Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Religion Clause

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard M. Friedman

In Howard v. Skolnik, (9th Cir., March 30, 2010), the 9th Circuit rejected a prisoner's free exercise claim based on two alleged incidents of interference with his fasting. However the court vacated summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings plaintiff's objection to the calcelling of Nation of Islam prayer services.

In Jones v. Bullard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27377 (ED MO, March 23, 2010), a Missouri federal magistrate judge concluded that a detainee's free exercise rights were not substantially burdened when he was at various times inadvertently offered a food tray containing pork, but was given an alternative when he objected.

In Guarneri v. Hazzard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26966 (ND NY, March 22, 2010), a New York federal district court held that an inmate's free exercise rights were not substantially burdened by refusal to provide him with a Catholic priest.

In Black v. Fischer, 2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 27439 (ND NY, March 23, 2010), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27356, Feb. 4, 2010) and held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity in a damage action in which a former prisoner complained that his attempt to change religious designation while in prison was denied under a Department of Corrections policy that allowed inmates to change their religion only once every 12 months.

In Malik v. Ozmint, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26397 (D SC, March 19, 2010), a South Carolina federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26385, Feb. 16, 2010) and dismissed a claim by a Sunni Muslim prisoner that his rights under RLUIPA were violated by prison grooming polices that required him to wear short hear and be clean shaven.

In Ingram v. Hyland, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25964 (ED WI, Feb. 26, 2010), a Wisconsin federal district court held that an inmate arguably states a free exercise and RLUIPA claim in objecting to an order that he and his wife (a criminal co-defendant) have no contact. Plaintiff argued that denial of contact for the reconciliation of marriage violates his religious beliefs.

In Greenup v. Gusman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29180 (ED LA, March 26, 2010), a Louisiana federal magistrate judge held that various of plaintiff's claims that his Islamic faith was not being accommodated were moot. His claim for mental anguish was barred by a federal statutory provision barring a prisoner from recovering damages for emotional injury unaccompanied by physical injury.

In Green v. Harry, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30127 (WD MI, March 29, 2010), a Michigan federal district judge adopted the recommendation of a federal magistrate (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29767, Jan. 26, 2010) and rejected a Muslim plaintiff's complaints about non-pork items being placed next to pork items.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on April 04, 2010 (boomark / email).