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

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard M. Friedman

In Coleman v.Caruso, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5328 (6th Cir., March 16, 2011), the 6th Circuit rejected an inmate's claim that prison policy on administrative segregation violates prisoners' free exercise rights as protected by RLUIPA.  The court concluded that limits on television available and on battery operated devices in administrative segregation did not place a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion.

In Ajaj v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26393 (D CO, March 10, 2011), a Colorado federal district court rejected on various grounds, including failure to allege personal participation by various defendants in the alleged violations, a Muslim inmate's complaints that his practice of religion was burdened by lack of halal meals, and interference with his ability to celebrate religious holidays, participate in congregational prayer and obtain certain religious items.

In Greenwood v. Maketa, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26911 (D CO, March 3, 2011), a Colorado federal district court allowed an inmate to proceed against some defendants named in the suit on his complaint that he was not allowed to mail out religious study guides, and that despite his switch from Christianity to the Muslim faith he is being forced to eat non-kosher meals and was not [sic.] removed from the Ramadan list.

In Knight v. Mulvaney, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26778 (WD MI, March 15, 2011), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26649, Feb. 4, 2011) and dismissed claims by an inmate (who has now been released) that his rights were violated when he was designated a security threat group leader for practicing the tenets of Nation of Islam in organizing NOI services, and for possessing religious literature from the group.

In Smith v. California Board of Parole Hearings, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26876 (CD CA, March 14, 2011), a California federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26849, Feb. 9, 2011), and rejected an inmate's claim that his Establishment Clause rights were violated when, in the hearing that led to his denial of parole, board members discussed his failure to continue going to AA/NA programs. Petitioner said he had objections to the religious nature of the programs.

In Riley v. Beard, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27092 (MD PA, March 14, 2011), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that RLUIPA was not violated by a prison policy that barred Muslim prisoners from consuming special foods available for purchase for Muslim religious feasts when they did not have money to pay for them. Inmates who cannot pay are allowed to celebrate the feast with the regular prison menu.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on March 23, 2011 (boomark / email).