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

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard M. Friedman

In Timbuktu v. Malone, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82053 (ED WI, Sept. 9, 2009), a Wisconsin federal district court refused to grant summary judgement to two Muslim inmates who alleged that in a number of instances their prayers were interrupted or stopped, the location of their prayers were changed and that there were infringements on their observance of Ramadan and other religious feasts.

In Norton v. Kootenai County, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82863 (D ID, Sept. 11, 2009), an Idaho federal district court dismissed plaintiff's claim that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was ordered to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings as a condition of his probation. The court concluded that while there was a religious component to the program, plaintiff never notified his probation officer of his objections to it.

In Parnell v. Tucker, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83103 (ND CA, Aug. 27, 2009), a California federal district court permitted plaintiff to move ahead with claims against certain of the defendants that restrictions on his exercise of his Islamic religion, such as denying him access to the chapel or yard for congregational prayers and study, violate his First Amendment rights and his rights under RLUIPA.

In Hodgson v. Fabian, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83134 (D MN, Aug. 19, 2009), a Minnesota federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing claims by a Wiccan prisoner that his rights are violated by prison policies that resulted in confiscation of issues of a Wiccan magazine, refusing to allow him and the Wiccan group to smudge or burn incense in the prison chapel, limiting the herbs that inmates could order for religious use, and prohibiting keeping or using prayer oil in inmate cells.

In Jordan v. Caruso, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83575 (ED MI, Sept. 14, 2009), a Michigan federal district court rejected a claim by a prisoner who was a member of the Moorish Science Temple of America that his rights were violated when prison officials refused to use the term "El" as part of his name on his cell door card, as required by his religious beliefs. The magistrate's recommendations in the case are at 2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS 83584 (June 11, 2009).

In Hundal v. Lackner, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83814 (CD CA, Sept. 15, 2009), a California federal magistrate judge held that a Sikh prisoner who was denied an exemption from beard length restrictions had not stated a claim under the First Amendment, but had stated a claim under RLUIPA. However the complaint was dismissed with leave to refile to eliminate the RLUIPA claims for damages against defendants in their individual capacities which the court held were not authorized under the statute.

In Cromer v. Unknown Chaney, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84726 (WD MI, Aug. 26, 2009), a Michigan federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of a claim that plaintiff's rights were violated when prison authorities confiscated Five Percent Nation religious materials from his cell.

In Robinson v. Meyers, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84202 (D SC, Aug. 10, 2009), a South Carolina federal magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgement to defendants in a case in which a pre-trial detainee who was a member of the House of Yahweh complained about a 5-month delay in obtaining a diet meeting his religious requirements. The delay resulted from confusion about Plaintiff's religious affiliation and the type of diet required under the beliefs of that religion.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on September 21, 2009 (boomark / email).