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

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard Friedman

In Pressley v. Beard, (3d Cir., Feb. 26, 2008), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court decision rejecting plaintiff prisoner's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when prison officials confiscated his hard-bound Koran, prayer rug, and kufi.

In Scott v. Sisto, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13349 (ED CA, Feb. 8, 2008), a California federal district court permitted a Muslim prisoner to proceed with free exercise and RLUIPA challenges to prison policy that limits him to a vegetarian diet and does not offer Halal food. Plaintiff alleges that under Islamic law, Muslims are not permitted to be vegetarians. Plaintiff's equal protection and due process claims were rejected.

In Strope v. Cummings, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13682 (D KA, Feb. 22, 2008), a Kansas federal district court dismissed a claim by a prisoner that his Free Exercise rights and his rights under RLUIPA were violated when a prison guard interrupted him two or three times while he was kneeling and praying in his cell, asking him whether he was all right. The court noted that plaintiff may proceed on a number of other claims, including interference with religious call-out times and spoiled kosher food.

In Christiansen v. Walker, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14147 (SD IL, Feb. 26, 2008), an Illinois federal district judge adopted a magistrate's recommendations that a default judgment be entered against one of the defendants charged with infringing plaintiff prisoner's free exercise of religion. Plaintiff claimed he was not served a vegetarian diet, was not given adequate time and space for prayer and was forced to attend Christian religious programs. The court ordered the magistrate judge to conduct a hearing on damages. (See prior related posting.)

In Low v. Stanton, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14491 (ED CA, Feb. 26, 2008), plaintiff complained that while he was a pre-trial detainee, jail officials refused to furnish him a copy of the Quran in Arabic, offering him instead only an English translation. The jail furnishes Arabic versions (that are more expensive) only to inmates who are fluent in Arabic. In this decision, a California federal magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff's Establishment Clause and equal protection claims, but permitting plaintiff to proceed on his Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims.

In Walls v. Schriro, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14539 (D AZ, Feb. 26, 2008), a Hare Krishna prisoner alleged that his rights under the First Amendment and RLUIPA were being violated when he was denied a proper religious diet, a religious hairstyle, religious services and visitations. An Arizona federal district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claim regarding religious visits and services. It also held that defendants had qualified immunity from damage claims under RLUIPA as to plaintiff's other allegations. However the court permitted plaintiff to move ahead with his other claims.

In Whitfield v. Lawrence Correctional Center, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14945 (SD IL, Feb. 27, 2008), an "African Hebrew Israelite" prisoner claimed he was denied religious services and programs and adequate meals that comply with his religious beliefs. He also argued that African Hebrew Israelites receive an insufficient share of religious programming funds. Finally he alleges he was forced to receive a "T.B. shot" while he was observing the Sabbath. An Illinois federal district court permitted plaintiff to move ahead with ten of his 13 claims.

In Oakes v. Green, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15106 (ED KY, Feb. 27, 2008), a Kentucky federal district court rejected an inmate's First Amendment and RLUIPA challenges to prison grooming regulations.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on March 02, 2008 (boomark / email).