In Baranowski v. Hart, (5th Cir., May 4, 2007), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the refusal by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to provide Jewish inmates with kosher diets. Jewish inmates could obtain either pork-free or vegetarian meals. The court also rejected plaintiff’s claim that inmates should be allowed to lead Jewish religious services when a rabbi or approved volunteer was unavailable. The suit alleged violations of the free exercise and equal protection clauses and of RLUIPA. Discussing the RLUIPA claim, the court said that the denial of religious services on an every-week basis did not substantially burden the plaintiff’s free exercise of religion. As to the denial of kosher food, while it did substantially burden plaintiff’s free exercise, it was justified by a compelling governmental interest—controlling costs and preventing resentment among other inmates if the increased cost of kosher food came out of the general food budget.
In Rahman v. Goord, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32680 (WD NY, May 3, 2007), a New York federal district court refused to require the New York Department of Corrections to end its practice of holding joint Friday Jumah services for Shiite and Sunni Muslims. The court rejected plaintiff’s claim that the refusal to hold separate Shia services violated his free exercise rights and his rights under RLUIPA. The court however did grant an injunction requiring the prison system to recognize the Shiite holy days of Eid-Ghadir, Muharram, and Ashura, and provide the plaintiff with Halal food on those holidays.
In Perez v. Westchester County Department of Corrections, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32638 (SD NY, April 30, 2007), a New York federal district court refused to grant defendants’ motion to dismiss a claim against them by a Muslim prisoners who claimed that Muslim inmates are denied meals that meet Halal standards, and that Halal standards could be met by merely serving Muslim prisoners the same kosher meals that are served to Jewish prisoners. The court said that plaintiffs' equal protection claim may ultimately succeed because they may be able to show disparate treatment among Muslim and Jewish inmates.
In Henderson v. Kennell, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34440 (CD IL, May 10, 2007), and Illinois federal district judge dismissed a claim by a prisoner who alleged that his free exercise rights were violated when prison officials refused to permit him to have an Islamic medallion in prison. The court said it is doubtful that the denial imposed a substantial burden on plaintiff’s central religious beliefs and, even if it did, plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
In Smith v. Bruce, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34166 (D KA, May 8, 2007), a Kansas federal district court refused to dismiss a prisoner’s his free exercise claim against the warden of the Hutchinson, KA state correctional facility. Plaintiff, who maintained a vegetarian diet for religious reasons, claimed that the warden violated his free exercise rights when the warden deliberately and recklessly ignored the fact that the prison’s food service was serving plaintiff gelatin containing animal by-product.
In Cejas v. Blanas, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33963 (ED CA, May 9, 2007), a California federal Magistrate Judge found that a prisoner’s claim that he should have a single cell so he would not be housed with someone who violated the edicts of his religion did not state a viable claim. Plaintiff did not allege that that the housing about which he complained would burden his own practice of his faith.
In Gill v. Hoadley, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33122 (ND NY, May 4, 2007), a New York federal district court adopted the recommendations of a Magistrate Judge and dismissed a prisoner’s free exercise claim. The court held that there were valid penalogical concerns that led authorities to deny a number of requests by a Jehovah’s Witness prisoner to attend religious services. The court also accepted the Magistrate’s recommendation that plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against certain of the defendants should be reinstated.
In Keesh v. Smith, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33120 (ND NY, May 3, 2007), prisoners Tyheem Keesh and Jesus Michael Jova were attempting to obtain accommodation to practice "Tulukeesh" "the religion of the creator”, a religion started by Keesh. In an earlier decision, the court held that “plaintiffs are principally motivated not by religious impulses but rather by the desire to achieve a more congenial lifestyle during their incarceration.” The court denied plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a preliminary injunction, saying that it had already considered everything now raised by plaintiffs when it denied their motion. UPDATE: The court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration at 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38368 (ND NY, May 25, 2007).
