In Clark v. Small, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23731 (SD CA, March 15, 2010), a California federal district court permitted an inmate to proceed with his claim that he was not permitted to celebrate Ramadan, but dismissed his equal protection and due process challenges.
In Hartmann v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23848 (ED CA, March 15, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge concluded that inmates failed to state a claim against the California State Personnel Board in connection with their complaint that no Wiccan prison chaplains were hired for their facility.
In Jackson v. Boucaud, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23760 (SD GA, March 15, 2010), a Georgia federal district court accepted a federal magistrate's recommendations (2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125893, Dec. 31, 2009) and dismissed an inmate's claims that his rights were infringed when he was not permitted to borrow in inter-library loan a copy of The Bible Code. He failed to allege how denial of the book infringed his sincerely held religious beliefs.
In Holley v. Johnson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23898 (WD VA, March 16, 2010), a Virginia federal magistrate judge permitted an inmate to proceed with challenges under RLUIPA and the due process clause to confiscation of religious materials of the Nation of Gods and Earths (also known as the Five Percent Nation of Islam).
In Boles v. Newth, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126028 (D CO, Nov. 13, 2009), a Colorado federal magistrate judge concluded that damage to an inmate's religious objects and religious books did not create a meaningful burden on his practice of religion.
In Borzych v. Frank, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25194 (WD WI, March 17, 2010), a Wisconsin federal district judge rejected an inmate's claim that his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and his rights under RLUIPA, were violated by a prison policy that prohibits practitioners of Odinism from having runes.
In McChesney v. Hogan, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25717 (ND NY, March 18, 2010), a New York federal district court accepted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25705, Feb. 26, 2010), and permitted a civilly committed offender who is an atheist,to proceed on a claim for injunctive relief, but not for damages, on his complaint that material used in the sexual offender treatment program were premised on religious principles.
In Damron v. Sims, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25166 (SD OH, March 17, 2010), an Ohio federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25158, Jan. 27, 2010) and dismissed claims by prisoners who were Christian Separatists that they have been denied in various ways the free exercise of their religion. The court held that plaintiffs pointed only to general policies and failed to allege particular instances in which their rights were infringed.
In Brown v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25396 (ED MI, March 18, 2010), a Michigan federal district court adopted a federal magistrate's recommendations (2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126067, Oct. 28, 2009) and rejected both on statute of limitations grounds and on the merits an inmate's argument that his free exercise rights were violated when he was not permitted to talk about his religious beliefs during the Assaultive Offender Program.
In Anderson v. Craven, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25140 (D ID, March 16, 2010), an Idaho federal district court refused to dismiss an inmate's claim that his rights were violated when, as a condition of parole, he was forced to attend the Therapeutic Community program which, allegedly, is religion based.
In Funzie v. Little, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25771 (MD TN, March 18, 2010, a Tennessee federal district court adopted a magistrate's findings (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25768, Jan. 12, 2010) and dismissed plaintiff's objections to the seizure and screening of his religious materials by the security threat group.
