Christopher X. Kenner v. C. Paul Phelps, Secretary, Department of Corrections

605 F.2d 850, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 10809
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 31, 1979
Docket79-2446
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 605 F.2d 850 (Christopher X. Kenner v. C. Paul Phelps, Secretary, Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Christopher X. Kenner v. C. Paul Phelps, Secretary, Department of Corrections, 605 F.2d 850, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 10809 (5th Cir. 1979).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

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:

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.”

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.

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).

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

REVERSED and REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Clarence Jones v. Max Williams
791 F.3d 1023 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Williams v. Bitner
455 F.3d 186 (Third Circuit, 2006)
Williams v. Bitner
285 F. Supp. 2d 593 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2003)
Hayes v. Long
72 F.3d 70 (Eighth Circuit, 1996)
Khalil Saalim Abdul Jabbaar v. Donal Campbell
826 F.2d 1063 (Sixth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
605 F.2d 850, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 10809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-x-kenner-v-c-paul-phelps-secretary-department-of-ca5-1979.