In Benning v. Georgia, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4587 (MD GA, Jan. 13, 2012), an inmate who asserted that he is a "Torah observant Jew" challenged a prison's grooming policy, asserting that his religion bars him from using a razor on his facial hair and bars him from cutting his ear locks. The court upheld the prison's policy that if plaintiff wants to comply as to facial hair by using a depilatory, he must purchase it with his own funds from the commissary. However the court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ear locks claim, and set the issue for trial. [corrected]
In Evans v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5373 (CD CA, Jan. 18, 2012), a California federal district court allowed an inmate who is complaining that he has been denied a halal diet to move ahead with an Equal Protection claim added in his 4th Amended Complaint. He asserted that authorities have forced him to betray his Muslim religious beliefs by forcing him to eat food which he sincerely believes is not halal, and by denying him access to the prison's kosher meal which is a permissible substitute for halal food.
In Bland v. Aviles, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5583 (D NJ, Jan. 18, 2012), a jail inmate alleged denial of the right to attend religious services. The court dismissed his claim, with leave to file an amended complaint, finding that he had not alleged sufficient facts to support a free exercise or RLUIPA claim.
Jacob v. Colorado Department of Corrections, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6213 (D CO, Jan. 19, 2012), is a Christian Separatist inmate's challenge under the 1st Amendment, RLUIPA and the Colorado constitution to a prison's restrictions on books, magazines, correspondence courses, the opportunity to take communion, and on classification of plaintiff as a member of a security threat group. A Colorado federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151833, April 7, 2011) and dismissed claims for monetary relief but permitted plaintiff to move ahead on various claims under RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment for injunctive and declaratory relief.
In Monts v. Arpaio, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5842 (D AZ, Jan. 18, 2012), an Arizona federal district court permitted an inmate who clams he adheres to Jewish beliefs (though he is not Jewish under religious law) to go to trial on whether he has a sincerely held belief in the religious necessity of eating a kosher diet.
