In Thomas v. Condit, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43019 (WD NC, June 13, 2006), a North Carolina federal court dismissed First Amendment and RLIUPA claims of a Jewish prisoner who was given a Passover meal on the wrong date because of an error in the Director of Prison's memo on holidays. The court also dismissed the prisoner's complaint that he was not permitted to attend a Christian Bible class, finding that this did not substantially burden the religious rights of a Jewish inmate. Finally the court dismissed the claim that the prisoner did not receive a non-pork meal after fasting all day on Yom Kippur because the prison chaplain, who apologized for the mix-up, did not follow up on the original request for the meal. The court found that eating after fasting is not part of the religious requirements of Yom Kippur.
In Thompson v. Hooper, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43822 (D. Kan., June 27, 2006), a Kansas federal court refused to reconsider a previous judgment against Tremain Thompson in his suit alleging deprivation of his free exercise rights by prison officials. Thompson wanted to demonstrate that he was wrongly housed in a restricted pod of the jail. The court said that this would be irrelevant since in its prior determination, it found that Thompson was able to adequately exercise his religion in that restricted environment.
A New York trial court upheld the policy of the Sullivan Correctional Facility on accommodating Muslim worship. SCF provided Shi'ite Muslims with separate religious instructional classes during the week, but the Friday Jumah Service combined Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims. In Matter of Holman v. Goord, (Sup. Ct. Sullivan Co., June 29, 2006), the court rejected plaintiff's request for separate Shi'ite services.
In Blount v. Fleming, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44413 (WD Va., June 29, 2006), a Virginia federal Magistrate Judge recommended a finding that prison authorities' denial of an inmate's request to receive the common fare diet substantially burdened the inmate's free exercise of religion in violation of RLUIPA and the First Amendment. The inmate held a sincere belief in the House of Yahweh. However the Magistrate also found that the former head of the prison's Religious diet Committee was entitled to good faith qualified immunity in the claims filed against him personally.
