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

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard Friedman

In Henderson v. Virginia, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5230 (WD VA, Jan. 23, 2008), a Virginia federal district court rejected an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when, in a disciplinary action, he was temporarily removed from the Common Fare diet and placed on a diet loaf. Plaintiff furnished no evidence that he has a sincere religious belief that requires that he maintain a kosher diet.

In Hernandez v. Schriro, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4908 (D AZ, Jan. 22, 2008), an Arizona federal district court rejected claims by a Native American prisoner that his rights under RLUIPA were violated when he was unable to engage in pipe ceremonies and sweat lodges, possess red and blue headbands, wear his religious medicine bag outside his cell, obtain certain herbs, or work with a spiritual advisor after he was placed in a maximum custody unit.

Bratton v. Curry, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4587 (ND CA, Jan. 9, 2008), involved a complaint by a Muslim prisoner that prison authorities refused to serve him Halal or kosher meals with meat and instead offered him only a vegetarian alternative. A California federal district court held that plaintiff had alleged viable Eighth Amendment, Equal Protection and RLUIPA claims, but not a free exercise violation.

In Marr v. Case, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4427 (WD MI, Jan. 18, 2008), a Michigan federal district court accepted a magistrate's recommendations and dismissed an inmate's free exercise, eighth amendment, retaliation and ethnic intimidation claims. The court described the incident giving rise to the claims: "At a meal, Plaintiff ... requested a kosher eating utensil because the package of utensils he was given was desecrated.... Defendant ... allegedly replied ... 'I'm sick of this sh-t, dude.' ... Defendant [also] ... allegedly stated "get your tray and get the f-ck away from me, they should have exterminated all you bastards in the concentration camps." ... Plaintiff went to a table and waited for 20 minutes without receiving a utensil before leaving without eating."

In Baisden v. Arpaio, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4377 (D AN, Jan. 8, 2008), an Arizona federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, a prisoner's claim that during a portion of his confinement he was unable to attend church for several weeks because only the first 15 of 250 inmates to get in line were permitted to attend. However plaintiff failed to allege how defendant sheriff was personally involved in this alleged free exercise violation.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on January 27, 2008 (boomark / email).