Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04609/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04609-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD T. FURNACE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

J.G. ARCEO, et al.,

Defendants. _____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-4609 MMC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docket Nos. 19 & 29)

On June 12, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State

Prison (“SVSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On January 5, 2007, the Court found plaintiff had stated cognizable claims in

which he alleged the violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by prison

officials for denying him religious meals and rejecting his request for a transfer to another

prison that could provide him such meals. The Court ordered the complaint served on SVSP

defendants Warden M.S. Evans, Correctional Food Manager R. Conway, Assistant

Correctional Food Manager J. Pittman and Supervising Correctional Cook K. Soper; the

Court also ordered the complaint served on J.G. Arceo, the Appeals Examiner/Facility

Captain at the Inmate Appeals Branch of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) in Sacramento. Now before the Court is defendants’ motion for

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Prior to the date his opposition was due, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of

time of thirty days in which to file his opposition. The request is hereby DENIED as moot;

plaintiff timely filed his opposition in accordance with the original briefing schedule set forth

in the order of service. (Docket No. 29.)

2

Unless otherwise noted, the facts set forth in the following section are undisputed.

3

Unless otherwise noted, all references hereafter to the “Kemetic diet” are to food for

the physical body.

2

summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion,1 and defendants have

filed a reply.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND2

Plaintiff was received at SVSP on July 2, 2003, and has been housed at SVSP at all

times relevant to the complaint. (Decl. D. Robert Duncan Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J.

(“Duncan Decl.”) Ex. D.) Plaintiff has been a practitioner of the Shetaut Neter faith since

2003. (Duncan Decl. Supp. Defs.’ Reply Ex. B (“Pl.’s Dep.”) at 23:17-22.) Shetaut Neter,

or Neterianism, is an African religion that originated in ancient Egypt in approximately

10,000 B.C.E. (Compl. Ex. A at 1.) The current worldwide head or spiritual leader of

Shetaut Neter is Sebai Muata Ashby, Ph.D., (“Dr. Ashby”), of the Sema Institute. (Id. Ex. A

at 2.) According to the Sema Institute, one of the main scriptures of the Shetaut Neter

tradition is Prt M Hur or “Chapters of Enlightenment.” (Id.) In this scripture are written

specific practices for worship and meditation. (Id.) The Prt M Hur and other scriptures of

the Shetaut Neter mandate a “Kemetic diet” for all Shetaut Neter practitioners. (Decl. Sebai

Muata Ashby Supp. Defs. Mot. Summ. J. (“Ashby Decl.”) ¶ 6.) The Kemetic diet consists of

three types of food: food for the soul, food for the mind, and food for the physical body. (Id.

¶ 5.) The recommended diet for the physical body is a “vegetarian/vegan diet” that prohibits

the consumption of meat, dairy, eggs, wheat, refined sugar and table salt. (Id. ¶ 4.)3

 The diet

is primarily composed of whole foods, raw vegetables and fruits. (Id.) The optimal Kemetic

diet is a raw food diet that consists of at least eighty percent organic raw vegetables and

fruits. (Compl. Ex. A at 3.) 

While Shetaut Neter mandates the Kemetic diet for all of its practitioners, individuals

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

who have not yet achieved the optimal level of spiritual practice with respect to their diet are

not excluded from practicing Shetaut Neter; these individuals are allowed to gradually

transition in adopting the complete Shetaut Neter dietary practices. (Ashby Decl. ¶ 6.) In his

book titled “Kemetic Diet: Food for Body, Mind and Soul” Dr. Ashby writes that the

transition from a meat-eating diet to a “healthy vegetarian diet” should begin with meat

substitutes; a full transition to the point where even the meat substitute can be reduced to a

minimal level may require months or years. (Opp. Ex. D at 183.) Dr. Ashby further

recognizes that Shetaut Neter practitioners may find themselves in situations where

alternatives to dairy, wheat, refined sugar and table salt are not readily available. (Ashby

Decl. ¶ 9.) Specifically, Shetaut Neter recognizes that in some instances strict adherence to

the Kemetic diet may not be possible for inmates in institutions, as the institution may not be

set up to meet some of the “non-traditional” dietary requirements, and, consequently, that an

inmate practitioner “may need to make interim adjustments, under the guidance of a licensed

dietician and health care practitioner, preferabl[y] knowledgeable about the vegan diet, to

maintain the optimum physical health that is possible in the particular circumstances.” (Id. ¶

10.) Such adjustments should be viewed as a temporary departure from the prescribed diet,

however, and the practitioner should always strive to improve his circumstances so as to be

able to practice Shetaut Neter optimally. (Id.)

SVSP provides inmates with meals that are based on standardized menus generated

by the CDCR’s food-services section and approved by a registered dietician. (Decl. R.

Conway Supp. Mot. Summ. J. (“Conway Decl.) ¶ 3; Decl. K. Soper Supp. Mot. Summ. J.

(“Soper Decl.”) ¶ 3; Decl. J. Pittman Supp. Mot. Summ. J. (“Pittman Decl.”) ¶ 3.) The

weekly menus created by CDCR’s food-services section are used as a guideline by

correctional food managers at all state institutions, including SVSP. (Conway Decl. ¶ 4;

Soper Decl. ¶ 4; Pittman Decl. ¶ 4.) The meals provided by the correctional cooks and

correctional food administrators at SVSP follow the menus and portions set forth in the

CDCR standardized menus. (Conway Decl. ¶ 5; Soper Decl. ¶ 5; Pittman Decl. ¶ 5.) The

standardized menus provided at SVSP meet the basic nutritional needs of average adult

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

males, ages 18-50; the caloric content of meals are averaged per week to ensure an average

intake of 2800-3200 calories per day. (Conway Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; Soper Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; Pittman

Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.)

The alternative-entree program at SVSP follows the standardized menu guidelines. 

(Conway Decl. ¶ 9; Soper Decl. ¶ 9; Pittman Decl. ¶ 9.) Under the alternative entree

program, an inmate who for religious reasons chooses not to eat meat will be provided with a

meat substitute. (Id.) Alternative entree items, i.e., meat substitutes, are indicated on the

standardized menus provided to SVSP; an inmate who chooses not to eat meat will be

provided with meals allowing him to meet the basic nutritional needs of an average adult

male between the ages of 18 and 50. (Id.)

California Code of Regulations title 15, § 3054 sets out the regulatory guidelines

concerning prisoners’ special religious dietary needs. Under § 3054(a), “[e]ach facility shall

make reasonable efforts, as required by law, to accommodate those inmates who have been

verified to require special religious diets.” (See Compl. Ex. 2.) The facility chaplain must

verify an inmate’s special religious dietary needs by contacting the religious organization of

which the inmate claims to be an observant member, and must provide the facility food

manager with the inmate’s name and special religious dietary needs. (Id.) If an inmate’s

special religious dietary needs prohibit him from consuming an item or items from the daily

scheduled meal, the inmate “may be accommodated by being provided another item(s) from

that same days’ scheduled meal that is consistent with their dietary need.” (Id.) Under 

§ 3054(b), inmates with special religious dietary needs “may be transferred to another facility

that is equipped to accommodate them.” (Id.)

On June 6, 2005, D. Moon (“Moon”), the Facility D Chaplain at SVSP, wrote an

institutional “chrono” providing as follows:

Inmate Furnace is verified to receive a Special Religious Diet per California

Code of Regulations title 15, § 3054. “No Meat” Includes Breakfast, Lunch

and Dinner. (Daily).

(Duncan Decl. Ex. B.) 

On July 28, 2005, plaintiff filed an inmate appeal at the informal level of review,

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 4 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

complaining that defendants Correctional Food Manager R. Conway (“CFM Conway”),

Assistant Correctional Food Manager J. Pittman (“ACFM Pittman”) and Supervising

Correctional Cook K. Soper (“SCC Soper”) were responsible for providing him with a

“nutritionally balanced religiously based vegetarian diet three times daily,” but had failed to

fulfill their obligation to do so. (Compl. Ex. 1 at 2.) Specifically, plaintiff complained that

the meals he was receiving contained foods that he was prohibited from consuming because

of his religion; he also complained he was not being provided citrus or protein substitutes

with his daily meals, and was instead given foods that he could not consume, such as dairy

products, jello and pudding. (Id.) Plaintiff asked to be transferred to another prison under

§ 3054, on the ground SVSP was unwilling to provide him with a nutritionally balanced

religious diet. (Id.) The informal level reviewer responded to plaintiff’s appeal by telling

him that the officers in each building distributed special meals to inmates based on a list

distributed from the Central Kitchen (Id.)

On September 18, 2005, plaintiff filed his appeal at the first formal level of review. 

(Id.) On September 28, 2005, the appeal was denied by CFM Conway and SCC Soper, who

told plaintiff the CDCR “does not recognize vegetarian diets, only religious diets,” and

plaintiff had the option of eating alternate entrees from the CDCR-approved menu. (Compl.

Ex. 1 at 5.) 

On November 29, 2005, plaintiff filed his appeal at the second formal level of review,

complaining that he was dissatisfied with the first level response because the first level

reviewer had failed to recognize the nature of his complaint, specifically, that the institution

was not equipped to facilitate his religious dietary needs. (Compl. Ex. 1 at 3.) On

December 22, 2005, following an investigation by ACFM Pittman, the appeal was denied at

the second level of review. The following explanation was provided for the denial: (1) SVSP

is mandated to follow the menu approved by the CDCR, including alternate entrees; (2) the

religious diet offered at SVSP was an alternate entree diet approved by the Muslim chaplain;

(3) plaintiff was receiving the religious diet approved by the Muslim chaplain, and (4) the

religious diet requested by plaintiff is not offered at SVSP. (Compl. Ex. 1 at 6-7.) 

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 5 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

On February 4, 2006, plaintiff filed his appeal at the Director’s level of review, stating

his sole request was that he be transferred to another prison. (Compl. Ex. 1 at 3.) On May 4,

2006, N. Grannis, Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch, denied plaintiff’s appeal, finding as

follows:

The appellant has not established that the SVSP has failed to make a reasonable

effort as required by law, to accommodate those inmates with special religious

dietary needs. The institution is serving a meal menu that has been approved

by the Department’s dietician. The appellant’s taste preferences

notwithstanding, the meals served are nutritionally balanced, wholesome and

healthy. The diet meets government-approved guidelines for adult males. 

Based upon the documentation presented no modification to the decision

reached by the institution is required.

(Compl. Ex. 1 at 1.)

On June 12, 2006, plaintiff filed his complaint in the instant action. He claims he is

being denied his First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion because the SVSP

alternative religious diet does not meet the requirements of a Kemetic raw food diet, and he is

required to eat food forbidden by his faith in order to meet his nutritional needs. Plaintiff

also claims the refusal of SVSP prison officials to provide him with a Kemetic diet or to

transfer him to another institution where he could be provided with such a diet violates his

rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show there

is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material facts are those that may affect the

outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A

dispute as to a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See id.

The court will grant summary judgment “against a party who fails to make a showing

sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which

that party will bear the burden of proof at trial . . . since a complete failure of proof

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 6 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other

facts immaterial.” See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); see also

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248 (holding fact is material if it might affect

outcome of suit under governing law; further holding dispute about material fact is genuine

“if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving

party”). The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the record

that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The burden then shifts to

the nonmoving party to “go beyond the pleadings, and by his own affidavits, or by the

‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (citing Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(e)). 

In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; if, as to any given fact, evidence produced

by the moving party conflicts with evidence produced by the nonmoving party, the court

must assume the truth of the evidence set forth by the nonmoving party with respect to that

fact. See Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 1999). The court’s function on

a summary judgment motion is not to make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting

evidence with respect to a disputed material fact. See T.W. Elec. Serv. v. Pacific Elec.

Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). 

B. Analysis

1. Free Exercise Claim

The First Amendment guarantees the right to the free exercise of religion. Cruz v.

Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 323 (1972) (per curiam). Under the Free Exercise Clause, inmates “have

the right to be provided with food sufficient to sustain them in good health that satisfies the

dietary laws of their religion.” McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 198 (9th Cir. 1987). “The

free exercise right, however, is necessarily limited by the fact of incarceration, and may be

curtailed in order to achieve legitimate correctional goals or to maintain prison security.” 

O’Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987). Even if a prison regulation impinges on an

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 7 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

inmate’s exercise of his religion, however, no First Amendment violation will be found if the

regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological goals. Id. at 349 (citing Turner v.

Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). 

a. Conduct Mandated by Plaintiff’s Faith

In order to establish a free exercise violation, a prisoner must show the defendant

burdened the practice of his religion by preventing him from engaging in conduct mandated

by his faith. See Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 736 (9th Cir. 1997). Such a showing

requires a threshold determination that the plaintiff’s claim is rooted in a sincerely held

religious belief. See Shakur v. Schriro, No. 05-16705, slip op. 1011, 2008 WL 185496, at *3

(9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2008) (citing Malik v. Brown, 16 F.3d 330, (9th Cir. 1994); Malik, 16 F. 3d

at 333 (holding, to implicate Free Exercise Clause, plaintiff’s belief must be both “sincerely

held” and “rooted in religious belief”). 

At the outset, defendants argue, plaintiff has not produced evidence showing they

have burdened the practice of conduct mandated by his faith, because he has not shown

practitioners of Shetaut Neter are required to eat a raw food diet in every situation. Plaintiff

claims he has established a free exercise violation based on his sincerely held beliefs as to the

dietary requirements of the Shetaut Neter religion. For the reasons stated below, the Court

concludes plaintiff has not produced evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact as

to whether his sincerely held religious beliefs include the belief that practitioners of Shetaut

Neter are required to eat a raw food diet in every situation. 

Plaintiff alleges he sincerely holds the beliefs of the Shetaut Neter religion, one of

which is that the practitioners of Shetaut Neter follow a vegetarian diet. (Compl. ¶¶ 3-6.) 

According to plaintiff, the vegetarian diet adhered to by the practitioners of Shetaut Neter

forbids the consumption of meat, dairy, eggs, wheat, refined sugar, table salt, or genetically

modified or irradiated foods, and further requires the consumption of at least eighty percent

organic raw fruits and vegetables. (Compl. ¶¶ 5-6 & Ex. A at 3.) As support for his claim

that such a diet is required of Shetaut Neter practitioners, plaintiff relies upon the writings of

Dr. Ashby concerning the Kemetic dietary requirements. (Compl. Ex. A; Opp. Exs. C, D &

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 8 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

G; Pl.’s Dep. 42:11-16), and states that were he not incarcerated, he would choose to eat the

raw food diet described by Dr. Ashby in his book. (Pl.’s Dep. at 44:2-15.) The raw food diet

described by Dr. Ashby consists of raw, fresh, uncooked foods, e.g., vegetables, fruits, nuts

and seeds, vegetable and fruit juices; foods that are sun-cooked, e.g., raw bread; or foods that

are dehydrated at a low temperature. (Compl. ¶ 6; Opp. Ex. G at 1; Pl.’s Dep. at 44:7-15.) 

While defendants do not question the sincerity of plaintiff’s beliefs as a follower of

the Shetaut Neter religion, they argue plaintiff has not established a free exercise violation

because he has not produced evidence that contradicts Dr. Ashby’s declaration that Shetaut

Neter practitioners are not always required to eat a raw food diet. Specifically, they point to

Dr. Ashby’s statement that Shetaut Neter recognizes that strict adherence to the Kemetic diet

may not always be possible for inmates; consequently, under such circumstances, some

divergence from the optimal practices of Shetaut Neter is allowed, and practitioners may

transition over time to the raw food diet. (Ashby Decl. ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff concedes that, according to Dr. Ashby, inmate practitioners of Shetaut Neter

are not required to adhere strictly to the raw food diet if they cannot do so due to institutional

limitations; moreover, he does not dispute Dr. Ashby’s interpretation of this aspect of the

Shetaut Neter religion. (Opp. ¶ 23.) He emphasizes, however, that Dr. Ashby views such

instances of diet modification as a departure from the prescribed Kemetic diet. (Id.)

Based on the foregoing, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

plaintiff, the Court finds plaintiff is a sincere believer in the Shetaut Neter faith, including the

dietary requirements of the faith, but that plaintiff has neither alleged nor produced evidence

demonstrating that the consumption of anything other than the optimal raw food diet is

mandated by his faith in every situation. Plaintiff’s sincere beliefs concerning the dietary

requirements of his faith are founded on the teachings of Dr. Ashby concerning the Kemetic

diet; such teachings include not only Dr. Ashby’s belief that a raw food diet is optimal, but

also his recognition that Shetaut Neter practitioners may need to transition to such a diet over

time – especially where prisoners are concerned and the transition to a raw food diet might

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 9 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

not be possible due to institutional limitations. Moreover, while plaintiff contends

defendants’ failure to provide him with a raw food diet forces him to defile himself by

consuming foods that are forbidden by his religion, in neither Dr. Ashby’s declaration nor his

writings is there a statement to the effect that anything other than a raw food diet is forbidden

by Shetaut Neter. Indeed, in the sections of Dr. Ashby’s book that plaintiff has attached to

his opposition, Dr. Ashby advises practitioners to transition to the Kemetic diet, but makes

clear such transition can take months or even years. (Opp. Ex. D at 1.) 

In sum, plaintiff’s belief that he must eat a raw food diet is based on the religious

teachings of Dr. Ashby, which teachings recognize that eating a raw food diet is not always

feasible for Shetaut Neter practitioners, especially in the prison setting. Notably, plaintiff

does not claim he sincerely believes only certain aspects of Dr. Ashby’s teachings; rather, he

claims Dr. Ashby is the author of the Kemetic diet and the “bottom line” concerning the

dietary requirements of Shetaut Neter. (Pl.’s Dep. 42:13-16.) Consequently, plaintiff’s

sincere belief in the dietary aspirations set forth by Dr. Ashby for Shetaut Neter practitioners

necessarily includes those aspects of Dr. Ashby’s teachings that recognize that the

practitioners of Shetaut Neter in general, and those who are prisoners in particular, are not

required to eat a raw food diet in all situations, especially when institutional regulations

prevent them from so doing.

Accordingly, as plaintiff has failed to produce evidence that creates a genuine issue of

material fact as to whether defendants’ refusal to provide plaintiff with a raw food diet

burdens conduct that is mandated by plaintiff’s faith, the Court finds plaintiff’s claim does

not establish a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. 

b. Legitimate Penological Objectives

Even if there were evidence to support plaintiff’s claim that defendants have burdened

conduct that is mandated by plaintiff’s faith, no violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment

rights can be made out if the restriction imposed by defendants was reasonably related to

legitimate penological objectives. O’Lone, 482 U.S. at 349 (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 10 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). In Turner, the Supreme Court identified four factors to consider when

determining whether a regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests: 

(1) whether there is a “valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the

legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it”; (2) “whether there are alternative

means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates”; (3) “the impact

accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates and

on the allocation of prison resources generally”; and (4) the “absence of ready alternatives,”

or, in other words, whether the rule at issue is an “exaggerated response to prison concerns.” 

Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90. 

The task in considering the Turner factors is not to balance the four factors, but,

rather, to determine whether the state shows a reasonable relation between the policy and

legitimate penological objectives, rather than simply a logical one. Beard v. Banks, 126 S.

Ct. 2572, 2580 (2006). While all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the prisoner’s favor

with respect to matters of disputed fact, in disputed matters of professional judgment the

court’s inferences must accord deference to the views of prison authorities. See id. at 2578. 

Unless a prisoner can point to evidence showing the policy is not reasonably related to

legitimate penological objectives, sufficient to allow him to prevail on the merits, he cannot

prevail at the summary judgment stage. Id.

With respect to the first Turner factor, the initial burden is on defendants to put forth a

“common-sense” connection between their policy and a legitimate penological interest. See

Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 357 (9th Cir.1999). If defendants do so, plaintiff must

present evidence that refutes the connection. Id. Defendants must then present enough

counter-evidence to show that the connection is not “so remote as to render the policy

arbitrary or irrational.” Id. 

Defendants argue that two legitimate penological interests prevent them from

providing plaintiff with a raw food diet: budgetary and administrative concerns. In support

of their argument, defendants have presented declarations attesting to the fact that all meals

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 11 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

provided to inmates at SVSP are based on standardized menus generated by the CDCR’s

food-services section and approved by a registered dietician; this plan includes the SVSP

alternative-entree meals that are provided to inmates who for religious reasons choose not to

eat meat. (Conway Decl. ¶¶ 3, 9; Soper Decl. ¶¶ 3, 9; Pittman Decl. ¶¶ 3, 9.) The available

alternative-entree items, i.e., meat substitutes, are indicated on the menus provided to SVSP

by the CDCR. (Conway Decl. ¶ 9; Soper Decl. ¶ 9; Pittman Decl. ¶ 9.) 

Even where the marginal cost and administrative burden of providing a specialized

religious diet would be small or negligible, a rational nexus exists between a prison’s dietary

policies and its legitimate administrative and budgetary concerns. See Shakur, 2008 WL

185496, at *4. Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff’s raw food diet cannot be prepared from

either the standardized SVSP regular menu or the alternative-entree menu; consequently, the

Court finds a common-sense connection exists between defendants’ policy of not providing

plaintiff with a raw food diet and their legitimate budgetary and administrative concerns. See

id. (holding prison could rationally conclude that denying requested religious diet would

simplify its food service and reduce expenditures); see also Ward v. Walsh, 1 F.3d 873, 877

(9th Cir. 1992) (holding prison has legitimate interest in running simplified food service,

rather than one giving rise to many administrative difficulties). Accordingly, as plaintiff has

not presented evidence that refutes the connection, defendants have satisfied the first

element of the Turner test. See Frost, 197 F.3d at 357. 

The second Turner factor is “whether there are alternative means of exercising the

right that remain open to prison inmates.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90. In the context of free

exercise claims, the relevant inquiry under this factor is not whether the inmate has an

alternative means of engaging in the particular religious practice that he claims is being

affected; rather, the question is whether the inmate has been denied all means of religious

expression. Ward, 1 F.3d at 877. Thus, the second Turner factor has been deemed satisfied

where the prisoner retains “the ability to participate in other significant rituals and

ceremonies” of his faith, even if some aspects of religious practice are impinged upon. Id.

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 12 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

Defendants assert that alternative means of plaintiff’s expressing his religion remain

open to him; in support of their argument they provide evidence of the following: (1) plaintiff

receives vegetarian meals that allow him to avoid meat and meet his basic nutritional needs;

(2) he is allowed to meditate, pray and study the Shetaut Neter scriptures for a half hour to a

full hour three times each day, in the morning, noon and evening; (3) he is allowed to

practice the yoga positions that are recommended by Shetaut Neter; (4) he participates in

monthly fasts, at which times he limits his food intake to fruits and water and recites the

Shetaut Neter scriptures; and (5) he is permitted to wear an ankh amulet as a symbol of his

faith. (Mot. Summ. J. ¶¶ 23-28; Pl.’s Dep. 27:18-25; 28:4-10; 30:9-23; 32:4-7.) Plaintiff

does not produce any evidence in opposition to that produced by defendants, nor does he

claim that he is being denied alternative means of expressing his religion. Accordingly, the

Court finds defendants have satisfied the second element of the Turner test.

The third Turner factor requires the Court to consider “the impact accommodation of

the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates and on the allocation

of prison resources generally.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 91. Defendants assert that providing

plaintiff with a raw food diet will significantly impact both prison resources and prison

officials, and that institutional budgetary concerns weigh strongly in favor of providing

plaintiff with a religious vegetarian diet. In support of their assertions, defendants have

provided declarations showing that meal preparation at SVSP is a systematized process that

involves many different departments and individuals. At the administrative level, SVSP

correctional food managers must prepare menus that comply with the CDCR’s weekly

standardized food menus, and they must accomplish this task while also managing the food

budget and purchasing food from approved vendors. (Conway Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4, 9; Pittman Decl.

¶¶ 2, 4, 9.) At the practical level, kitchen staff must prepare all inmate meals in accordance

with the correctional food managers’ menus; inmates working in the kitchen must serve the

meals or place them on delivery carts; and correctional officers must deliver the meals to the

inmates who eat in their cells (a group constituting approximately half of the inmates at

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 13 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

SVSP), including those inmates who have a “religious diet” card on their cell and must

receive an alternative-entree meal. (Conway Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10; Pittman Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10.)

Based on defendants’ evidence, which plaintiff does not dispute, the Court finds that if

defendants were required to accommodate plaintiff’s religious dietary needs by preparing and

serving him an individualized raw food diet three times daily, such accommodation would

have a burdensome impact on SVSP administrative and budgetary resources. See DeHart v.

Horn, 390 F.3d 262, 271-72 (3d Cir. 2004) (finding accommodation of plaintiff’s religious

dietary needs would have burdensome impact on prison where requested vegan diet would

require specialized ordering and preparation of food and individualized preparation of meals

in kitchen designed for bulk food preparation). Accordingly, defendants have satisfied the

third element of the Turner test.

The fourth Turner factor requires the Court to consider whether there is an absence of

ready alternatives to the prison regulation; a ready alternative is one that “fully

accommodates the prisoner’s rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interests.” 

Turner, 482 U.S. at 91. The burden is on the prisoner challenging the regulation, not on the

prison officials, to show that there are obvious, easy alternatives to the regulation. See

O’Lone, 482 U.S. at 350 (1987); see also Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1063 (9th Cir.

1999) (finding in favor of defendants on fourth Turner factor where plaintiff failed to point to

alternative that accommodated his rights at de minimis cost to security interests). Here,

plaintiff has not put forth a ready alternative to defendants’ religious-diet policy that would

accommodate his right to a religious diet at a de minimis cost to defendants’ legitimate

administrative and budgetary concerns. Accordingly, the Court finds defendants have

satisfied the fourth element of the Turner test. 

In sum, for the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes plaintiff has not created

a genuine issue of material fact with respect to his claim that defendants have violated his

First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion by denying him a raw food diet. 

Specifically, plaintiff has not produced evidence showing that defendants have substantially

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 14 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

In light of this finding, the Court does not reach defendants’ argument that they are

entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s Free Exercise claim.

15

burdened conduct that is mandated by his religion. Moreover, defendants have shown that

the refusal to provide plaintiff with a raw food diet is reasonably related to legitimate

penological objectives. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment on

plaintiff’s First Amendment Free Exercise claim.4

2. Fourteenth Amendment Claim

Plaintiff claims that his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment

was violated by defendants’ refusal to transfer him to a prison where he could receive a raw

food diet. The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee ensures that prison

officials not discriminate against particular religions. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319,

321-22 (1972) (per curiam). Prisons must afford an inmate of a minority religion “a

reasonable opportunity of pursuing his faith comparable to the opportunity afforded fellow

prisoners who adhere to conventional religious precepts.” Id. at 322. Prisons need not

provide identical facilities or personnel to different faiths, but must make good faith

accommodation of the prisoners’ rights in light of practical considerations. See Freeman v.

Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 1997).

To succeed on an equal protection claim, a plaintiff in a § 1983 action must show that

officials intentionally acted in a discriminatory manner. See id. Consequently, to defeat

summary judgment, plaintiff must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue as

to whether defendants denied him a reasonable opportunity to pursue his faith as compared to

prisoners of other faiths, and that such conduct was intentional. See id.

In his complaint, plaintiff claims his right to equal protection was violated because the

refusal to transfer him was in direct violation of prison regulations and was not related to

legitimate penological concerns. (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18.) Defendants argue plaintiff has not

established an equal protection violation because he has produced no evidence showing

defendants intentionally discriminated against him; specifically, he has not produced any

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 15 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

evidence that another prison facility could better accommodate his request for a raw food diet

and that defendants intentionally denied his request to be transferred to such facility. Further,

defendants argue, the evidence shows plaintiff was provided with a reasonable opportunity to

practice his faith, by being served a diet that allowed him to avoid meat, and also being

allowed to exercise his religion in several alternative ways, including prayer, yoga,

mediation, and recitation of scriptures. In his opposition, plaintiff claims, for the first time,

that practitioners of Shetaut Neter are denied equal protection of the law because Muslim and

Jewish inmates at SVSP are provided foods that satisfy their religious dietary laws. (Opp.

18:8-11.) Defendants reply that plaintiff has produced no evidence to support his conclusory

assertion that Muslim and Jewish inmates are receiving dietary accommodations that more

fully satisfy their religious dietary requirements 

The Court finds plaintiff has not produced evidence showing there is a genuine issue

as to whether defendants have violated plaintiff’s right to equal protection, either by refusing

to transfer him to another prison or by providing Muslim and Jewish prisoners with foods

that satisfy their religious dietary needs. Nor has plaintiff produced evidence showing

defendants have denied him a reasonable opportunity to practice his faith as compared to

other prisoners, and that such conduct was intentional. Accordingly, defendants are entitled

to summary judgment on plaintiff’s equal protection claim.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is hereby

GRANTED and judgment shall be entered in favor of all defendants.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 19 and 29.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 3, 2008 _____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04609-MMC Document 42 Filed 03/03/08 Page 16 of 16