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

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard M. Friedman

In Daker v. Warren, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99 (ND GA, Jan. 3, 2011), a Georgia federal district court permitted plaintiff to proceed with his claim that his free exercise rights and his rights under RLUIPA were violated by Detention Center policies that deny Muslim inmates Friday Jum'ah sevices and that bar inmates from receiving hard cover books. Plaintiff claims he is required to seek knowledge about Islam in part from books that are available only in hard cover.

In Salvatierra v. Connolly, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10 (SD NY, Jan. 3, 2011), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137731, Sept. 1, 2010), and, while dismissing a number of claims, permitted an inmate to proceed with his claim that a corrections officer hit him in the face with his kosher meal bag while making a derogatory remark about it. This caused him to stop eating kosher meals to prevent problems with the officer.

In Kennedy v. Hayes, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138296 (ED CA, Dec. 28, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge rejected an inmate's challenge to disciplinary action taken against him for threatening a doctor by telling the doctor that "God will take care of you." The court rejected plaintiff's argument that this was merely an expression of plaintiff's religious beliefs.

In Parks v. Brooks, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138135 (D NV, Dec. 15, 2010), a Nevada federal district court dismissed an inmate's RLUIPA claims growing out of alleged denial of kosher meals to him. The court held that plaintiff's claim for an injunction is moot and that under RLUIPA monetary damages are not recoverable against defendants in in either their official or individual capacities.

In Simmons v. Robinson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 337 (SD NY, Jan. 4, 2011), a New York federal district court rejected plaintiff's objections and accepted a magistrate's recommendation (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138332, Jan. 28, 2010), to dismiss claims by a Muslim prisoner at Sing Sing that prison officials inadequately protected his food on the religious alternative menu from pork contamination.

In Rinehart v. Beck, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1037 (ED NC, Jan. 4, 2010), a North Carolina federal district court rejected an inmate's free exercise challenge to the prison's policy barring inmates from possessing disposable razors. Plaintiff had argued that he fears the health consequences of shaves by prison barbers using electric razors, so his only alternative is to convert to Islam to take advantage of the limited exception allowing Muslim inmates to use disposable razors to shave certain areas of the body as a part of their religious hygiene.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on January 09, 2011 (boomark / email).