of a constitutional right. In addition, Plaintiff has put forth sufficient facts establishing a genuine issue as to whether a constitutional violation occurred. Defendants summary of Spies is unpersuasive. Spies is readily distinguished from this situation. Plaintiff insists his dietary re quest is required by his religion. In Spies, the plaintiff conceded a vegan diet was not a necessary requirement for Zen Buddhist practice. Id. at 406. The court noted the prison provided Spies with the vegetarian meal, which accomplished the dietary requirements for Zen Buddhist practice. Id. Thus, the prison’s decision to deny Spies’ request was not a violation of the Constitution. Id. at 407. See also Abdullah v. Fard, No. 97-3935, 173 F.3d 854 (6th Cir. Jan. 28, 1999) (unpublished table opinion) (<HOLDING>). By this reasoning, Spies is entirely
recognizing a religious institutions right to free exercise of religion holding a muslim prisoners free exercise claim failed because even though the prison did not provide him with halal meat he could comply with his religious requirements by simply eating a vegetarian meal and therefore the disputed policy did not force the prisoner to violate his religion recognizing individual prayer as an appropriate alternative means for a muslim prisoner to express his religion holding that a prisoner stated a valid free exercise of religion claim where he alleged that prison officials refused to allow him to receive certain religious books holding that when an inmates religious views requiring a vegetarian diet are sincerely held prison policy may violate his free exercise rights even though vegetarianism is only a recommended not a required element of plaintiffs religion seventhday adventism