In Quillar v. California Department of Corrections, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50894 (ED CA, July 13, 2007), a California federal Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims by an inmate who was disciplined for wearing a beard for religious reasons, in violation of the prison's grooming regulations. While the allegations were found sufficient to state a claim, the magistrate found that defendants enjoyed qualified immunity from plaintiff's damage claims and that plaintiff's claim for an injunction is moot due to his transfer to a different facility. The magistrate also recommended rejection of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim.
In Ghashryah v. Frank, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51104 (WD WI), a Wisconsin federal district court permitted an inmate to move forward with his claim that his rights under the First Amendment and RLUIPA were violated when prison officials prohibited him from using his religious name in filing grievances.
In DeRosa v. Jones, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51561 (ED OK, July 16, 2007), an Oklahoma federal district court upheld the denial of a kosher diet to a prisoner who was a member of a Messianic Jewish group, finding that the prison's vegetarian diet, as well as non-pork meals, are available to him.
In Johnson v. Smith, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52186 (MD PA, July 19, 2007), a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected a prisoner's claim that his placement in administrative custody was in retaliation for his exercise of his religious rights since plaintiff made no showing of a causal connection between the two. Authorities discovered that the prisoner had documents indicating an attempt to undercut the prison's contract Imam. He also had documents indicating he may be trying to poison someone by mixing antifreeze with their salad dressing.
In El-Tabech v. Clarke, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52018 (D NE, July 17, 2007), a Nebraska federal district court upheld claims by a Muslim prisoner that he be given access to a kosher diet, and that the prayer schedule be posted so that guards are aware of it. The court rejected the inmate's claim that he be allowed to shower every day, instead of three days per week, while he is in administrative confinement.
