher meals provided to Orthodox Jewish inmates had no reasonable relationship to any legitimate penological interest in maintaining a fixed budget for food or teaching "financial responsibility" to prisoners. Plaintiff prisoner was entitled to summary judgment on the co-payment issue. Thompson v. Vilsack, 328 F. Supp. 2d 974 (S.D. Iowa, 2004). [N/R]
     There was a genuine issue of fact as to whether it would be cost prohibitive to prepare meat portion of meals for Muslim prisoners according to the "Halal" dietary restrictions as compared to the cost of preparing Kosher meals for Jewish prisoners, barring summary judgment in Muslim prisoners' lawsuit. Because of existing case law, however, suggesting that prison officials sufficiently complied with Muslim prisoners' religious rights by merely providing a vegetarian or pork-free diet, defendant prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for money damages. Hudson v. Maloney, 326 F. Supp. 2d 206 (D. Mass. 2004). [N/R]
    Prison did not violate prisoners' First Amendment right to exercise their religion by disallowing a request for group worship by a religious group which advocates racial separatism. Rejection of request was reasonably related to legitimate security concerns. Further proceedings are ordered, however, on whether the denial of group worship was the "least restrictive means" available to prevent racial violence, as required by federal statute. Murphy v. Missouri Dept. of Corr., No. 02-3874, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 12239 (8th Cir). [2004 JB Aug]
     Prison officials were not deliberately indifferent to insulin dependent prisoner's need for a proper diet in prescribing a "self-monitored" diabetic diet in which the prisoner was responsible for choosing the proper food, and he was given counseling and education on how to do so. Additionally, substitutes for certain foods for diabetic inmates were made available. Court also rules that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132, and Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794, and their prohibition on "disability discrimination" did not give the inmate a general federal cause of action for challenging the medical care provided for his insulin dependent diabetes. These statutes provide a basis for challenging discriminatory treatment or denial of benefits on the basis of a disability, and do not provide a basis for challenging the medical treatment of underlying disabilities. Carrion v. Wilkinson, 309 F. Supp. 2d 1007 (N.D. Ohio 2004). [N/R]
     Prisoner suffering from diabetes did not show an excessive risk of harm to his health from the inclusion of pork in his prescribed diabetic diet. Doctor only included a reference to a pork-free diet because prisoner requested it and there was no evidence that the inclusion of pork threatened the prisoner's health or that the calories provided were inadequate. Hall-Bey v. Cohn, #02-3731, 86 Fed. Appx. 200 (7th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
    Punishment of Muslim prisoner for failing to respond to officer's order until he completed his prayers might violate his rights if, as he claimed, the officer intentionally gave the order then in order to interfere with his exercise of his religion. Prisoner was subsequently fed food "loaf" rather than "properly blessed" (Halal) food for a week, allegedly interfering with his celebration of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. McEachin v. McGuinnis, No. 02-0117, 357 F.3d 197 (2nd Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Apr]
     Serving a prisoner a sack lunch rather than a hot meal did not violate his rights when the food provided was nutritionally adequate and met his medical and religious needs. Amos v. Simmons, 82 P.3d 859 (Kan. App. 2004). [N/R]
     Correctional officers did not violate inmate's Eighth Amendment rights by restraining him for approximately 20 hours on a stretcher. Prisoner had kicked a door and assaulted a correctional officer, and after he was placed on a stretcher, the officers loosened his handcuffs and allowed him "numerous" bathroom breaks, as well as food, liquids, and medications. Action in feeding him a disciplinary diet of "nutra-loaf" was also not an Eighth Amendment violation, despite the prisoner's claim that he experienced adverse effects, including vomiting, burning in his chest and throat, and frequent bowel movements. These effects were not "serious medical conditions," and there was no order or instruction from medical personnel to stop the "nutra-loaf" diet. Myers v. Milbert, 281 F. Supp. 2d 859 (N.D.W.Va. 2003). [N/R]
     Requiring an Orthodox Jewish prisoner to fill out a standard prison form in order to apply to receive kosher meals was not a "substantial burden" to his right to free exercise of his religion. Resnick v. Adams, #01-56710, 348 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2003). Editor's Note: A prior decision in this case, Resnick v. Adams, No. 01-56710, 317 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2003), reported in 2003 JB May, was withdrawn, and this opinion substituted. [N/R]
     Inmate's placement on a diet of "nutri-loaf" as a punishment was not cruel and unusual, despite his repeated regurgitation of the food, and his ultimate vomiting of blood. Prison nurse only knew of two instances in four days in which inmate vomited and provided proper medical advice. No hearing was required prior to imposition of a temporary "nutri-loaf" diet, since it was not an "atypical and significant hardship" in relation to the "ordinary incidents of prison life." Gates v. Huibregtse, No. 02-2887, 69 Fed. Appx. 326 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Jail officials had an objectively reasonable belief that they were not violating a Muslim prisoner's religious freedom rights by denying him a vegetarian diet and were therefore entitled to qualified immunity from liability for doing so. Kind v. Frank, No. 02-1969, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 10754 (8th Cir.). [2003 JB Jul]
     Federal prison did not violate the rights of a Jewish inmate by requiring that he fill out and submit a standard form in order to receive a kosher diet. Prison officials were also entitled to qualified immunity from liability, particularly as they were reasonably relying on a federal regulation governing requests for special religious diets. Resnick v. Adams, No. 01-56710, 317 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB May]
      Federal trial court rules that Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 is unconstitutional as an "establishment of religion" in case where "Hebrew Israelite" religious believer asked for kosher food diet. Madison v. Riter, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1094 (W.D. Va.). [2003 JB Mar.]
     Placing a prisoner on a restricted "food loaf" diet after he was disciplined for his sexual misconduct of masturbating with butter did not violate his due process rights. "Food loaf" had been shown to meet nutritional and caloric requirements for human beings and prisoner's argument that it caused his hemorrhoids to bleed days after the restriction expired was mere "speculation." Griffis v. Gundy, #02-1449, 47 Fed. Appx. 327 (6th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Jan]
     Court rejects prisoner's claim that prison violated his rights by failing to feed him a diet in accord with his religious belief that he should only eat "starchless and green, leafy vegetables" when his own attached list of foods he should eat included some foods that did not constitute "starchless and green, leafy vegetables," including an assortment of legumes and beans and white potatoes. Rhone v. Lewis, #36,210-CA, 821 So. 2d 692 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
    Orthodox Jewish inmates in Colorado correctional facilities were entitled to be supplied kosher meals free of charge. Suggested 25% co-payment requirement was an impermissible burden on the exercise of religion. Beerheide v. Suthers, #00-1086, 286 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Jul]
     Prison's refusal to accommodate an inmate's request for a special religious diet did not violate the First Amendment when the prisoner was provided with an adequate diet to maintain good health even if the items which violated his religious dietary restrictions were not eaten. The First Amendment requires that prison officials provide an inmate with food that is adequate without violating his religious dietary restrictions. Alexander v. Carrick, #00-1261, 31 Fed. Appx. 176 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Putting prisoners on "controlled-feeding status" as discipline for disruptive conduct such as throwing food or utensils did not violate inmate rights under Illinois or federal law. Arnett v. Snyder, 2001 Ill. App. LEXIS 819 (4th Dist.). [2002 JB Feb]
     Prisoner's claim that he was negligently served a meal in custody that contained a grasshopper did not state a viable claim under Ohio law, since he did not claim that any exception to a state statute providing immunity for governmental functions applied. Blackwell v. Patten, No. C100-5364, 767 N.E.2d 310 (Ohio Com. Pl. 2001). [N/R]
     297:139 Prisoner who was barred, by Prison Litigation Reform Act, from receiving compensatory damages for mental distress from failure to receive kosher diet could still be awarded punitive damages by a jury; appeals court orders new trial on punitive damages alone. Searles v. Van Bebber, No. 99-3076, 251 F.3d 869 (10th Cir. 2001).
     291:45 Prison's refusal to accommodate prisoner's request for food in his cell on Saturday so that he could follow his belief that he should not leave his cell or prepare food on Sunday, his Sabbath, was not justified by concerns about cell cleanliness and violated his First Amendment rights. Love v. Reed, #99-3149, 216 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2000).
     290:25 Federal trial judge rules that employees of a private company hired to run a detention facility operated by a private company created by a city could not be sued for alleged violations of federal pre-trial detainee's right to religious freedom in seeking diet free from meat and meat products. Lawson v. Liburdi, 114 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.R.I. 2000).
     281:75 Orthodox Jewish prisoners who were sincere in their religious beliefs were entitled to receive a kosher diet; proposed policy under which they would be required to make a co-payment of 25% of the cost was an unreasonable burden on their exercise of their religion. Beerheide v. Suthers, 82 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (D. Colo. 2000).
     286:157 "Nation of Islam" members in New York state prison were not entitled to a kosher diet, even though it was being supplied to Jewish prisoners, when a pork-free "Religious Alternative Menu" provided to them was adequate to meet their nutritional and religious requirements; prison did not violate their rights by refusing to hire one of them as an inmate clerk to handle "Nation of Islam" affairs in the facility. Muhammad v. Warithu-Deen Umar, 98 F. Supp. 2d 337 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
     278:21 Texas prisoner's claim that being denied eight meals and one visitation session over a seven-month period was "cruel and unusual punishment" was frivolous; prisoner did not show that he received an inadequate diet that threatened his health and he had no constitutional right to visitation. Berry v. Brady, #98-41179, 192 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 1999).
     280:57 Prisoner who declared that he was Jewish could not be properly denied kosher food on the basis that prison Jewish chaplain did not recognize him as Jewish; the proper legal issue was whether his religious beliefs were sincerely held. Jackson v. Mann, No. 97-2968, 196 F.3d 316 (2nd Cir. 1999).
     272:123 Federal appeals court rejects constitutional claims of Zen Buddhist prisoner; requirement of five members of the same religion before allowing group worship was not improper, nor was denial of vegan diet not required by the religion or of the right to possess and store religious items prisoner did not show were necessary for the practice of his religion. Spies v. Voinovich, #97-4175, 173 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 1999).
     275:172 Prison officials denied summary judgment in lawsuit by Muslim prisoner without canteen privileges requesting that his regular meals be replaced, on fast days, with food that he could store and eat before and after the times when his religion required him not to eat; defendants amply justified refusal of canteen privileges, but plaintiff inmate was not seeking any change regarding canteen purchases. Denson v. Marshall, 44 F.Supp.2d 400 (D. Mass. 1999).
     260:125 Federal appeals court overturns trial court's injunctive order requiring prison officials to provide religiously mandated vegetarian, non-dairy diet containing no grape products to prisoner who claimed to be a "Nazarite Disciple" of Jesus Christ Messiah and then asserted that he was a Rastafarian; trial judge improperly failed to allow defendants to respond to prisoner's assertion of Rastafarian faith and failed to make findings required for injunctive relief under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Oluwa v. Gomez, 133 F.3d 1237 (8th Cir. 1998).
     261:131 Requirement that prisoners being served meals in their cells during lockdown kneel and place their hands behind their backs before food was provided was reasonably designed to protect the safety of officers; withholding of approximately 50 meals over five month period when prisoner refused to comply did not violate his rights. Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 1998).
     265:11 Jewish prisoners were entitled to kosher diet, but not necessarily to hot kosher meals, federal appeals court rules; providing hot pork substitutes to Muslim prisoners while serving Jewish prisoners cold kosher meals did not violate equal protection. Johnson v. Horn, #97-3581 & 97-3582, 150 F.3d 276 (3rd Cir. 1998).
     » Editor's Note: Two federal appeals courts have previously recognized the right of a Jewish inmate to receive a kosher diet: Kahey v. Jones, 836 F.2d 948 (5th Cir. 1988), and Ward v. Walsh, 1 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1993). As the court above noted, however, the right, as recognized in Ward was not a "per se entitlement," with the Ward court ordering proceedings to determine whether the prison's legitimate interests justified denial of kosher meals.
     265:11 Buddhist prisoner had no clearly established right to receive strict vegetarian diet devoid of all animal and dairy products and byproducts or to be exempt from wearing leather shoes while being transported or in court. Dehart v. Lehman, 9 F.Supp.2d 539 (E.D. Pa. 1998).
     266:19 Prisoner was not entitled to a kosher diet when there was no evidence that he was Jewish, and was also not entitled to a vegetarian diet; prior order by doctor that he be provided with vegetarian diet was merely because prisoner refused to eat otherwise, and was not medically required. Ramsey v. Coughlin, 1 F.Supp.2d 198 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
     266:19 Prisoner was not entitled to a kosher diet when there was no evidence that he was Jewish, and was also not entitled to a vegetarian diet; prior order by doctor that he be provided with vegetarian diet was merely because prisoner refused to eat otherwise, and was not medically required. Ramsey v. Coughlin, 1 F.Supp.2d 198 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
     268:51 Medical personnel did not engage in deliberate indifference to medical needs of HIV positive prisoner when they refused to provide him with a specific name-brand dietary supplement he preferred to the daily dietary supplement snack he was given. Polanco v. Dworzack, 25 F.Supp.2d 148 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
     [N/R] Placing prisoner on restricted diet of "Nutriloaf" and raw cabbage, and in cell with plexiglass shield, did not violate prisoner's rights; diet was nutritionally adequate and steps where taken in good faith effort to maintain discipline after prisoner threw feces at prison employee. Breazil v. Bartlett, 998 F.Supp. 236 (W.D.N.Y. 1997).
     249:141 Orthodox Jewish prisoner had a right to a kosher diet; prisoner's right to free exercise of religion outweighed prison's concerns about expense and inconvenience. Ashelman v. Wawrzaszek, 111 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 1997).
     253:3 Occasional presence of rodents near prison food supply was insufficient basis to impose liability for violation of Eighth Amendment rights; prison took steps to exterminate pests. Tucker v. Rose, 955 F.Supp. 810 (N.D. Ohio 1997).
     256:52 Appeals court could not rule out possibility that imposition of a seven day bread diet constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Phelps v. Kapnolas, 123 F.3d 91 (2nd Cir. 1997).
     251:164 Providing prisoners in disciplinary segregation with cold "bag lunches" rather than hot prison meals served to general population might have, arguably, violated Wisconsin state administrative regulations, but did not violate prisoners' constitutional rights. Kirsch v. Endicott, 549 N.W.2d 761 (Wis. App. 1996).
     246:91 Jewish prisoner could not challenge his transfer to another facility based on his dissatisfaction with the quality of the kosher food diet at the receiving facility. Prins v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 504 (2nd Cir. 1996).
     247:101 Disciplinary diet imposed on prisoner did not raise any federal constitutional claim as long as it was adequate to maintain health; prison food "need not be tasty or aesthetically pleasing." Stewart v. Block, 938 F.Supp. 582 (C.D.Ca. 1996).
     251:171 Prison had adequate reasons for refusing to supply prisoner with a vegetarian diet requested for religious reasons; diet could have led to health problems and storage of more fresh fruit and vegetables would present a security concern that prisoners could use them to produce alcohol/mash; restricting hours of group religious worship was reasonable following inmate disturbances, also for security purposes. Jenkins v. Angelone, 948 F.Supp. 543 (E.D. Va. 1996).
     230:26 Hindu prisoner's religious freedom was not violated by prison dietician serving Thanksgiving stuffing containing turkey meat. Karmasu v. Hughes, 654 N.E.2d 179 (Ohio App. 1995).
     223:100 Dietician's alleged failure to provide diabetic prisoner with medically recommended diet after prisoner complained stated claim for violation of prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights. Taylor v. Anderson, 868 F.Supp. 1024 (N.D. Ill. 1994).
     224:116 Serving of cold food, standing alone, does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Prophete v. Gilless, 869 F.Supp. 537 (W.D. Tenn. 1994).
     Feeding a prisoner "nutri-loaf" did not constitute a violation of his religious freedom when he never told prison authorities he wanted a vegetarian diet for religious reasons, but only that he did not want to eat meat. Rayes v. Eggars, 838 F.Supp. 1372 (D. Neb. 1993).
     Prisoner's claim that he received only two meals a day on weekends and holidays, even if true, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. White v. Gregory, 1 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 1993).
     Discovery of a dead mouse in a fellow inmate's meal did not inflict cruel and unusual punishment on a prisoner; deprivation of morning coffee for all prisoners in segregation did not violate equal protection of law. Miles v. Konvalenka, 791 F.Supp. 212 (N.D. Ill. 1992).
     Serving a maggot contaminated meal and serving food for several weeks under allegedly unsanitary conditions did not violate inmate's constitutional rights. Islam v. Jackson, 782 F.Supp. 1111 (E.D. Va. 1992).
     Providing two, rather than three, meals per day, with an 19 hour interval between dinner and "brunch", did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment; meal service manual provision that prisoners would receive three meals a day did not create a constitutionally protected interest. Gardner v. Beale, 780 F.Supp. 1073 (E.D. Va. 1991).
     Five-day disciplinary "nutra-loaf" diet was not cruel and unusual punishment, nor was manner in which "nutra-loaf" was served: being dropped on floor of cell without eating utensils or tray. Adams v. Kincheloe, 743 F.Supp. 1385 & 1393 (E.D. Wash. 1990).
     Placing inmates on "controlled feeding status," eating "nutra-loaf," is not cruel and unusual punishment. Smith v. Dept. of Corrections, 792 P.2d 109 (Or. App. 1990).
     Inmate had no liberty interest in receiving a "non- sacked" meal. Burgin v. Nix, 899 F.2d 733 (8th Cir. 1990).
     Prisoners had no liberty interest in remaining on the "diet line" in prison cafeteria. Dixon v. Fox, 893 F.2d 1556 (8th Cir. 1990).
     Inmate's weight loss of 2-3 pounds during one-month confinement did not show dietary deprivation constituting cruel and unusual punishment. Sivak v. Ada Co., 769 P.2d 1131 (Idaho App. 1989).