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

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard M. Friedman

In Muhammad v. Sapp, (11th Cir., July 21, 2010), the 11th Circuit denied a Muslim prisoner's objections under RLUIPA to prison authorities requiring him to wear a close-fitting uniform, refusing to let him have a Qibla compass, requiring him to shower in stalls where he could be seen by other inmates and prison officials, refusing to let him to have 16 gold crowns removed from his teeth, and refusing to provide him with a requested diet.

In Fletcher v. Whorton, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71698 (D NV, March 22, 2010), a Nevada federal district court rejected a Wiccan inmate's claim under RLUIPA that his free exercise rights were substantially burdened when a prison refused to construct a sweat lodge for his use and give him access to raw meat for
Wiccan rituals.

In Young v. Smalls, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72061 (SD CA, July 19, 2010), a California federal district court rejected an inmate's request for a kosher diet instead of the "religious vegetarian diet" he was receiving. The court found that plaintiff did not allege his request was tied to a religious belief; instead he thought a kosher meal was more sanitary.

In Giron v. Garcia, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72491 (D NV, July 19, 2010), a federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72490, June 2, 2010) and held that plaintiff had adequately exhausted his administrative remedies in seeking permission to have his prayer blanket.

In Shoucair v. Warren, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72932 (ED MI, July 20, 2010), a Michigan federal district court accepted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72931, May 25, 2010), holding that plaintiff was improperly attempting to force his 8th Amendment claim into a claim under RLUIPA. AT issue was an assault on plaintiff by another inmate because of disagreement between their Muslim and Moorish Science religious groups.

In Wallace v. Miller, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73340 (SD IL, July 20. 2010), an Illinois federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to an inmate who was a Satmar Hasidic Jew, finding that he was unlikely to succeed on the merits in his challenge to various limitations on his ability to practice his religious customs. Various accommodations had already been made, and the other restrictions were reasonable limitations in light of penological interests.

In Howard v. Epps, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72994 (SD MS, July 20, 2010), a Mississippi federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 73034, March 12, 2010) and dismissed a Rastafarian prisoner's allegations that he was discriminated against because of his dreadlocks and was wrongly informed he could not grow dreadlocks.

In Cotton v. Cate, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73878 (ND CA, July 19, 2010), a California federal district court permitted plaintiff, a member of the Shetaut Neter religion, to proceed with his RLUIPA and equal protection claims alleging that prison authorities failed to furnish him a vegan diet as required by his religious beliefs.

In Scott v. Goodwin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73610 (WD LA, July 21, 2010), a federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations and dismissed as frivolous a claim by a Muslim prisoner that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was told that he would be confined to his cell for his entire period of imprisonment if he refused to be vaccinated.

In Neal v. Campbell, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74053 (ED CA, July 21,2010), a California federal magistrate judge rejected an inmate's complaint that he was placed in administrative segregation for becoming an "ameer" (a Muslim leader) at the prison, as authorities had previously threatened to do. The court concluded that becoming an ameer was not a central mandate of plaintiff's religion. It also found that defendants have qualified immunity.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on July 25, 2010 (boomark / email).