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 a long opinion in Smith v. Artus, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104660 (ND NY, Sept. 30, 2010), a New York court ultimately rejected challenges by a Muslim inmate to prison policies that prevented him from engaging in demonstrative prayer in the prison recreation yard when recreation times coincided with his obligation for Salaah prayer. While the court questioned the constitutionality of the rule, it found qualified immunity for defendants from damages and found that claims for equitable relief were moot. The court also rejected a challenge to prison rules that prohibited inmates from attending congregate religious services while in the Special Housing Unit.

In Montague v. Corrections Corporation of America, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104394 (MD TN,Sept. 30, 2010), a Tennessee federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of an inmate' claim against a company authorized to deliver food packages to inmates. Plaintiff claimed he did not receive a Christmas gift package sent to him by his relatives.

In Reeder v. Hogan, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105024 (ND NY, Sept. 29, 2010), a New York federal district court held that an inmate sufficiently alleged a complaint against one defendant over failure to receive proper meals during Ramadan. The magistrate's recommendations are at 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104686, Aug. 27, 2010.

In Jenkins v. Vail, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98187 (ED WA, Sept. 17, 2010), a Washington federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103989, Aug. 4, 2010) and rejected a Muslim inmate's claims that his free exercise rights and rights under RLUIPA were infringed by rules that required him to either work or engage in educational programming in prison for a non-Islamic government.

In Johnson v. Rock, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104685 (ND NY, Sept. 30, 2010), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate' recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104672, March 30, 2010) and rejected a Muslim inmate's complaint that he was subjected to a restricted diet during Ramadan.

In Milstead v. Guyer, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105044 (D ID, Sept. 29, 2010), an Idaho federal district court refused to permit a former inmate, now on parole, to withdraw from a settlement agreement he had reached on complaints about prison rules limiting the amount of religious and legal materials he could keep in his cell. The court refused to permit plaintiff to add claims regarding conditions of his parole that prevented him, as a sexual offender, from attending church services where children are present. The court encouraged plaintiff to work with his parole officer to determine what religious services were available for him to attend.

In Wiideman v. Baker, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106301 (D NV, Sept. 20, 2010), a Nevada federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his free exercise and RLUIPA claims that he is denied Asatru reading material, including the Bible of Odinism.

In Jones v. Hobbs, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105799 (ED AK, Oct. 1, 2010), a federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106431, Sept. 13, 2010), and refused to dismiss an inmate's First Amendment individual capacity claims alleging a 16-month denial of a religiously required vegan diet. However the court dismissed plaintiff's RLUIPA claim for damages against defendants in their individual capacities.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on October 10, 2010 (boomark / email).