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

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner Free Excercise Cases

By Howard M. Friedman

In High v. Baca, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77385 (D NV, Oct. 1, 2008), a Nevada federal district court adopted a federal magistrate's recommendation (2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88077 (Feb. 6, 2008)) not to dismiss plaintiff's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when officials served him breakfast during Ramadan before sunrise, instead of before dawn.

In Johnson v. Sisto, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88253 (ED CA, Oct. 21, 2008), a California federal magistrate judge recommended denial of plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Plaintiff prisoner alleged that he was denied substitutions for menu items forbidden by his religion and tht he was prevented from wearing his religious headwear in the library.

In Sacred Feather v. Merrill, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89783 (D ME, Oct. 29, 2008), a Maine federal district adopted the recommendations of a federal magistrate judge (see prior posting) and dismissed claims by a Native American prisoner. The court concluded that a reasonableness test, rather than a compelling governmental interest test was proper as to plaintiff's First Amendment claims, and that plaintiff had waived his RLUIPA claim.

In Gilbert v. Steed, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90507, (D KA, Nov. 6, 2008), a Kansas federal district court held that plaintiff had a plausible free exercise claim. He alleged that he was segregated from other inmates while eating his kosher diet.

In Ketzner v. Williams, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90500, (WD MI, Sept. 30, 2008), a Michigan federal district court agreed with a federal magistrate's conclusion that temporarily removing prisoners from the Kosher Meal Program when they are in possession of non-kosher food items does not violate either the Establishment or the Free Exercise clause.

In Garrison v. Dutcher, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90504, (WD MI, Sept. 30, 2008), a Michigan federal district court held that RLUIPA does not authorize individual-capacity claims. It held that plaintiff can move ahead on his official-capacity First Amendment and RLUIPA claims alleging delays in delivering him his spiritual herbs. It concluded that the test for a substantial burden under RLUIPA is whether the government, by act or omission, renders impracticable, significantly restricts, or forecloses one's religious exercise, or puts substantial pressure on an individual to modify his behavior in violation of his religious beliefs. Finally the court upheld a prison policy that requires books, including Bibles, to be received only directly from the publisher or an authorized vendor. (See prior related posting.)

Full post as published by Religion Clause on November 10, 2008 (boomark / email).