IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-20188
Summary Calendar
AL YASA MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL
DIVISION; GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-94-CV-2971
- - - - - - - - - -
December 11, 1997
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Irving Elliot, also known as Al Yasa Muhammad, Texas
prisoner # 384725, appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to the defendant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
rights action. Muhammad argues that the defendant violated his
First Amendment right to exercise his religious freedom by
imposing a grooming policy which does not allow him to grow a
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-20188
-2-
beard. The defendant’s grooming policy does not violate
Muhammad’s First Amendment rights because the policy is
rationally related to the defendant’s legitimate penological
interests, including security, inmate identification, safety, and
discipline. See Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir.
1992).
Muhammad argues the defendant violated his First Amendment
rights by failing to provide a pork-free diet. Because Muhammad
did not present competent summary judgment evidence in the
district court to show that there was a genuine issue of material
fact concerning whether he was forced to eat pork or denied an
adequate protein substitute on a particular date, the district
court did not err in holding that the defendant did not fail to
provide a pork-free diet in violation of Muhammad’s First
Amendment rights. See Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
(1986)(nonmoving party must produce evidence or set forth
specific facts showing existence of genuine issue for trial);
Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 10 (5th Cir. 1994).
Muhammad argues that the defendant violated his First
Amendment rights by failing to provide an adequate number of
Muslim chaplains. The summary judgment evidence in the record
indicates that the number of Muslim chaplains is proportionate to
the number of Muslim inmates in the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice. Muhammad does not have a constitutional right to
receive facilities or personnel identical to that of more
No. 97-20188
-3-
populous denominations. See Ganther v. Ingle, 75 F.3d 207, 211
(5th Cir. 1996).
Muhammad argues that the defendant violated his First
Amendment rights by failing to provide a Muslim library. Prisons
do not have an affirmative duty to provide religious materials or
other religious articles free of charge to inmates. See Frank v.
Terrell, 858 F.2d 1090, 1090 (5th Cir. 1988). Muhammad has not
shown that the district court erred in granting the defendant’s
motion for summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.