Leroy Jackson v. Frank J. Pate, Warden, Defendnat-Appellant

382 F.2d 517, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5792
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedJune 29, 1967
Docket15880_1
StatusPublished

This text of 382 F.2d 517 (Leroy Jackson v. Frank J. Pate, Warden, Defendnat-Appellant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Leroy Jackson v. Frank J. Pate, Warden, Defendnat-Appellant, 382 F.2d 517, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5792 (7th Cir. 1967).

Opinion

FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge.

This case was consolidated, for oral argument only, with Cooper v. Pate, 7 Cir., 382 F.2d 518, decided this day.

The issues are similar, and the district judge, the Honorable Abraham L. Marovitz, noted that in several respects he followed the decision of Judge Austin in Cooper v. Pate. Judgment containing a similar injunction with respect to communication with ministers and religious services was entered July 21, 1966. Defendant warden appealed from the portions of the judgment adverse to him. Plaintiff Jackson, an inmate who is a follower of Elijah Muhammad, did not appeal from the portions adverse to him. Defendant now permits purchase of .the Koran and this issue is moot.

Jackson’s amended complaint prayed for a decree that he have a right to observe the dietary laws of his faith. No facts were pleaded on either side, and no evidence introduced to show what the die *518 tary laws are, whether the present prison regime accommodates them, and whether it accommodates the dietary laws of other faiths. We gather from reported decisions elsewhere that Muslims must not eat pork and must fast from sunrise to sunset during December. The judgment included an injunction requiring, in effect, that if defendant accommodates the prison regime to dietary laws of other faiths, he must not discriminate against 'Muslims. The principle underlying this part of the decision may be sound, but we conclude that this record does not support issuance of an injunction.

Subparagraph (c) of paragraph (1) of the judgment entered July 21, 1966, is vacated, and the other portions of the judgment appealed from are affirmed.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
382 F.2d 517, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leroy-jackson-v-frank-j-pate-warden-defendnat-appellant-ca7-1967.