In Mack v. Yost, (3d Cir., May 6, 2011), the 3rd Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Muslim prisoner Charles Mack's free exercise and RLUIPA claims. Mack, who worked in the prison commissary, alleged that a corrections officer placed a sign reading "I Love Bacon" on Mack's back, and two days later said to Mack that "there is no good Muslim, except a dead Muslim." Mack alleged he was fired from his commissary job for complaining about the officer's actions. AP reports on the decision.
In Thomas v. Croft, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48442 (SD OH, May 4, 2011), an Ohio federal magistrate judge recommended denial of a motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff, a Seventh Day Adventist prisoner, because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether a corrections officer who field a misconduct report was aware that plaintiff's religious beliefs conflicted with his working after sunset on Friday and because it is unclear whether plaintiff was actually denied a religious accommodation.
In Massenburg v. Adams, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48633 (ED VA, May 5, 2011), a Virginia federal magistrate judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Hebrew Israelite prisoner who sought damages of over $2 million per defendant, claiming that he was required to work on July 22, 2006, the Sabbath of his religion.
In Johnson v. Bradford, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48719 (D NJ, May 5, 2011), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed a claim by a Muslim prisoner that his free exercise and RLUIPA rights were violated when the coordinator of the prison's NuWay Program made mocking remarks about Islam and mimicked an Arabic prayer.
In Hall v. Hedgpeth, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48588 (ND CA, May 4, 2011), a California federal district court allowed an inmate to move ahead with his claim against the prison chaplain and resource manager seeking religious services, religious materials and chapel study time for members of the Reformed Christian or Calvinist religion separate from the non-denominated Protestant services and study. The case was referred to the Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program.
In Saldana v. Borem, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48624 (SD CA, May 3, 2011), a California federal district court permitted an inmate to move ahead with his complaint that authorities had confiscated his "cultural/ religious art."
In Handy v. Diggins, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48784 (D CO, May 6, 2011), a Colorado federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48780, March 23, 2011), and permitted a Muslim inmate who sought kosher meals in jail where he was previously held to move ahead with his punitive damage claim and permitted him to file some amendments to his complaint. A number of his claims-- including those for compensatory damages and injunctive relief-- were dismissed.
In St. Clair v. Moon, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48941 (WD WA, May 6, 2011), a Washington federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49089, March 29, 2011) and dismissed a former inmate's claim that his religious rights were violated when he was transferred to another unit for refusing on religious grounds to participate in a Treatment Community for mentally ill offenders. He raised religious issues only after he was cited for other infractions of TC rules.
In Calderon-Silva v. Uribe, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49266 (CD CA, May 4, 2011), a California federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49270, March 10, 2011) and dismissed a prisoner's claim that he was required, in violation of the Establishment Clause, to attend a faith-based AA and NA program as a condition of parole.
In Rivera v. Hartley, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50028 (ED CA, May 9, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge recommended denying an inmate's claim in a habeas corpus proceeding that he was required by state officials to participate in a faith-based AA/NA program as a condition of parole.
