In Sample v. Lappin, (DDC, March 31, 2006) (Opinion, Order), an Orthodox Jewish prisoner challenged restrictions imposed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons on his use of wine for religious purposes. Regulations allow him access to sacramental wine only if permitted by the warden and if administered by an authorized rabbi during the course of a religious ritual. The DC federal district court found that plaintiff had made a prima facie showing that this policy violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. However, neither party had made an adequate showing for the court to determine if the BOP policy was the least restrictive means of furthering the government's compelling interest in controlling alcohol consumption in prisons.
In Figel v. Overton, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13892 (WD Mich., Feb. 14, 2006), on remand from the Sixth Circuit, a federal Magistrate Judge in Michigan permitted a prisoner to proceed with a claim for damages growing out of the confiscation of religious books not received directly from the publisher or an authorized vendor. He recommended that defendants' claims of qualified immunity be denied.
In Diaz v. Goord, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14309, (WD NY, March 20, 2006), a New York federal district court found that while atheism qualifies as a religion for purposes of a prisoner's free exercise claim, plaintiff had failed to allege how the confiscation of his atheist pendant and chain infringed on his right to practice his religion.
In Scrible v. Miller, a West Virginia federal district court judge adopted a federal Magistrate Judge's recommendations that a Rastafarian prisoner be permitted to proceed with his claims under the Free Exercise clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Plaintiff alleged that he has taken the vow of the Nazarite, and sought an exemption from the state prison's grooming policy, a religious diet, and assistance in finding a Rastafarian leader and/or literature. The Magistrate Judge's opinion is at 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14411, (ND WVa, Feb. 2, 2006), and the district judge's opinion is at 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14394 (ND WVa., March 15, 2006).
