In Sanders v. Ennis-Bullock, (9th Cir., Feb. 18, 2009), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the Arizona prison policy limiting inmates to ten religious audiotapes at a time did not substantially burden plaintiff’s exercise of religion. However it remanded for further findings a portion of plaintiff’s Americans With Disabilities Act claims relating to denial of biaural headphones. (See prior related posting.)
In Garner v. Morales, (5th Cir., March 6, 2009), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a portion of the district court’s summary judgment against defendant and remanded the case for the court to reconsider whether counsel should be appointed, and then to reconsider its rejection of plaintiff's RLUIPA challenge to the Texas prisons grooming policy. Plaintiff, a Muslim, wants to wear a quarter-inch beard. The court however affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's First Amendment and Equal Protection claims and of the lower court's holding that sovereign immunity barred damage actions against defendants in their official capacities.
In Adekoya v. Chertoff, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16980 (D NJ, March 4, 2009), a New Jersey federal district court refused to permit an immigration detainee to challenge the absence of Halal food at the Bergen County jail unless in an amended complaint plaintiff is able to detail facts distinguishing this from an earlier 3rd Circuit case that denied a similar claim.
In Prentiss v. Clark, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16951 (ED CA, Feb. 20, 2009), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with leave to file an amended complaint, free exercise, equal protection and RLUIPA claims brought by a Wiccan prisoner who claimed that religious activities for the Wiccan/Pagan Community in his facility were insufficient-- only one hour of worship every Saturday.
In Buckner v. Casaleggio, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17310 (D NV, Feb. 27, 2009), a Nevada federal district court permitted plaintiff , an Orthodox Sunnah Muslim, to move ahead with his claim for injunctive relief asserting that his rights under the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and RLUIPA were violated when authorities permitted only joint Juma'h religious services with Nation of Islam members, instead of separate services.
In Echtinaw v. Lappin, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17842 (D KS, March 9, 2009), a Kansas federal district court dismissed a Muslim prisoner's claims that his ability to practice this religion is infringed by disruption of worship services, lack of access to religious materials and problems with religious celebrations.
In Perez v. Frank, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18241 (ED WI, March 9, 2009), a Wisconsin federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to defendants and permitted two Muslim prisoners to move to trial on a variety of claims. They seeking access to several items of religious property-- primarily certain items of apparel worn to emulate the Prophet Muhammad. One of the plaintiffs seeks halal meals and also object to TB testing that involves subcutaneous injection of substance derived from pork. However 4 defendants were dismissed from the case. Over the past few years, 3 other opinions have been handed down in the case.
In Cabbagestalk v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18412 (D SC, Feb. 24, 2009), a South Carolina federal district judge accepted the recommendations of a federal magistrate judge to deny a preliminary injunction to a Rastafarian prisoner who objected to a number of aspects of prison rules relating to clothing, food and confinement that interferes with religious services.
In Amaker v. Goord, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19327 (WD NY, March 10, 2009), a New York federal district court rejected a claim by a Nation of Islam prisoner that prison authorities were in contempt of a prior injunction by transferring him to another detention facility. The injunction protected plaintiff in the wearing of dreadlocks.
In Musto v. Trinity Food Services, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18589 (MD FL, Feb. 20, 2009), a Florida federal district judge permitted an inmate to move ahead with his First Amendment claim that he was denied "Kosher dietary meals," appropriate Jewish materials, and visits from a Rabbi. The court also permitted plaintiff to proceed with his retaliation claim, and with his RLUIPA claim against individuals in their official capacities for nominal damages.
In Avery v. Chacon, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18958 (ND CA, Feb. 10, 2009), a California federal district court permitted plaintiff to move ahead with his claim that a corrections officer confiscated and destroyed his religious and cultural material.
