In Florer v. Johnson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16802 (WD WA, March 8, 2007), a Washington federal Magistrate Judge gave a prisoner challenging the adequacy of the kosher diet furnished to him in prison an opportunity to amend his complaint to adequately state a First Amendment and RLUIPA claim.
In Jamal v. Arpaio, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16212 (D AZ, March 6, 2007), an Arizona federal district court found a sufficient basis in a prisoner's complaint to order defendants to answer charges that plaintiff 's free exercise rights were violated when defendants refused to provide him a copy of the Quran, he was not permitted to participate in congregational prayer, he was denied a religious or pork free diet, and he was subjected to constant and loud Christian music.
In Morris v. Newland, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15725 (ED CA, March 6, 2007), a California federal Magistrate Judge recommended that a Muslim prisoner be permitted to move ahead with his claims that prison officials created a custom or policy of depriving him of his right to practice his religion of Islam when female officers were allowed to observe him unclothed. Defendants had failed to frame any argument against plaintiff's entitlement to relief on these claims.
In Marshall v. Church of the Larger Fellowship, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8571 (ED AK, Feb. 2, 2007), an Arkansas federal district judge adopted the recommendations of a Magistrate Judge, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15459 (ED AK, Jan. 17, 2007) that plaintiff prisoners' claim be dismissed. Plaintiffs had alleged that a church, its pastor and a church chaplain violated their First Amendment rights when they wrongfully enticed them to join their congregation, without first informing them that some of their membership privileges would be limited due to their incarceration. The court held that the First Amendment does not apply to actions of private individuals or private entities, such as defendants in this case.
In Ransom v. Johnson, 2007 U.S. Dist LEXIS 15234 (ED CA, March 5, 2007), a California federal Magistrate Judge permitted a Muslim prisoner to move ahead with a claim that prison officials improperly placed him in a status that denied him the ability to earn work credits. This, he alleged, infringed his free exercise rights by preventing him from attending 26 communal prayer services.
In Lamon v. Pliler, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15247 (ED CA, March 2, 2007), a California federal district court held that plaintiff prisoner had adequately exhausted his administrative remedies as to his complaint that he was prevented from practicing his religion when he was not provided a vegetarian diet.
Smith v. Taylor, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95586 (ND NY, May 31, 2006), is a case decided some months ago that has recently become available. In it a prisoner challenged the legality of a strip search to which he was subjected by prison officials upon his entering the special housing unit of the prison. One of plaintiff's arguments was that his Muslim religion prohibits strip searches and prohibits the viewing of his naked body by others. A New York federal district court held that reasonable prison regulations which further an important purpose may restrict religious expression and practice.
