In Zarska v. Whitely, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69444 (D KS, Sept. 26, 2006), a Kansas federal district court rejected claims by a Seventh-day Adventist inmate that prison food service employees retaliated against him because of his religion by and failing to correct problems with his the special diet he was to receive for religious reasons.
In Barnes v. Pierce, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69303 (SD TX, Sept. 26, 2006), a Texas federal district court permitted inmates to proceed with a claim that Muslim prisoners are not allowed the same opportunities as are available to prisoners of other faiths to practice their religion, but rejected a challenge to the prohibition on prisoners wearing beards.
In Colquitt v. Camp, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69934 (MD FL, Sept. 27, 2006), a Florida federal district court permitted a Muslim plaintiff to move ahead with his claim against one of the jail officials he sued. Plaintiff alleged that officials refused to accommodate his dietary restrictions during Ramadan and retaliated against him for filing complaints in connection with his diet issues. It also held that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity.
In Grant v. Sutton, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70076 (SD IL, Sept. 27, 2006), an Illinois federal district court permitted a former inmate to move ahead with claims that prison officials did not give Muslim inmates full access to the prison chapel for prayer, would not allow Imams to lead services except during Ramadan, denied Muslim inmates permission to participate in religious festivals, denied them access to Qurans, denied plaintiff permission to attend religious classes and chapel, and barred him from leading worship services.
In Ferdinand v. Johnson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70986 (WD VA, Sept. 29, 2006), a Virginia federal district court held that a prison's grooming policy did not violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
