In Singson v. v. Norris, (8th Cir., Jan. 27, 2009), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Arkansas Department of Corrections policy that requires Wiccan inmates to check out tarot cards from a chaplain and prohibits keeping of the cards in the inmate’s cell. Plaintiff had claimed that the policy violated his rights under RLUIPA.
In White v. Sherrod, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5767 (SD IL, Jan. 28, 2009), and Illinois federal district court dismissed a federal prisoner’s claim that he was prevented from speaking at a religious service after he was disciplined for encouraging a group demonstration at a previous Rastafarian religious service.
In Hyde v. Fisher, (ID App., Jan. 28, 2009), an Idaho Court of Appeals upheld a state maximum security prison’s ban on sweat lodge ceremonies and its restrictions on possession of religious property brought by an inmate who practices Odinism and Native American religion. Plaintiff claimed that these policies violated RLUIPA and Idaho’s Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act. The court concluded, however, that the state had not shown that a total ban on smudging ceremonies is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling interest in safety and security.
In Mitchell v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5157 (WD NY, Jan. 26, 2009),a New York federal district court rejected a prisoner’s claim that the prison’s Religious Alternative Meals did not adequately accommodate his Nation of Islam dietary requirements.
In Ashanti v. Tilton, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4767 (ED CA, Jan. 23, 2009), a California federal magistrate judge permitted a Muslim prisoner to proceed with his claims that he was not being provided a halal diet and that the prison does not provide an interfaith chapel suitable for Muslim prisoners to use.
In Warren v. Kolender, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4817 (SD CA, Jan. 22, 2009), a California federal district court rejected a challenge by plaintiff to the lack of religious services for detainees, as opposed to prisoners, in the San Diego County jail. Plaintiff was held there for a period of time during hearings on whether he should be classified as a sexually violent predator. The court found that it was religious volunteers themselves, not jail officials, who decided to offer more religious services to prisoners than to detainees. UPDATE: The magistrate judge's recommendation, which was rejected by the court, is at 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106905 (May 23, 2008).
In Reischauer v. Jones, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6358 (WD MI, Jan. 29, 2009), a Michigan federal district court rejected 1st Amendment and RLUIPA challenges by an inmate who claimed that authorities denied his requests for Islamic weekly Jum'ah services and for religious books from the Muslim Brotherhood Religious Library. The court also rejected claims that plaintiff was removed from the monthly Ramadan fast list without his consent and was wrongly denied a bag meal for breaking the fast at the Eid celebration.
In Hall v. Cole, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6412 (D NJ, Jan. 28, 2009), a New Jersey federal district court permitted an inmate to proceed with his claim that his 1st Amendment rights were violated when he was denied access to religious services because he was in administrative segregation for protection as a witness in a high profile case.
In Goods v. Pylant, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106800 (WD LA, Dec. 16, 2008), a Louisiana federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of a plaintiff's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when, because of his confinement in lock-down, he was prohibited from attending church services.
In Brown v. Unfried, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6436 (SD IL, Jan. 29, 2009), an Illinois federal district judge permitted a prisoner to proceed with his claim that authorities refused to accommodate his observance of the Ramadan fast.
In State v. Bain, (VT Sup. Ct., Jan. 14, 2009), the Vermont Supreme Court rejected a prisoner's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when he was ordered to submit a DNA sample for the state's DNA data base.
In Iswed v. Caruso, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6347 (WD MI, Jan. 29, 2009), a prisoner complained he was not allowed to make overseas phone calls to his family. A Michigan federal district court rejected plaintiff's free execise challenge to this for lack of factual allegations supporting the claim.
