In Hardeman v. Stewart, (10th Cir., July 21, 2006), an inmate raised equal protection and free exercise claims, arguing that prison authorities had refused to recognize the Hebrew Israelites as a separate religion, and had denied him access to various requested religious items. The district court dismissed the claims because the Prison Litigation Reform Act precludes damages for non-physical harm, and any request for injunctive relief was moot because the inmate was transferred to a different facility. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
In Williams v. Bitner, (3d Cir., July 25, 2006), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that prison officials did not have qualified immunity in a claim for damages by a Muslim inmate who alleged that his First Amendment free exercise rights had been violated. Pennsylvania prison authorities had assigned Henry Williams to work as a cook in the prison kitchen. He was disciplined after he refused, on religious grounds, to help prepare a meal that contained pork.
In Scott v. Mecklenburg Correctional Center, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49905 (WD Va., July 21, 2006), a Virginia state inmate challenged the prison's refusal to approve his participation in a Bible correspondence course in which he had previously enrolled. He also complained that he was not permitted to take his Bible into the recreation yard. A federal district court found that prison officials had a legitimate interest in restricting transient inmates' participation in long term correspondence courses. They also did not discriminate against plaintiff because no materials, secular or religious, are permitted in the recreation yard.
