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

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard M. Friedman

In Sayed v. Profitt, (10th Cir., March 18, 2011), the 10th Circuit rejected the contentions of a Muslim prisoner that he was entitled to a complete shower before the Jum'ah service. Contrary to the inmate's contention, the court found he could perform partial ablution at the sink in his cell and thereby comply with Muslim beliefs.

In LaPine v. Caruso, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27987 (WD MI, March 18, 2011), a Michigan federal district court allowed an inmate to proceed against two defendants on his equal protection claim that alleges defendants limited Native American services to 3-5 minutes and did not permit the Prisoner Benefit Fund to be spent on herbs for Native American religious ceremonies.

In Bowers v. Burnett, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27929 (WD MI, March 18, 2011), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's conclusion (2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130756, July 27, 2009) that rejected a Buddhist inmate's claims growing out of the denial to him of a vegan diet. The court held: "Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants in their official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The RLUIPA does not authorize Plaintiff's claims against Defendants in their individual capacities. Alternatively, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on all of Plaintiff's claims against them in their individual capacities."

In Smittle v. Nevada Department of Corrections, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28520 (D NV, March 8, 2011), a Nevada federal district court rejected without prejudice defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of exhaustion a Native American inmate's complaint regarding relocation of the prison's sweat lodge.

In Spencer v. Whorton, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28922 (D NV, March 7, 2011), a Nevada federal district court largely accepted the recommendation of a magistrate (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142160, Nov. 18, 2010) and dismissed, partly on mootness grounds, an inmate's complaints regarding interference with Asatru/Odinist religious practices.

In Mueller v. Jabe, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28891 (WD VA, March 18, 2011), a Virginia federal district court concluded that a former inmate's rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments and RLUIPA were not violated when the Department of Corrections failed to permit him to observe Catholic Holy Days of Obligation b y refraining from work.

In Colliton v. Gonzalez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29954 (SD NY, March 23, 2011), a New York federal district court denied an inmate's motion for reconsideration of his claim that his rights were violated when he was prevented from attending Catholic Mass while housed in the close custody housing unit at Rikers Island.

In Jones v. Oconee County Jail, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29365 (MD GA, March 22, 2011), a Georgia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29387, Jan. 25, 2011) and permitted an inmate to move ahead with his claim that jail authorities permitted Christian worship services but not Islamic ones, and that he was denied kosher meals that conform to his religious needs as a Muslim.

In Rivera v. Hartley, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30005 (ED CA, March 22, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge recommend rejection of an inmate's Establishment Clause challenge to a finding that he was not suitable for parole. Plaintiff claimed the denial stemmed from his refusal to attend religion-based AA or NA programs. However the court concluded that the parole decision was based on his non-participation in any self-help programs concerning anger management or substance abuse.

In Hill v. Sisto, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29415 (CD CA, March 223, 2011), a California federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29424, Jan. 26, 2011), concluding that an inmate's claim that his rights under the Establishment Clause were violated in his parole hearing is not an issue that a federal court can consider in a habeas corpus proceeding. Plaintiff claimed his rights were violated when he was required to participate in a religion-based AA or NA program without some evidence of drug or alcohol use in prison.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on March 27, 2011 (boomark / email).