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

More Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard M. Friedman

ADVERTISEMENTS

In James v. Hayden, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99205 (SD NY, Sept. 21, 2010), a New York federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that a group strip search violated his free exercise rights and his rights under RLUIPA, finding insufficient evidence of a substantial burden on plaintiff's religious beliefs.

In Garcia v. Clark, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98973 (ED CA, Sept. 20, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge permitted a Jewish inmate to move ahead with his claim against most of the defendants alleging that his free exercise rights and his rights under RLUIPA were violated when authorities took away accommodations that permitted him to take his kosher meal back to his cell to eat to avoid harassment.

In Leonard v. Louisiana, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99182 (WD LA, Sept. 20, 2010), a Louisiana federal district court followed up on its earlier determination that denying plaintiff access to Nation of Islam's newspaper "The Final Call" violated the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA. In this decision, the court awarded nominal damages, denied punitive damages and awarded attorneys fees of over $100,000.

In Roberts v. Cox, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98780 (D NV, Aug. 31, 2010), a Nevada federal magistrate judge permitted plaintiff to proceed with most of his free exercise and RLUIPA claims alleging that prison policies made it more difficult for blacks who purported to follow the Jewish faith to practice their religion than it did for white Jews. Among the policies were a requirement that a person be recognized a Jewish by an outside Jewish organization before the individual can receive kosher meals. Plaintiff also claimed that authorities cancelled Jewish services during Ramadan to accommodate Muslim prisoners.

In Mack v. Danforth, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99094 (MD GA, Sept. 21, 2010), a Georgia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99095, July 13, 2010) and permitted plaintiff to proceed against against two of the named defendants on his claim that he was denied a religiously mandated vegan diet.

In Burkes v. Hamilton County, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99830 (SD IL, Sept. 23, 2010), an Illinois federal district court dismissed a claim by an inmate who objected to being required to remain in his 8-person jail cell during Christian religious services that are held in the cell as requested by one or more other prisoners in his cell.

In Collins v. Bruno, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99337 (D CT, Sept. 15, 2010), a Connecticut federal district court rejected an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights and rights under RLUIPA were violated when authorities rejected his request for halal meat for meals on two Muslim holidays.

In Muhammad v. Sisto, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99842 (ED CA, Sept. 10, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge rejected a Muslim inmate's motion for a temporary injunction to transfer him from state to federal custody because state officials allegedly interfered with his ability to fast for Ramadan in 2008.

In Serna v. Wells, 2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 99433 (SD GA, Sept. 21, 2010), a Georgia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99375, Aug. 31, 2010), and dismissed plaintiff's claims seeking to have the Bureau of Prisons make kosher meals available, holding that a habeas corpus proceeding is not the correct form of action to use to challenge conditions of confinement.

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