holding that Supreme Court decisions allowing prison officials to “meet less exacting standards when a prisoner’s interest in marrying, or attending religious ceremonies, or maintaining the length of his hair is to be balanced against interests of rehabilitation and prison security” did not undermine this court’s holding “that prison officials must provide a prisoner a diet that is consistent with his religious scruples”
How later courts described this case
- holding that Supreme Court decisions allowing prison officials to “meet less exacting standards when a prisoner’s interest in marrying, or attending religious ceremonies, or maintaining the length of his hair is to be balanced against interests of rehabilitation and prison security” did not undermine this court’s holding “that prison officials must provide a prisoner a diet that is consistent with his religious scruples”
- holding that prison officials were not entitled to qualified immunity when they refused inmate's religiously motivated dietary requests
- reaffirming Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir.1975) (finding that Orthodox Jewish inmate had right to provision of kosher meals)
- clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that “prison officials must provide a prisoner a diet that is consistent with his religious scruples”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM:
Defendants Thomas A. Coughlin, III,
et al.,
New York State prison officials, appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Thomas J. McAvoy,
Judge,
denying their motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity in connection with their rejection of requests in 1989 and 1990 by plaintiff Warren Bass, a prisoner, for meals prepared in accordance with the dietary laws of his religion. Defendants contend that though the state of the law requiring compliance with such requests had once been clear, it was beclouded by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. We disagree. At least as early as 1975, it was established that prison officials must provide a prisoner a diet that is consistent with his religious scruples.
See Kahane v. Carlson,
527 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.1975).
Kahane
has never been overruled and remains the law.
See, e.g., Benjamin v. Coughlin,
905 F.2d 571, 579 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied,
— U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 372 , 112 L.Ed.2d 335 (1990). The principle it established was not placed in any reasonable doubt by intervening Supreme Court rulings in
O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz,
482 U.S. 342 , 107 S.Ct. 2400 , 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987), and
Turner v. Safley,
482 U.S. 78 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), that prison officials need meet less exacting standards when a prisoner’s interest in marrying, or attending religious ceremonies, or maintaining the length of his hair is to be balanced against interests of rehabilitation and prison security.
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of defendants’ summary judgment motion substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion published at 800 F.Supp. 1066 (N.D.N.Y.1991).