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

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Decisions

By Howard Friedman

In Patel v. United States Bureau of Prisons, (8th Cir., Feb. 4, 2008), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a Muslim inmate's free exercise, RFRA and RLUIPA claims. It held that the dietary accommodations offered to him were sufficient, and therefore his religious exercise was not substantially burdened. The court also rejected plaintiff's equal protection and establishment clause claims.

In Furnace v. Sullivan, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9187 (ND CA, Jan. 9, 2008), a California federal district court permitted an inmate to proceed with his First Amendment, RLUIPA and equal protection claims that correctional officers denied him a breakfast tray meeting his religious dietary requirements, and when he objected, they sprayed him with pepper spray.

In Shaw v. Frank, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7422 (ED WI, Jan. 31, 2008), a Wisconsin federal district court held that denying an inmate the right to use his religious name does not substantially burden his practice of religion. As to another claim-- that he was forced to engage in a sexual offender treatment program that violated his religious beliefs-- the court found that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (See prior related posting.)

In Shidler v. Moore, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8872 (ND IN, Feb. 4, 2008), an Indiana federal district court permitted a Muslim prisoner to proceed with a claim under RLUIPA that he was denied prayer oil, but not with a claim that he was denied non-allegenic prayer oil. He was also permitted to proceed with a claim under RLUIPA, but not under the First Amendment, that he was denied communal worship. Authorities believed he was a Christian who wished to attend Muslim services. It said: "Though preventing an inmate from engaging in communal worship with a different faith group doesn't violate the First Amendment, RLUIPA is different." A number of other claims were also rejected, including claims he was denied participation in Ramadan activities, that he was inaccurately classified as a Christian, and that he was not permitted to use his religious name on his mail.

In West v. Overbo, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8515 (ED WI, Feb. 5, 2008), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected a claim by a Muslim prisoner that his First Amendment rights were violated when prison authorities limited his Eid-ul-Fitr feast meal to merely the regular institutional meal plus an extra desert.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on February 10, 2008 (boomark / email).