In Smith v. Sears, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18017 (USDC SD Ohio, July 11, 2005), handed down last month but made available only recently, a federal Magistrate Judge denied Ohio prison officials' motion for summary judgment in a claim by a prisoner that his religious freedom rights were infringed by forcing him to cut his beard. The court found that disputed factual issues could not be determined at the summary judgment stage of the case. The inmate claimed to be an Orthodox Jew, but prison officials presented some evidence challenging the sincerity of his beliefs. Prison officials claimed enforcement of grooming regulations were needed for prison security, but plaintiff had worn his beard for almost 4 years without security problems. A prior posting discussed related opinions in this litigation.
In Brown v. Johnson, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17971 (USDC WD Pa., Aug. 24, 2005), a former Pennsylvania prisoner claimed that prison officials retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights when they confiscated items in his cell and transferred him to the Restricted Housing Unit. Prison officials claimed he was a security threat because he belonged to a group known as the United Nation of Islam-KAM (UNOI-KAM). The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment because evidence failed to conclusively show that the inmate belonged to UNOI-KAM.
