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

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recent Prisoner and Institutionalized Persons Free Exercise Cases

By Howard M. Friedman

In Blount v. Ray, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61521 (WD VA, July 17, 2009), a Virginia federal district court dismissed an inmate's RLUIPA claim that he was wrongly removed from his religious Common Fare Diet. The court held that plaintiff had not shown his sincerity regarding his religious dietary beliefs continued at the time he was removed from the food plan, since he refused to sign a CFD agreement.

In Ayotte v. McPeek, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62163 (D CO, June 5, 2009), a California federal magistrate judge allowed an inmate to move ahead with his claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when his requests to replace his defective hearing aids were denied.Plaintiff alleged, along with other claims, that he has been prevented from fully understanding the religious programs that he attends in prison.

In Modlenaar v. Liberatore, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62842 (WD NY, July 21, 2009), a New York federal district judge allowed a former Attica inmate to move ahead against a corrections officer in a suit challenging a denial of kosher food for six days while he was on a medically restricted diet.

In Pratt v. Hogan, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63086 (ND NY, July 6, 2009), a civilly committed patient claimed that his required sex offender treatment program violated his free exercise rights. He alleged that he was an atheist, and the Good Lives Model and Boundaries Program compels one to believe in "spirituality" and includes relaxation programs that are partly based on eastern Zen practices. A New York federal district court concluded that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was objectively reasonable for them to perceive no constitutional violations in implementing the program.

Full post as published by Religion Clause on July 26, 2009 (boomark / email).