No. 94-3113

Daniel Lee Holterman * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. James Helling, John Emmett, * Robert Washington, John * [UNPUBLISHED] Goetz, Thomas Hundley, * * Appellees. *

Submitted: October 19, 1995 Filed: November 30, 1995
Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Lee Holterman appeals the district court's adverse grant o f summary judgment in his section 1983 action agai nst Iowa prison officials. We affirm.
Holterman, an Oregon inmate, was incarcerated in the Iowa Stat e Pe nitentiary from March 17, 1990 until July 8, 1993, when he wa s transf erred back to the Oregon Department of Corrections. Holterma n brought this section 1983 claim against the Iowa prison officials fo r failing t o provide him with a kosher diet in violation of his Firs t Am endment free exercise rights as a Hasidic Jew. In response t o Holterman's request for a kosher diet, prison of ficials instead issued him
a n on-pork diet and permitted him to purchase kosher food, at his ow n expense, during Jewish holidays.

### 2 There is no doubt that the Iowa State Penitentiary's policy o f providing a non-pork diet and permitting special requests for kosher meals on Jewish holidays si gnificantly restricts the free exercise of a Hasidic Jew's religious belief. The district court granted summary judgment to th e prison officials, however, concluding that they had not burdene d Holter man's free exercise rights in such a way as to amount to a constitutional violation under the test set fort h in Turner v. Safely , 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987), and O'Lone v. Estate of S habazz , 482 U.S. 342, 349- 352 (1987). Alternatively, the district court concluded that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

On appeal, Holterman contends that the district court should hav e review ed his free exercise claim under the compelling interest standar d reviv ed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § § 2000b b to 2000bb-4 (1994) (RFRA). We recognize that RFRA applie s retroactively, § 2000 bb-3(a), and that it applies to prisoner litigation. S. Rep. No . 111, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. at 9 (1993), reprinted in 199 3 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1892, 1898-1890. In this case, however, we do not consider the new RFRA standardfor prisoner free exercise claims because Holterman failed to amend his complaint to allege a RFRA v iolation. See Brown-El v. Harris , 26 F.3d 68, 69 (8th Cir. 1994). We therefore agree with th e district court that H olterman's claim should be reviewed in light of preRFRA standards.

Under pre-RFRA standards, a prison regulation that impinges on a n inmate's constitutional rights is valid if it is reasonably related t o leg itimate penological interests. O'Lone , 482 U.S. at 349; Turner , 48 2 U.S. at 89. The prison officials assert that, given the few kosher diet requests in the Iowa Department of Corrections, the administrative burden and costs of providing kosher food were not warranted. Applying th e deferential Turner standard, we conclude that the penitentiary's policy wa s rationally related to its economic and administrative concerns. Because
we

### 3

affirm th e district court's grant of summary judgment for lack of a constitutional violation, we need not discuss the applicability o f qualified immunity in this case.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.