Opinion ID: 3012881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Plaintiffs Ishmon Stallworth and James Williams (“Prisoners”), inmates at the New Jersey State Prison (“NJSP”), filed suit against Willis E. Morton, Roy Hendricks, Walter Wise, and Frank Graves (“Prison Officials”), all of whom are either former or current NJSP officials, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The crux of Prisoners’ claims is that the Prison Officials violated their constitutional rights by failing to provide them with Halal meat meals in conformity with their religious beliefs. A Halal, or lawful, 3 diet includes fruits, vegetables, seafood, and meat from herbivorous animals such as cows and chickens that are properly slaughtered. The opposite of Halal food is Haram food, which is prohibited or unlawful and includes pork and meat from carnivorous animals. Halal foods can become contaminated if they are commingled with Haram items. Currently, the different diets provided by the NJSP fall into four general categories: (1) a regular meal which is served to approximately 600 inmates; (2) a series of healthrelated diets with low sodium, low cholesterol, and reduced calories which are served to about 350 inmates; (3) a Kosher diet that is provided to 4 Jewish inmates; and (4) a religious vegetarian diet served to approximately 225 inmates who cannot eat the regular prison diet for religious reasons.1 The regulation creating the religious vegetarian meal reads: An inmate who cannot eat the food served to the general population because of the inmate’s religious beliefs may request a religious vegetarian diet. Upon review and approval of the request by the Chaplain of the correctional facility in accordance with this subchapter, nutritionally balanced vegetarian meals shall be provided to the inmate in place of the food served to the general population. N.J.A.C. § 10A:17-5.9 On behalf of themselves and other Muslim inmates, Prisoners contend that, as applied, this regulation violates their sincerely held religious belief that they are required to consume Halal meat in their diet. Their complaint alleges that the Prison Officials violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment2 by not providing them with Halal meat and the Equal Protection Clause of 1. The description of the various diets offered at NJSP comes from the deposition testimony of Lorenza Graves, the prison’s food service supervisor. 2. The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” U.S. Const. amend. I. 4 the Fourteenth Amendment3 by providing Kosher meals with meat to Jewish prisoners without providing Halal meat to Muslim inmates. They further claim that the Prison Officials violated their rights under the New Jersey Constitution and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-1 et seq. Prisoners requested an injunction that would require the NJSP to include Halal meat in their diet and damages for the alleged violations of their constitutional rights.4 Analyzing Prisoners’ constitutional claims under the fourpart test enunciated by the Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), the District Court granted the Prison Officials’ motion for summary judgment.5 Prisoners timely appealed.