Monday, January 30, 2006

Three Prisoner Free Exercise Decisions Become Available

Opinions in three prisoner free-exercise of religion cases decided over the last few months have just been released.

In Orafan v. Goord, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2931 (ND NY, January 17, 2006), five Shiite Muslim prisoners from three different New York facilities sued claiming that furnishing them only a unified Muslim religious service rather than a separate Shiite Jumah service violated their state and federal free exercise rights, violated RLUIPA and amounted to an establishment of religion. The court rejected all plaintiffs' claims except for a limited free exercise claim based on discriminatory treatment and comments by prison chaplains acting in their administrative capacities.

In Boles v. Neet, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39662 (D. Colo., Nov. 30, 2005), a Colorado federal district court reviewed the recommendation of a magistrate judge (2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39655) in a case in which an Orthodox Jewish prisoner complained that the was not permitted to wear his yarmulke and tallit katan while he was being transported outside a state prison facility for medical treatment or eye surgery. Subsequently, however, the Colorado Department of Corrections reversed its policy. The court, nevertheless, permitted plaintiff to proceed with his First Amendment free exercise claim for damages stemming from physical injury, mental anguish and emotional distress from the infringement of his religious practice. However, the court held that damages, as opposed to injunctive or declaratory relief, were not available under RLUIPA.

In Newsome v. Ozmint, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39659 (D. SC, Nov. 29, 2005), a federal magistrate judge in South Carolina recommended dismissal of general claims by two Muslim prisoners that their free exercise and equal protection rights were being infringed because they were not permitted to congregate for prayer five times a day in the prison chapel area. Prison officials indicated that the limitations on access to the chapel stemmed from past security problems, and that arrangements for prayer twice a day in day rooms, as well as Friday congregational prayer in the chapel, have been made.