Thursday, March 02, 2006

More Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the grant of summary judgment to Georgia Department of Correction employees in Boxer X v. Donald, (11th Cir., Feb. 28 2006). The court held that providing prisoners with a generic religious service for a given religion and not a separate service for each denomination or sect is reasonably related to the legitimate penological interest in not overburdening state resources. The court rejected both plaintiff's free exercise claim and his claim that other religions received preferential treatment.

In Shaw v. Frank, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7231 (ED Wis., Feb. 15, 2006), a Wisconsin federal trial court held that allegations by a prisoner sufficiently stated free exercise and RLUIPA claims to permit his case to proceed. Terrence J. Shaw alleged that Wisconsin prison authorities terminated him from participation in sex offender treatment because of his religious beliefs, belittled and forced him to engage in exercises contrary to his religious beliefs during sex offender treatment, and refused to allow him to use his religious name.

In Shabazz v. Martin, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7207 (ED Mich., Feb. 9, 2006), a federal district judge accepted earlier findings by a magistrate judge that a prisoner's free exercise claims are not moot and that he adequately asserted equal protection claims. Plaintiff alleged that the use of prayer rugs and pendants by Nation of Islam religious members was prohibited, while members of other Islamic faiths were permitted to possess these items. He also alleged that he was denied transfer to another prison consistent with his security classification because of his membership in the Nation of Islam. The magistrate's recommendations are reported at 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40657 (ED Mich., Oct. 11, 2005).