In Beebe v. Birkett, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91690 (ED MI, Sept. 3, 2010), a Michigan federal district court, adopting a magistrate's recommendations, dismissed several claims by a Jewish prisoner, but allowed him to move ahead with a portion of his as-applied challenge to the prison's kosher meal policy. UPDATE: The magistrate's recommendation is at 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98186, Feb. 22 2010.
In Maier v. Wilson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92732 (D MT, Sept. 7, 2010), a Montana federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92848, Aug. 5, 2010) and held that plaintiff suffered no injury from the prison's failure to post a list of disallowed religious books; that neither having to choose between going to his prison job or weekly Wicca services nor the prison's restrictions on tarot cards imposed a substantial burden on plaintiff's free exercise; that plaintiff was given adequate opportunity to practice his Wicca religion; and that treatment of Native Americans did not create an Establishment Clause or equal protection violation.
In Roberts v. Shearin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92512 (D MD, Sept. 7, 2010), a Maryland federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that his free exercise rights were violated by a temporary ban on inmates receiving hard bound books, including religious books. It dismissed his complaint that he was not permitted to practice his religion of Kinteic Science because he had not taken any steps to have his religion and his requested accommodation recognized.
Mintun v. Peterson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92489 (D ID, Sept. 3, 2010), involved a complaint by a Christian inmate who was gay about the anti-gay environment in the non-denominational fellowship service. He was barred by officials from attending that service while his complaints were investigated and was refused the right to create a separate service for gay Christians. The court dismissed the complaint, holding narrowly that plaintiff had not shown that other eight available Christian religious services were inadequate or that other inmates would attend a service for gay Christians.
In Verducci v. Marsh, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92712 (ED CA, Aug. 17, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with leave to file a more specific amended complaint, a county jail detainee's complaint that he was denied access to Jewish religious services, Jewish reading material and a kosher diet.
In Hankins v. Pennsylvania, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92743 (WD PA, Sept. 7, 2010), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (Hankins v. Beard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92864, July 29, 2010) and refused to dismiss an inmate's complaint that while confined in county jail he was not provided a religious representative and could not keep religious materials in his cell.
In Crump v. Prelesnik, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93178 (WD MI, Sept. 8, 2010), plaintiff alleged that prison authorities infringed his religious rights in a number of ways through retaliatory actions. These included a cell search that left his Qur'an and prayer rug face down on a muddy floor; requiring him to roll down and drag his pants in violation of a religioius prohibition; and delaying plaintiff's request for hygiene items that caused him to be unclean for his daily prayers. These retaliation claims are apparently among those that a Michigan federal district court permitted plaintiff to continue to pursue.
In Adkins v. Cabell, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93290 (SD WV, Sept. 7, 2010), a West Virginia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations and dismissed a complaint by a Native American prisoner claiming verbal abuse and harassment over the practice of his religion, as well as a claim of physical abuse as retaliation for suing.
In Waff v. Reisch, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93012 (D SD, Sept. 7, 2010), a South Dakota federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93101, July 30, 2010), and dismissed an inmate's complaint that his religious rights were infringed when he was temporarily taken off the kosher diet plan for taking non-kosher food from another inmate's tray and buying non-kosher food from the commissary. Any claim for injunctive relief is now moot because the sanction policy has been changed. Claims for damages against the state are barred by the 11th Amendment. And plaintiff failed to show how the requirement that he again fill our the "request for religious diet" form violates his rights.
In Holliman v. Paquin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93747 (WD WI, Sept. 7, 2010), a Wisconsin federal district court required an inmate to separate his religious infringement claims into a separate lawsuit from unrelated retaliation claims. Plaintiff alleged establishment clause claims relating to religious symbols in the prison and use of a state employee to lead Christian Bible study. Plaintiff's free exercise claims challenged forcing Muslims to pray in a room with religious symbols and staff walking through Jumu'ah services.
