free exercise claim. See Ford, 352 F.3d at 593. We hold today that the district court improperly dismissed McEachin’s complaint. The complaint, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, alleges that the defendants significantly interfered with McEachin’s religious beliefs. Since we so hold, we need not, at this stage, consider whether the plaintiff must demonstrate that the burden on his beliefs was “substantial” in order to state a constitutional claim. It is nevertheless worth noting that courts have generally found that to deny prison inmates the provision of food that satisfies the dictates of their faith does unconstitutionally burden their free exercise rights. This principle was established in our circuit at least as early as 1975. See Ford, 352 F.3d at 597 (<HOLDING>); Bass v. Coughlin, 976 F.2d 98, 99 (2d
holding prisoners had no clearly established right to privacy in medical records in 1995 holding that prisoners have a clearly established right to a diet consistent with their religious scruples holding that for purposes of the second question the right must have been clearly established in a particularized sense such that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated that right holding that even capital prisoners have no constitutional right to counsel in habeas cases holding the right to record police activity on public property was not clearly established