In Robins v. Lamarque, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34803 (ND CA, April 27, 2007), a California federal district court permitted a Muslim prisoner to proceed with a claim that during a period of over seven months, he was allowed to attend only one religious service.
In Van Patten v. Schmidt, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35247 (ED WI, May 14, 2007), a Wisconsin federal district court permitted a prisoner to proceed with his claim that his religious property had been confiscated and that he was prevented from practicing his religion while in jail.
In Piskanin v. Hammer, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35177 (ED PA, April 26, 2007), a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected a prisoner's free exercise claim growing out of authorities' taking from plaintiff his "Miraculous Medal" when he was placed on suicide watch. He was unable to wear his Miraculous Medal necklace for about 30 days.
In Burke v. North Dakota Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35733 (D ND, May 16, 2007), a North Dakota federal district court permitted a Hindu prisoner to proceed with free exercise and equal protection claims. The prisoner complained that he has been denied a "religious study day" similar to one given to Christian inmates, as well as access to ritual items such as camphor, kumkum, incense, and butter lamps. He also protests that the penitentiary chaplain refuses to recruit non-Christian volunteers to work with inmates.
In Metras v. Pollard, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36015 (ED WI, May 16, 2007), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected a prisoner's free exercise claim, finding that the damaging of his rosary during a search of his cell did not restrict the exercise of his religious beliefs. Apparently the prison guard was testing the material in the rosary, and did not destroy it because of its religious nature.
In Hanley v. Merced County Sheriff's Department, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36263 (ED CA, May 3, 2007), a California federal Magistrate Judge ruled that a prisoner's complaint alleging that he was not allowed to wear his cross did not adequately set out the relationship of the restriction to his free exercise of religion. The judge gave the prisoner 30 days to amend his complaint to allege that defendants substantially burdened the practice of a central tenet or belief of his religion by preventing him from engaging in conduct mandated by his faith.
