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

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Recently Available Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

By Howard M. Friedman

In Lewis v. Ollison, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54591 (CD CA, July 14, 2008), a California federal district court accepted the recommendation of a magistrate judge (2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82623, June 10 2008), and dismissed a free exercise and RLUIPA complaint by a Muslim prisoner. Plaintiff challenged prison limits on the amount of prayer oil that he could possess and rules that required that during lockdowns he must go the the showers only partially dressed.

In Terrell v. Montalbano, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84260 (WD VA, Oct. 21, 2008), a Muslim prisoner complained that prison officials denied him a religious diet for six months so they could evaluate the sincerity of his religious beliefs. A Virginia federal district court dismissed plaintiff's First Amendment challenge to this, but permitted him to move ahead with his RLUIPA challenge.

In Morris v. Newland, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71875 (ED CA, Sept. 22, 2008), a California federal district court adopted recommendations of a federal magistrate (2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84506)and dismissed free exercise and RLUIPA claim by a Muslim prisoner who objected that he was required to expose his naked body to female correctional officers. The court found that plaintiff's history of administrative discipline for inappropriate sexual behavior in the presence of female correctional officers defeated his claim.

In Martin v. Roche, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84603 (D CA, Sept. 8, 2008), a California federal magistrate judge rejected a claim by a Muslim inmate that his free exercise rights were violated when prison authorities denied him a copy of the Quran and a religious diet when he was placed in administrative segregation.

In Horacek v. Burnett, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84903 (ED MI, Aug. 19, 2008), a Michigan federal magistrate judge recommended that a Jewish prisoner be permitted to move to trial with most of his free Exercise, RLUIPA and infliction of emotional distress claims growing out of authorities' refusal to permit him to enter the Department of Corrections kosher meal program.

In Subil v. Sheriff of Porter County, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85499 (ND IN, Oct. 22, 2008), a Jewish prisoner claimed that various restrictions infringed his rights under RLUIPA and the first amendment. An Indiana federal district court rejected his challenge to limitations on possessing certain religious items. While it found some merit in his complaint about access to a kosher diet and sabbath observance, it held that plaintiff could not get injunctive relief since he was no longer held in the jail about which he complained, and that he could recover only nominal damages for the violations if he ultimately succeeds.

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