In Dawson v. Schwarzenegger, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56226 (ED CA, Aug. 11, 2006), a California federal Magistrate Judge held that a group of challenges under RLUIPA to the California prison system's grooming rules by Native American inmates are moot because the rules have been amended to permit the wearing of hair by prisoners in any style so long as it does "not extend over the eyebrows, cover the inmate's face or pose a health and safety risk".
In Raiford v. Wallens Ridge State Prison, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56271 (WD VA, Aug. 11, 2006), a Virginia federal district court rejected an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when he did not receive appropriate meals for Passover and when he was denied the Common Fare Diet. Inmate Thomas Raiford failed to offer evidence of his religious beliefs requiring him to receive such meals.
In Watts v. Director of Corrections, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56193 (ED CA, Aug. 10, 2006), a California federal Magistrate Judge, ruling on summary judgment motions, recommended that Rastafarian prisoner's RLUIPA and equal protection claims in connection with California hair length grooming standards for prisoners go to trial. In its motion the state failed to show that its grooming standards were the least restrictive means of furthering the its interest. The equal protection claim focused on the fact that the state's policy was applicable only to male prisoners. However because the state has subsequently changed its grooming standards, the only relief that can be available is expungement of plaintiff's disciplinary reports.
In Smith v. Beauclair, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56561 (D ID, Aug. 11, 2006), an Idaho federal district court denied state prison officials' motions for summary judgment on some of the RLUIPA claims of by an inmate who had requested accommodation of various of his individualized versions of Cherokee religious practices. Plaintiff was permitted to move ahead on his request for accommodation for use of a Sacred Fire, exceptions to the grooming standards, and use of medicinal herbs, but not on his claims for tobacco smoking, daily smudging of his cell and a special diet. The court granted qualified immunity to individual defendants on damage claims against them, but warned that "this ruling should not be construed as a license to ignore future religious accommodation requests from inmates with individualized religious beliefs."
In Price v. Scott, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57263 (ND IN, Aug. 14, 2006), an Indiana federal district court ruled against an inmate who alleged that correctional authorities prevented him from practicing his Native American religion in violation of the First Amendment, RLUIPA and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. The court held that prison officials fully satisfied their obligation to accommodate the plaintiff's religious beliefs when they offered him a transfer to a different prison that had an active Traditional Native American religious group.