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

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard M. Friedman

In Tapp v. Stanley, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93122 (WD NY, Nov. 17, 2008), a New York federal district court rejected an inmate's free exercise and RLUIPA claims arising out of a nearly 4-month delay in furnishing him kosher food while his request for it, and his religious designation form, were being processed. A separate claim regarding inability of non-Christians to participate in the Angel Tree program was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

In Foster v. Ouachita Correctional Center, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92914 (WD LA, Nov. 14, 2008), a Louisiana federal district court allowed an inmate to proceed with his claim that authorities violated his rights under the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA by not allowing him to participate in weekly worship services, not permitting him to fast during Ramadan, and not furnishing him a pork-free diet. Two other claims were dismissed as frivolous.

In Furnace v. Sullivan, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93464 (ND CA, Nov. 10, 2008), a California federal district court rejected a claim by an inmate (a practitioner of the African religion of "Shetaut Neter") that his rights under the 1st Amendment and RLUIPA were violated when on one morning he was refused his vegetarian food tray in an incident that led to his being assaulted with pepper spray. However plaintiff was permitted to proceed with claims alleging excessive force and equal protection violations, and allowed him to amend his complaint to allege that he has exhausted administrative remedies as to his state law claims involving free exercise and equal protection violations.

In Richard v. Border, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93519 (D OR, Nov. 17, 2008), an Oregon federal district court rejected plaintiff's claim that his 1st Amendment rights were violated by requiring him to live at the Eugene Mission, which requires attendance at a church service, as a condition of his post-prison supervision. The court found that plaintiff had requested to live at Eugene Mission and never proposed an alternative living arrangement after his objections arose.

In Boretsky v. Corzine, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94583 (D NJ, Nov. 20, 2008), a New Jersey federal district court permitted an inmate to move ahead with his claims that his free exercise and due process rights, and his rights under RLUIPA, were violated when his placement in isolation deprived him of his ability to participate in religious activities.

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