Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Woodford v. Ngo, a case involving procedural questions, but growing out of the alleged denial of religious rights to a California prisoner. As described by the Associated Press, Ngo was punished for alleged inappropriate activity with volunteer priests. He was barred from Bible study and from corresponding with a Catholic chapel volunteer after the alleged incidents at San Quentin State Prison in 2000. Ngo filed a grievance with prison officials, but it was denied because he missed the 15-day deadline for grievances allowed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Ngo then sued in federal court claiming a violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, and alleging that prison officials defamed him by saying he engaged in sexual relations with volunteer Catholic priests.
At issue before the Supreme Court was whether inmates should be able to file federal lawsuits even if they miss state filing deadlines. Ngo's attorney, Meier Feder, argued that Congress never intended to block valid inmate complaints in passing the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act. Attorneys for California and for the Bush administration argued that in enacting 42 USC Sec. 1997e, Congress wanted inmates to comply with state prison grievance procedures, including deadlines. Northwestern University has a further summary of the case, along with links to the 9th Circuit's opinion below and to the briefs filed in the Supreme Court.
