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

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard M. Friedman

ADVERTISEMENTS

In Fairwell v. Cates, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88856 (ED CA, Aug. 2, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's free exercise and RLUIPA complaint with leave to amend and refile. Plaintiff set out numerous allegations of interference with his practice of Asatru/ Odinism, as well as an allegation of retaliation. However the complaint failed to adequately link particular defendants to specific alleged violations.

In Johnson v. Schoen, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90053 (SD IL, Aug. 31, 2010), an Illinois federal district court held that a prisoner's allegation that a correctional officer refused to give him a Bible during his visit with his mother was insufficient to support a free exercise claim.

In Williams v. Beard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89492 (MD PA, Aug. 30, 2010), a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected a Muslim inmate's free exercise and RLUIPA challenges to disciplinary action that led to a loss of his kitchen job for offering prayers in an unauthorized area and failing to obey staff orders to stop.

In Walden v. Smith, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90084 (ND IA, Aug. 30, 2010), an Iowa federal district court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds a Muslim prisoner's complaint that his free exercise rights were violated when, because of his security status, he was not permitted to participate in communal daily prayers during much of Ramadan in 2007. During those times, he was restricted to one communal prayer service per week and thus attended the Friday Jum'ah prayers.

In Kuperman v. Wrenn, (D NH, Aug. 27, 2010), a New Hampshire federal district court rejected challenges by an Orthodox Jewish prisoner to rules that limited the length of beards that can be grown for religious reasons to 1/4 inch. The court found that plaintiff had not sustained his free exercise, equal protection or RLUIPA claims.

In Grayson v. Schuler, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89239 (SD IL, Aug. 30, 2010), an Illinois federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89240, July 20, 2010) and granted summary judgment for defendant on qualified immunity grounds in connection with a claim by an inmate who was a member of the African Hebrew Israelite faith. Plaintiff argued that the prison's grooming policy violated his free exercise rights because he had taken the Nazarite vow that required him to grow his hair long.

In Shelton v. El Paso County, 2 010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91248 (WD TX, Sept. 1, 2010), a Texas federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's complaint that a county jail refused to allow him access to his hard cover Qur'an, failed to supply him with a soft cover version, denied him a prayer rug, did not give him access to a Muslim representative and denied him a pork-free diet. Plaintiff asserted free exercise, RLUIPA, establishment Clause and equal protection claims.

In Ortiz v. Baker, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91430 (D NV, July 27, 2010), a Nevada federal court judge dismissed, with leave to refile an amended complaint, a suit by a Jewish prisoner that merely alleged, without elaboration that defendants refused to permit him to practice Judaism and receive a kosher diet in violation of his First Amendment rights.

In Montague v. Corrections Corporation of America, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91616 (MD TN, Sept. 2, 2010), a Tennessee federal magistrate judge recommended denying a Muslim inmate's request for a temporary restraining order to permit Muslim inmates to pool funds to purchase requested food for Eid ul-Fitr and Eid Adha banquets.

In Soria v. Skolnik, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91543 (D NV, Aug. 10, 2010), a Nevada federal district court permitted an inmate to proceed with his claim that his rights under the free exercise clause, RLUIPA and the equal protection clause were violated by a prison policy requiring that for an inmate to receive a kosher diet, he must be recognized as a practicing Jew by the Aleph Institute or other recognized Jewish organization.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on September 05, 2010 (boomark / email).