An inmate who sued the state prison over its policy on religious diets lost his battle in federal court after a judge ruled the current policy does him no harm.

Albert Kuperman, a 26-year-old Orthodox Jew, sued the wardens of the New Hampshire State Prison and the Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility because his kosher food diet was taken away on three separate occasions after he was found to be eating nonkosher chicken. Kuperman said it violated his First Amendment right to exercise his religion.

The prison argued that changes to the prison policy on religious diets made Kuperman's challenge moot.

Kuperman has been serving time in the state prison since April 2004 on a 3½- to seven-year sentence for sexually assaulting a female juvenile. He received a second suspended 3½- to seven-year prison sentence for the same offense and is eligible for parole in January 2010.

Kuperman brought a lawsuit in state court on a similar matter after his diet was first restricted in 2004, but a judge dismissed the case after finding he had not proven his rights had been violated. Kuperman brought another lawsuit in 2005 after he was found eating nonkosher chicken in the mess hall. The court denied his request for injunctive relief and dismissed the case for Kuperman's "failure to exhaust his administrative remedies," court documents said.

In 2006, the prison changed its policy regarding religious diets. The former policy required an automatic six-month suspension of a special diet if a prisoner was found to be eating other foods. The new rule would only implement the suspension if the prisoner ate the nonkosher meat "knowingly and intentionally," the records said.

Later that year, prison officials said Kuperman was again caught eating nonkosher chicken. When his diet was restricted, he brought another lawsuit against the prison. A judge later ordered that his kosher diet be reinstated immediately and that the prison "refrain from suspending (the meals) in the future based on isolated dietary violations," court records said.

The prison modified its policy once more, deciding that a diet can only be taken away if a prisoner is caught four times eating nonkosher foods within a two-year period. He or she must seek counseling with a prison chaplain the first three times caught, and the prisoner is given 15 days' notice and a right to appeal to the warden before the diet is changed. The inmate can also apply for reinstatement of his or her diet, which could take up to 30 days to complete, according to the prison's policy.

When the new rules took effect, Kuperman's record of violations was cleared, the court records said.

In this case, Kuperman said the prison had, in the past, violated his rights by taking away his meal privileges for straying from the rules once.

In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Laplante found that Kuperman's complaints already had been addressed by the new prison policy and that he would not override a state court's earlier decision, when it found Kuperman unsuccessfully argued the same points. A plaintiff cannot sue a defendant for continuing the same conduct found to be lawful, he wrote.

"That is exactly what Kuperman attempted here: to challenge substantially the same prison policy and conduct in a different forum, only two years later. This court cannot - and will not - substitute its judgment for that of the state court on the identical issue," Laplante wrote.

However, Laplante cautioned, under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, the prison's current policy might be considered a "substantial burden of religious exercise," he wrote. The issue of restricting inmates' diets is being debated across the country, he said.

"While it is true that the policy imposes no burden on the hypothetical prisoner who adheres perfectly to his religious diet, few religious believers - especially imprisoned believers - would lay claim to perfection," he wrote. "But suffice it to say that the prison's policy on religious diets remains open to question under the First Amendment and RLUIPA, particularly as applied to inmates with sincere religious beliefs."