Sunday, November 13, 2011

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, (3rd Cir., Nov. 3, 2011), the 3rd Circuit reversed a trial court's summary judgment against a Muslim inmate on his RLUIPA claim, holding that the district court should consider whether a prayer room should be provided for Muslim inmates working in the Food Services Department.

In Wallace v. Johnson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128382 (SD IL, Nov. 4, 2011), an Illinois federal district court permitted an inmate to move ahead with his claim that he was deprived of needed medical treatment and of adequate clothing and linens in retaliation for his Satmar Hasidic Jewish religious beliefs.

In State v. Velez, 2011 Wisc. App. LEXIS 830 (WI App., Sept. 27, 2011), a Wisconsin state appeals court rejected an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were violated by a refusal to amend a 15-year old judgment of conviction to include a religious name which he had adopted through a common law name change.

In Jones v. Lorady, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128957 (MD PA, Nov. 8, 2011), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations and permitted an inmate to move ahead against certain defendants with his claim that his sincere religious beliefs prohibited shaving of his beard. However official capacity monetary damage claims were dismissed.

In Clark v. Martel, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129232 (ND CA, Nov. 8, 2011), a California federal district court dismissed with leave to amend an inmate's complaint about improper use of chaplains.

In Via v. Wilhelm, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129646 (WD VA, Nov. 9, 2011), a Virginia federal district court rejected a Muslim inmate's claims that his free exercise, equal protection and RLUPA rights were violated when authorities substituted soy protein for halal meat in the Common Fare diet made available to him.

In Cortinas v. Lockwood, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130498 (ED CA, Nov. 8, 2011), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that a Muslim inmate be permitted to proceed against one defendant on a religious discrimination claim based on withholding of his medicine.  However the court recommended dismissing claims against other defendants alleging verbal abuse and seeking access to the kosher diet alternative.