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

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard Friedman

In Piskanin v. Hammer, (3d Cir., March 18, 2008), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed as frivolous a prisoner's claim that removal of his religious medal/necklace when he was placed on suicide watch unconstitutionally infringed his free exercise of religion.

In Hightower v. Schwarzenegger, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21542 (ED CA, March 19, 2008), a California federal district court dismissed a plaintiff's challenge to a prison requirement that prevented him from receiving religious publications from a vendor of his choice that was not on the approved list of publishers.

In Johnson v. California Department of Corrections, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20130 (ED CA, March 14, 2008), a California federal district court granted summary judgment to defendants in a case in which a Rastafarian prisoner brought free exercise, equal protection and RLUIPA challenges to a prison's grooming requirement that called for him to cut his hair.

In Glass v. Scribner, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20518 (ED CA, March 17, 2008), a California federal district court rejected a challenge brought by a prisoner (who variously claimed he was a member of the Ausarian religion and that he was a Rastafarian) to the prison's ban on using oils for religious purposes in inmate cells. Instead oils were available only from the Muslim chaplain at services. The court however permitted plaintiff to move ahead with a challenge to the prison's refusal to provide him with a vegetarian diet as required by his religious beliefs.

In Allan v. Woods, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20831 (ND NY, March 17, 2008), a New York federal district court dismissed a claim by a Hebrew Israelite prisoner that his rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment had been infringed. The court found that authorities accommodated plaintiff's request not to work on his Sabbath except for one Saturday morning, and that this limited infringement did not substantially burden his free exercise rights.

In Robins v. Lamarque, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21254 (ND CA, March 18, 2008), a California federal district court rejected free exercise , due process and equal protection challenges to a prison's ban on Muslim inmates attending religious services for a number of months after a series of violent incidents and threats of other incidents.

In Mason v. Masley, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21176 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2008), a New York federal district court accepted a magistrate's recommendation (2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21230 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2008) in one of a number of similar cases brought by Muslim inmates. The lawsuits complain that meals served at Rikers Island prison did not meet the requirements for Halal food and that non-Halal items were not identified at the prison commissary. The court dismissed claims against seven corrections officers on qualified immunity grounds, but permitted plaintiff to proceed against two supervisory employees.

In Anderson v. Bratton, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21759 (D KA, March 17, 2008), a Kansas federal district court permitted plaintiff, a member of Assembly of Yahweh, to proceed on free exercise and RLUIPA claims after his request for special foods for three religious observances were denied. The court held it is enough that plaintiff had genuine and sincere religious beliefs regarding the festival observances. The food items did not have to be mandated by or central to his religion. Prison authorities apparently incorrectly equated plaintiff's religion with Judaism in denying his requests.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on March 23, 2008 (boomark / email).