Legal Commentary

?Christian Prurient?

By Eugene Volokh

From LaRue v. Matheney (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 4, 2010):

Plaintiff?s original 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in this matter sought reinstatement of certain privileges revoked by MOCC as a result of plaintiff?s refusal to comply with the requirements of the prison?s sex offender treatment program. Plaintiff had previously agreed to participate in MOCC?s Quality of Life program, and had signed an ?Individual Therapy Contract? obligating him to participate in treatment sessions and to refrain from certain conduct relating to children and to sexual matters, generally....

[Plaintiff] asserts that he is a ?Christian Prurient,? and that ?sex and nudity is a big aspect of his faith.? He continues as follows:

Plaintiffs contract with Christy Flores, Mental Health therapist, clearly violates his religious doctrines.

Plaintiff contends that fellow inmates retain pornography in their cells. However, due to the Plaintiffs Religious beliefs, the defendants has imposed sanctions for not abandoning his faith to comport with the traditional Established Christian faith.

Plaintiff is the founder, owner, and President of Christian Prurient Faith Outreach Ministry.

Defendants have Prohibited the Plaintiff from practicing his faith by enforcing a contract that he has advised the Defendants to not enforce numerous times. This complaint seeks to do what the Defendants adamantly refuse to do without Court intervintion [sic].

Plaintiff has since filed in excess of one hundred documents in support of his claims. The majority of these documents set forth extensive quotations to the Bible, and describe in detail the tenets of plaintiff?s self-created ?Christian Prurient faith,? of which he is the sole follower. Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that his religious rights are violated by MOCC?s enforcement of the therapy contract through restricting his privileges and his access to pornographic materials....

In the instant case, plaintiff acknowledges that the burden with which he takes issue was imposed upon him because of a contract into which he entered of his own volition ? a contract of a type which the Supreme Court has found to be constitutionally valid. Even assuming that plaintiff sincerely holds the beliefs he professes, the hardships of which he complains are relatively insignificant, are typical of prison life, and are of his own making. His claims must therefore be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Full post as published by The Volokh Conspiracy on March 11, 2010 (boomark / email).