In Parks v. Brooks, (9th Cir., Dec. 2, 2008), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary judgment and ordered a prisoner's claim that he was wrongly denied kosher meals to go to trial. The court held that the sincerity of plaintiff's religious beliefs is a question of fact that cannot be decided by summary judgment. It also held that the trial court should have considered the prison regulations under RLUIPA even though the pro se plaintiff did not cite to the statute. Plaintiff was permitted to proceed with his damage claim for past violations, even though the prison was now serving him kosher meals. As reported by AP, plaintiff, who is black, was originally refused kosher meals because he had no "hereditary connection" to Judaism and could not show "a substantial philosophical understanding" of it.
In Mello v. Martinez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98547, (ED CA, Nov. 25, 2008), a California federal magistrate judge found that a Native American inmate had failed to adequately allege free exercise or RLUIPA violations in connection with authorities' refusal to permit him to take various religious objects with him when he was transferred to a different facility. The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.
In Gonzalez v. Corrections Corporation of America, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98667, (ND MS, Dec. 5, 2008), a Mississippi federal court held that a Muslim inmate's religious exercise was not substantially burdened by his failing to receiving meals that met his religious requirements 13 times over a course of 8 months. The court held it was sufficient that the rest of the time he was served vegetarian meals which met his religious requirements, even though he would have preferred kosher meals. The court rejected his claims under RLUIPA, the free exercise and the equal protection clauses. In reaching its decision, the court assumed without deciding that RLUIPA applies to a state prison that has been privatized.
In Bergmann v. Hanna, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100329 (D DE, Dec. 11, 2008), a Delaware federal district court rejected a claim that a prisoner's free exercise rights were infringed when on one day she was denied permission to attend chapel services to protect her from others in attendance.
