Opinions in three prisoner free exercise cases have recently become available.
In Bess v. Alameda, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6079 (ED Cal., Feb. 16, 2006), a Magistrate Judge in a California federal district court recommended that a motion for summary judgment by prison officials be denied because they had failed to carry their burden of showing that their restrictions on inmates receiving religious books and materials were necessary, nor did they show they were in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and were the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Plaintiff, a state prison inmate complained that his free exercise rights under the Constitution and RLUIPA were being violated by a prison mail room practice of returning religious mail to the sender marked "unauthorized", without notice to the inmate to whom it was addressed. He also claimed that greater restrictions were placed on receiving religious books and materials than on comparable secular material.
In Fulbright v. Evans, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40240 (WD Okl., Sept. 8, 2005), an Oklahoma federal Magistrate Judge recommended that a permanent injunction be granted that orders state prison officials to furnish plaintiff prisoners with a kosher diet. The opinion rejects defendants' claims that furnishing kosher food would violate the Establishment Clause, and accepts plaintiff's free exercise claims. The opinion concludes that the Department of Correction's "refusal to provide a kosher diet, in light of its provision of religious-based diets for other inmates without negative impact, is not entitled to total deference. Here, the record does not reflect more than a de minimis impact upon DOC's economic resources and does not reflect any significant negative impact upon the other concerns submitted by DOC as rational bases for the current policy."
In Murphy v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6118 (WD Mo., Jan. 30, 2006), a Missouri federal district court refused to grant a new trial to an inmate who claimed that erroneous jury instructions were given in his former trial involving free speech and RLUIPA claims. Among the instructions upheld by the court was one that characterized Plaintiff's request for religious accommodation as a request for "racially-segregated group services for the Christian Separatist Church". The court said that "racially-segregated" accurately describes the Christian Separatist Church.
