Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Barnes v. Pierce, (5th Cir., July 10, 2009), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an inmate's claims under the 1st and 14th Amendments and RLUIPA that his rights were violated when he was precluded from participating in any religious services while on cell restriction, and otherwise was limited to one primary religious service per week.

In Mecca Allah Shakur v. Sieminski, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60796 (D CT, July 16, 2009), a Connecticut federal district court rejected an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when he was allowed to attend congregate religious services only in "Q-Unit", a step-down unit from administrative segregation, instead of being able to attend them in the prison's main building.

In Price v. Owens, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58844 (ND GA, April 28, 2009), a Georgia federal district court held that an inmate's free exercise and RLUIPA challenges to a prison's grooming policy is not subject to the "continuing violation" or "continuing tort" doctrine for purposes of determining whether the statute of limitations has run. The statute runs from the time of the first application of the grooming policy to plaintiff, and not from each haircut. In Price v. Owens, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58840 (ND GA, July 8, 2009), the court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the matter.

In Mayo v. Norris, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59531 (ED AR, June 29, 2009), an Arkansas federal magistrate judge recommended that the court dismiss an inmate's claim that assessment of various fees against his inmate trust account violates his free exercise rights. Plaintiff alleged that he is a "Disciple of Jesus Christ," and assessing those fees violates Romans 13:8. He says the practice "is contrary to the doctrine of Jesus, thus hindering me from obeying the doctrine of my Savior to the salvation of my soul."

In Powell v. Smith, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58906 (ED CA, June 25, 2009), a California federal district court dismissed an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when he was stripped searched in the presence of female corrections officers. Plaintiff asserted that this practice violated his Muslim religious beliefs.

In Rodriguez v. Schwarzenegger, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59680 (ED CA, June 24, 2009), a California federal district court allowed plaintiff to move ahead with claims that prison officials
improperly confiscated his personal property (including religious objects) for extended periods of time, unreasonably restricted his access to religious ceremonies, and desecrated the prison's Native American sacred grounds.