Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

605 F.2d 850

Docket No. 79-2446

Kenner v. Phelps

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided October 31, 1979

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1979-10-31

2 counsel of record

Relies on Hutto v. Finney · Finney v. Hutto · Finney v. Hutto

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1979-10-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 2015

8 federal appellate ·

4019791980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 31, 1979.

Christopher X. Kenner, pro se.

J. Marvin Montgomery, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

Before GODBOLD, RONEY and VANCE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

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:

¶2

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."

¶3

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.

¶4

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).

¶5

Petitioners did not fail to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

¶6

REVERSED and REMANDED.

*

Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 18

/605/f2d/850 · .json · Public domain