Six North Carolina prisoners, who are members of the Islamic, a Black Muslim faith, seek injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U:S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 to compel prison authorities to provide them with the pork-free diet required by the tenets of their religious faith. They allege that they cannot obtain a balanced diet by eating only non-pork items because of the frequency with which pork appears as the only meat on the prison menu and because most vegetables are cooked in or seasoned with pork. And, adducing the failure of prison officials to рrovide them with a “special diet on the same basis as the correctional prisoners who are on ulcer diet,” the prisoners proffer an equal protection argumеnt as an additional basis for the relief sought.
Initially, the District Court denied a motion to dismiss, directing instead that the State demonstrate that an adequate diet could be maintained by eating only non-pork items and that the State respond to the equal protection allegation. After the State’s submission of a supplemental memorandum and supporting affidavits, the District Cоurt granted a motion to dismiss without ever holding an evidentiary hearing.
In its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the District Court said that “[t]he affidavits and menus clearly show that the plaintiffs can receive more than adequate nourishment from other foods and that the defendants are providing ample pork free meals and foods” (emphasis added). The court also found that the “record cleаrly shows” that a rational basis existed for providing a separate diet for prisoners with ulcers but not for Black Muslims. We conclude that the District Court erred in granting summary dismissal and therefore vacate its judgment and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing.
*618
In Abernathy v. Cunningham,
The value of a full evidentiary hearing is exemplified by Barnett v. Rodgers,
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the District Court had erred in its dismissal of petitioners’ complaints, reasoning that the request for one full-course, pork-free diet daily was “essentially a plea for a modest degree of official deference to their religious obligation.” The onus was to be placed upon the state to demonstrate that the impediments placed in the way of appellants’ observance of their dietary creed had compelling justification, such as budgetary constraints or administrative difficulties. The District Court was also to inquire into whether governmental purposes responsible for the impediments could be feasibly “pursued by means that [less] broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties.” Barnett v. Rodgers, supra at 1003.
While the decisions of prison officials are entitled to considerable weight, they are subject to judicial reviews “to insure that the constitutional rights of prisoners are рrotected.” Brown v. Peyton,
supra,
Month (1972) Total Number of Meals Where Meat Served Number of Pork Meats Non-Pоrk Meats Percent of Meals with Pork Meats
March 89 43 46 48.3%
April 77 38 39 49.3%
May 90 43 47 46.6%
June 92 44 48 47.8%
Whether a prisoner could obtain adequate nourishment from the prison ration while refraining from eating all pork-tainted food is a question of medical and scientific fact. Adequacy of diet is not simply measured by determining whether the stomach is so full that pangs of hunger do not persist. There are special nutritional еlements found in meats; and when the amount of meat in a diet is reduced, substitutes providing parallel nourishment can be found, but only in certain foods. Adequacy of diet must be viewed qualitatively as well as quantitatively. Since almost half of the meals served at the prison contain pork as the exclusive meat, and many others may contain meat, vegetables or eggs sеasoned with pork products, the Department of Correction has not clearly shown that an adequate ration is available to Muslim prisoners wishing to observe their religious creed, in eithеr a quantitative or qualitative sense.
The appellants also challenge their treatment vis-á-vis ulcer patients, who are provided a menu which specifically provides that “No pork meats are served” and are also permitted to eat items on the regular menu. The State responds that a failure to provide an ulcer diet to an inmate for whom the diet has been prescribed could conceivably give rise to a claim of denial of adequate medical treatment. This is undoubtedly true and certainly justifies treating ulcеr patients differently from the general population with respect to diet. It does not, however, explain the refusal to accord the same privileges to the plaintiffs, who also make a constitutional argument in support of their demands. The prison authorities apparently have arbitrarily chosen to acknowledge the medical claim and to resist the religious claim, but have failed to make any showing that their refusal to provide some minimal form of pork-free diet is based on any “paramount state interest.” The Statе admits that at one time it provided a pork-free diet for Black Muslims. This policy was discontinued, not because of any “paramount state interest,” but because allegedly the prisoners did not eat the food provided.
Appellants are entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the prevalence of pork in the prison diet, on whether there is adequаte nourishment in the pork-free foods currently available to the prisoners and on whether the state can establish an adequate interest for not providing some satisfactory form of alternative diet. Since the District Court erred in its summary dismissal of this case, leave to appeal in forma pauperis is granted, the judgment of the District Court is vacated, and thе case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CRAVEN, J., concurs in the result only.
Notes
. The figures for pork-meat meals do not reflect those meals where pork was served accompanied by a non-pork meat. These are classified as non-pork meals. Composition meats which generally include pork are treated as pork meat in the chart. Breakfast meals are included. It is not known whether eggs are cooked in pork derivatives or with pork meats.