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

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard M. Friedman

In Gunn v. Kentucky Department of Corrections, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60530 (WD KY, June 18, 2010), a Kentucky federal district court rejected an inmate's equal protection, free exercise and RLUIPA claims growing out of his treatment by the prison chaplain. Plaintiff was required to sit in an assigned seat in the chapel because of his security status, and on one occasion was escorted out and not allowed to return to services after they had begun.

In Jackson v. Raemisch, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61130 (WD WI, June 21, 2010), a Wisconsin federal district court dismissed a suit by a Muslim inmate formerly employed in the prison's food service area where inmates were not permitted to pray. The court held that plaintiff's RLUIPA claim for injunctive relief to allow prayer was mooted because he no longer works for food services. Defendants were granted qualified immunity as to plaintiff's claim for damages under the First Amendment. Plaintiff's equal protection claim was dismissed for lack of evidence. However he was permitted to pursue a claim for retaliation.

In Jones v. McFadden, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61559 (ED CA, May 27, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed a complaint by a Muslim inmate that breakfast pastries served to inmates during a lock down contained pork products. The court held that mere negligence in checking the ingredients before serving them to Muslim inmates did not support a free exercise claim. A conscious or intentional act is required.

In Smith v. Marshall, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61323 (CD CA, June 21, 2010), a California federal district court adopted the recommendations of a federal magistrate (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61371, May 11, 2010) and dismissed a complaint by a Muslim prisoner that he was denied prayer oil purchased for him by a third party because he had met his limit for receiving packages, and in buying prayer oil himself (which was allowed) he was required to pay use tax.

In Allen v. Weimer, 2010 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 458, (KS Ct. App., June 18, 2010), a Kansas appellate court held that an inmate who was dismissed from his prison job with a private employer could not validly claim violation of his religious rights when he untruthfully represented that he could work 8-hour days, even though he knew his religious call out was during that 8-hour period.

In Johnson v. Delaunay, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62038 (SD NY, June 18, 2010), a New York federal district court upheld a Department of Corrections policy that permits an inmate to participate in a religion's programs only if the individual is registered in the Department of Corrections database as belonging to that religion. It also rejected damage claims on sovereign immunity grounds.

In Cooper v. Evans, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61998 (SD IL, May 28, 2010), an Illinois federal magistrate judge refused to dismiss an inmate's claims that he was denied a lacto-ovo diet required by his Buddhist religious beliefs. The court rejected defendants' claims that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

In Raheem v. Miller, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62230 (WD OK, June 23, 2010), an Oklahoma federal district court adopted the recommendations of a magistrate (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62148, May 14, 2010) and permitted an inmate to proceed with some of his RLUIPA claims based on denial of a kosher/halal diet. However the court dismissed his claim seeking damages for emotional distress.

In Amaker v. Goord, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62350 (WD NY, June 23, 2010), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62349, March 25, 2010) and found that the New York Department of Corrections violated RLUIPA when it allowed Rastafarians to wear dreadlocks, but did not permit them to be worn by members of other religious groups. Prison officials argued that wearing of dreadlocks by plaintiffs who were members of Nation of Islam was not required by their religious faith. The court concluded however that officials may not impose restrictions based on governmental assessments of the validity to a religious denomination of a particular practice.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on June 27, 2010 (boomark / email).