In Countryman v. Garcia, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125699 (D NV, Nov. 15, 2010), a Nevada federal district court allowed a Native American inmate to proceed with his claims that he was not permitted to perform daily prayers and was deprived of various items of religious property needed to perform rituals that are central to his Native American faith.
In Jones v. Burk, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126742 (ED CA, Dec. 1, 2010), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's claim that he was denied access to a prayer rug, a copy of the Qur'an and a Muslim cleric.
In Graham v. Fortier, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126814 (D NH, Nov. 15, 2010), a New Hampshire federal magistrate judge permitted an inmate to move ahead with allegations that her rights under the free exercise clause and RLUIPA were violated when restrictions on leaving the Closed Custody Unit after 6:00 p.m. prevented her from attending Hope Tabernacle services that were held only on Sunday evenings. However the magistrate recommended dismissal of plaintiff's claim that her rights were also infringed when she could not attend a spiritually-based Alcoholics Anonymous program called Breaking the Chains because it is held only on Tuesday evenings.
In Gutierrez v. Corrections Corporation of America, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127315 (D AZ, Nov. 15, 2010), an Arizona federal district court rejected an inmate's challenge to a prison policy that prohibits Catholic chaplains from bringing in sacramental wine.
Feliciano v. Burset, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127485 (D PR, Dec.2, 2010) is a lengthy opinion growing out of a 30-year history of challenges to prison conditions in Puerto Rico. As a small part of its opinion finding that food service conditions violate the Eighth Amendment because they create an unreasonable risk of malnutrition, food-borne illness and medical complications, the court observed that: "the failure to maintain any consistent program for providing special diets also causes the failure to honor diet restrictions imposed by an inmate's religion implicating Plaintiffs' First Amendment free exercise rights."
