The opinion in Omar v. Casterline, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17302 (WD La., Feb. 8, 2006), has just become available. It involves an arrest made in the immediate wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. Hady Hassan Omar was taken into custody, suspected of being linked to the 9/11 plot because he had purchased an airline ticket for the morning of 9/11 from the same internet account as two of the known hijackers. Omar was questioned by the FBI and after a few days' custody in Arkansas was transferred to the United States Penitentiary at Pollock, Louisiana where he was held until Nov. 23, 2001. He claims that during his detention at Pollock, his free exercise rights were infringed. His charges relate to being served pork, or being served pork substitute without being told it was a substitute; to inteferences with his observance of Ramadan, including being given the wrong date for its commencement; and to mocking of his religion by prison officials. All the claims were dismissed, either on grounds of qualified immunity or de minimis interference with Free Exercise rights. The court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has no impact on the claims because it only deals with challenges to neutral laws of general applicability.
In an unrelated prisoner free-exercise decision recently released, Blount v. Johnson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17300 (WD Va., Feb. 14, 2006), a Virginia federal district court rather summarily dismissed a challenge to state prison grooming rules on the basis of 4th Circuit precedent.
