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

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Additional Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard M. Friedman

In Babcock v. Clarke, (9th Cir., April 6, 2010), the 9th Circuit held that requiring an inmate to use his committed name along with his religious name on correspondence, intead of his religious name alone, and requiring staff to refer to him only by his committed name, does not violate RLUIPA or the free exercise clause.

In Holley v. California Department of Corrections, (9th Cir., April 5, 2010), the 9th Circuit held that California had not waived sovereign immunity in a damage suit by an inmate who claimed that prison regulations requiring him to wear short hair placed a substantial burden on his exercise of religion.

In Henderson v. Langenbrunner, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32558 (MD FL, April 2, 2010), a Florida federal district court rejected a Muslim inmate's complaint over a 35 minute delay in delivering his bagged meal for Ramadan.

In Perez v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32500 (ND NY, March 16, 2010), a New York federal magistrate judge rejected an inmate's claim that a strip frisk after a Catholic Family Day event deterred him from attending other Catholic religious services.

In Smith v. Graziano, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33878 (ND NY, April 6, 2010), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33811, March 16, 2010), and held that an inmate's free exercise rights and his rights under RLUIPA were not infringed when Protestant religious services were not held on two Sundays.

In Robinson v. Roper, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34286 (CD CA, April 7, 2010), a California federal district court adopted a magistrate's findings (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34281, Feb. 16, 2010), and found no violations of plaintiff's free exercise rights or rights under RLUIPA. Plaintiff, who was confined under the state's violent sexual predator law, complained that during a search of his room, his Bible, Koran and prayer rug were placed on the floor.

In Hazle v. Crofoot, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34108 (ED CA, April 6, 2010), a California federal district court held that parole and correctional officers were liable for violating an Atheist inmate's Establishment Clause rights by requiring him, as a condition of parole, to attend a religion-based 12-step program.

In Myles v. Wallace, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34684 (ND WV, April 8, 2010), a West Virginia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112631, Nov. 7, 2008) and held that no substantial burden was placed on an inmate's free exercise when two orders of religious materials he placed and paid for were by mistake placed in the chapel library instead of being delivered to him.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on April 12, 2010 (boomark / email).