*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 4/9/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

 

JAHAD ALI, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

and )

)

AKEEN ABDUL MAKIN, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

) 

v. ) No. 95-1462

) (D.C. No. 94-S-1029)

DENVER RECEPTION AND DIAGNOSTIC ) (D. Colo.)

CENTER, LIMON CORRECTIONAL )

FACILITY, FREMONT CORRECTIONAL )

FACILITY, CENTENNIAL CORRECTIONAL)

FACILITY, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, LARRY RICE, ROBERT )

FURLONG, LARRY IMBREY, FRANK )

MILLER, ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, )

GEORGE SULLIVAN, FRAN TOOTHAKER )

JACK LAUGHLIN, JOHN PERKO, JERRY )

GASKO, H.B. JOHNSON, JOHN HADLEY )

BILL PRICE, ROBERT HUEBNER, FRANK )

O. GUNTER, individually and in their official )

capacities, )

)

Defendants-Appellees. )

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 
** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered

submitted without oral argument.

1 We grant Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

2

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**

 

Plaintiff Akeen Abdul Makin, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s entry of

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.1

 We exercise jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Plaintiff, a prison inmate in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections

(“DOC”), is Muslim. Orthodox Muslims do not eat pork and follow the Halal diet. The

Halal diet requires special slaughtering methods and meat preparation techniques. 

Plaintiff wants to adhere to the Halal diet. The DOC does not provide the Halal diet, but

does offer inmates several dietary alternatives, including a pork-free diet, a vegetarian

diet, a lacto-ovo-pesco diet, and an ovo-pesco diet. The DOC clearly identifies menu

items that contain pork or pork-byproducts. The pork-free diet includes non-Halal beef

and chicken. 

On September 6, 1994, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against Defendants for alleged First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment

violations arising from Defendants’ refusal to provide Plaintiff with a Halal diet. Plaintiff

also claimed that Defendants’ failure to offer a Halal diet violated the Religious Freedom
2

Indeed, the record reflects that the DOC provides pork-free and meat-free

diets to all inmates, and that no inmates received special meat-based diets.

3

Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (Supp. V. 1993) (“the Act”). 

Plaintiff sought monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief from Defendants in their

individual and official capacities.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, and attached affidavits in support of

their motion. Plaintiff filed a response, but did not attach supporting affidavits. On

September 15, 1995, the district court entered summary judgment against Plaintiff on all

claims. The district court ruled: (1) Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendants acted with

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s dietary needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

(2) Plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence in support of his equal protection claim;2

 (3)

Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly

established that Plaintiff had a constitutional or statutory right to the Halal diet; (4) the

Eleventh Amendment barred Plaintiff’s damages claims against the state Defendants; (5)

Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the individual Defendants personally denied

Plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory rights; and (6) Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a

substantial interference with his right of free exercise of religion in support of his claims

under the First Amendment and the Act. Plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, Plaintiff contends the district court erred in entering summary judgment

against them. Plaintiff argues that the district court erred by: (1) failing to grant a
4

preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiff; (2) entering summary judgment when there

were disputed issues of material fact regarding whether Defendants supply Plaintiff with

a Halal diet; (3) concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial interference

with the free exercise of his Islamic religious beliefs; (4) entering summary judgment on

his equal protection claim; (5) entering summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment claim; and (6) concluding that Defendants did not individually deny Plaintiff

constitutional or statutory rights.

Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuinely disputed issues of

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(c). We review a summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party. Ball v. Renner, 54 F.3d 665 (10th Cir. 1995). Upon

careful consideration of the record, the briefs of the parties, the pleadings, the district

court’s order, and the applicable law, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the

district court’s order.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge