4th Circuit: Rastafarian Inmate Can Move Ahead With His Suit Over Solitary Confinement

Smith v. Collins, (4th Cir., July 10, 2020), is a suit by a Rastafarian inmate who spent over four years in solitary confinement for refusal to cut his hair. The inmate, Elbert Smith, says that his religion does not permit him to do so. The court, vacating the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit, said in part:

we hold that there is at least a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Smith’s conditions of confinement imposed a significant and atypical hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s summary judgment order and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Specifically, on remand, the district court should consider in the first instance, and after further discovery, whether the process that Smith received was constitutionally adequate and whether the Defendant-Appellees are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity.

6th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Rastafarian Inmate's Diet and Fasting Claims

In Koger v. Mohr, (6th Cir., July 7, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Ohio federal district court's dismissal of two religious accommodation claims brought by a Rastafarian inmate. The court concluded that officials had not offered adequate justification for refusing to provide an Ital diet (organic food, vegetarian no soy).  The court also concluded that plaintiff had asserted a valid equal protection claim as to refusal to accommodate Rastafarian fasting days:

Koger stated that he “fasted during Ramadan in the past because it occasionally aligns with the fasting days observed by Rastafarianism” and because ODRC did not allow him “to fast as a Rastafarian . . . without being subject to discipline.”

The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to dreadlocks and inability to commune with other Rastafarians.

European Court Says Muslim Inmate's Religious Rights Were Infringed In Russian Prison

The European Court of Human Rights this week handed down an opinion in the case of a Muslim inmate in a Russian prison who claims that his religious rights were infringed in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights when he was reprimanded for praying in the middle of the night during Ramadan.  In Korostelev v. Russia, (ECHR, May 12, 2020), the court said in part:

Religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual thought and conscience..... However, ... freedom of religion also encompasses the freedom to manifest one’s belief.... The manifestation of religious belief may take the form of worship, teaching, practice and observance.... Since the manifestation by one person of his or her religious belief may have an impact on others, ... any limitation placed on a person’s freedom to manifest religion or belief must be prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of one or more of the legitimate aims set out therein...

From the Government’s submission and the findings of the domestic authorities, it appears that the only reason for disciplining the applicant was the formal incompatibility of his actions with the prison schedule and the authorities’ attempt to ensure full and unconditional compliance with that schedule by every prisoner.

... Although the Court recognises the importance of prison discipline, it cannot accept such a formalistic approach, which palpably disregarded the applicant’s individual situation and did not take into account the requirement of striking a fair balance between the competing private and public interests.

The court in a chamber judgment awarded plaintiff 2600 Euros in damages and another 2000 Euros for costs and expenses. Law & Religion UK reports further on the case.

Negligent Violation of Inmate's Religious Dietary Needs Did Not Violate 1st Amendment

In Mbonyunkiza v. Beasley, (8th Cir., April 24, 2020), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held:

absent evidence that an underlying prison regulation or policy violates the Free Exercise Clause, evidence that a correction official negligently failed to comply with an inmate’s sincerely held religious dietary beliefs does not establish a Free Exercise Clause claim under §1983.

In the case, a Muslim inmate claimed that four times in 257 days, prison kitchen staff served him meals containing pork products. In rejecting plaintiff's claim, the court said in part:

[T]he Supreme Court’s cases, and all the Eighth Circuit Free Exercise decisions our research has uncovered, have involved claims alleging that a statute, or a regulation or policy implementing a statute, unconstitutionally prohibited a sincerely held religious belief or otherwise unduly burdened the free exercise of religion.

By contrast, in this case NCF’s food policies affirmatively accommodate the beliefs of inmates who do not eat pork for religious reasons. Mbonyunkiza does not challenge those policies. Rather, his Supplemental Complaint asserts that defendants are liable in damages because they did not properly implement those policies on certain occasions.

7th Circuit Upholds Prison Rule Limiting Off-Bunk Prayers

In Larry v. Goldsmith, (7th Cir., March 30, 2020), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld as reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest a prison rule that prohibits inmates from praying off their bunks after 9:00 pm. The policy was challenged by a Muslim inmate who was disciplined for praying next to his bunk at a prohibited time.

10th Circuit Reverses Dismissal Of Inmate's 1st Amendment Claims

In Khan v. Barela, (10th Cir., March 26, 2020), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 35-page opinion reversed a New Mexico federal district court's sua sponte dismissal of a federal pre-trial detainee's pro se 1st and 4th Amendment claims. Erik Khan was a pre-trial detainee for some four years. His 1st Amendment free speech claims involved a prohibition on his reading hard-cover books, newspaper and newspaper clippings. His 1st Amendment free-exercise claims revolved around prison chaplains' refusal to allow him a clock, prayer schedule, and Muslim calendar to track the timing of Ramadan, and his inability to obtain Ramadan-compliant meals.

10th Circuit: Inedible Vegan Diet Burdened Buddhist Inmate's Religious Exercise

In Blair v. Raemisch, (10th Cir., March 2, 2020), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Buddhist inmate's complaint about the vegan diet he was served adequately stated a claim under the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause and under RLUIPA. According to plaintiff's complaint, on 19 out of each 28 days, he was served a vegan patty made at the prison from left-over beans, yams, oatmeal, tomato paste, and seasoning combined in a blender and then baked. He alleged that these were inedible, and caused him to vomit. This forced him to go hungry or purchase vegan food from the commissary. The court concluded that, if true, this substantially burdened plaintiff's sincerely held religious beliefs and put pressure on him to abandon them. Colorado Politics reports on the decision.

No 1st Amendment Violation In Requiring Parolee To Live At Christian Homeless Shelter

In Janny v. Gamez, (D CO, Feb. 21, 2020), a Colorado federal district court dismissed an inmate's First Amendment challenge to his arrest for parole violations. Mark Janny's parole officer directed him to stay at a Christian homeless shelter in order to meet the parole requirement that he establish a residence of record. Janny was expelled from the shelter's program when he refused to attend chapel religious services. The court held that plaintiff's Establishment Clause rights were not infringed because there was a secular purpose for the homeless shelter requirement. The court also accepted defendant's qualified immunity defense to an assertion of free exercise violations, saying that it was not clearly established that a parole officer violates a parolee’s rights by requiring him to reside at a facility that provides religious programming.

6th Circuit: Non-Recognition Substantially Burdened Christian Identity Inmates

In Fox v. Washington, (6th Cir., Feb, 6, 2020), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial court had misapplied RLUIPA in upholding Michigan's refusal to recognize prison inmates' Christian Identity, white separatist religion. The prison system denied Christian Identity adherents the right to group worship and full immersion baptism. The court said in part:

... [P]laintiffs have met their burden ,,, to show that the Department has imposed a substantial burden on their religious exercise with respect to group worship for the Sabbath and holidays....

At step three of RLUIPA, the burden shifts to the Department to make two showings. First, it must prove that the imposition of the substantial burden on plaintiffs’ religious exercise was “in  furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.” ... Second, the Department must establish that it used “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”... The district court made no such rulings, and the record is not well developed on these issues. “As ‘a court of review, not of first view,’ we will remand the case to the district court to resolve the point in the first instance.”

5th Circuit: Court Should Not Agree To Use Pronoun Requested By Litigant

In United States v. Varner, (5th Cir., Jan. 15, 2020), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion by a transgender female inmate for a name change on the inmate's judgement of confinement.  Petitioner wanted the male name on her judgment changed to reflect her later name change to that of a female.  In addition, petitioner sought to require the courts to refer to her using female pronouns. The majority and the partial dissent disagree on whether this motion refers to the district court, or only to the Court of Appeals. In rejecting this request, the majority said in part:

[I]f a court were to compel the use of particular pronouns at the invitation of litigants, it could raise delicate questions about judicial impartiality. Federal judges should always seek to promote confidence that they will dispense evenhanded justice. See Canon 2(A).... In cases like these, a court may have the most benign motives in honoring a party’s request to be addressed with pronouns matching his “deeply felt, inherent sense of [his] gender.” ... Yet in doing so, the court may unintentionally convey its tacit approval of the litigant’s underlying legal position.... Even this appearance of bias, whether real or not, should be avoided....

A Washington Post op-ed discusses the decision.

3rd Circuit: Deprivation of Chaplain Visits Did Not Substantially Burden Inmate's Free Exercise

In Quiero v. Ott, (3rd Cir., Jan. 9, 2020), the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that a prisoner's free exercise of religion was not substantially burdened by being deprived of chaplain visits for ten days.

Denial of Name Change Did Not Burden Inmate's Free Exercise

In In re the Application of: Hollis John Larson for a Change of Name, (MN App, Dec. 30,2019), a Minnesota state appellate court upheld a trial court's denial of a name change petition from an inmate who has been indeterminately civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program as a sexually dangerous person. Petitioner sought to change his name to "Better Off Dead."  He claimed his religious belief involving Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, and Agnosticism motivates his petition. He contended that he believes to achieve reconciliation with the divine he must escape the cycle of birth, life, death, and rebirth by being and remaining dead. In rejecting petitioner's free exercise claim, the appeals court said said that the trial court had concluded that petitioner's asserted religious belief was not sincerely held and "state regulation cannot burden an insincere belief." Minneapolis Star Tribune reports on the decision. The court also rejected petitioner's free speech claim.

Prison's Denial of Access To Religious Services As Discipline Is Invalid

In Greenhill v. Clarke, (4th Cir., Dec. 6, 2019),the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that, absent further justification, a prison disciplinary policy which denied a Muslim inmate television access to view weekly Jum'ah services violates his free exercise rights protected by RLUIPA and the 1st Amendment. The court said in part:

The VDOC’s Step-Down Program appears to be a sophisticated, well-conceived program to better inmates’ behavior and their confinement, as well as to improve safety and the overall operation of the prison. But holding inmates’ religious exercise hostage to incentivize their participation in the Program is impermissible under RLUIPA. Access to bona fide religious exercise is not a privilege to be dangled as an incentive to improve inmate conduct, and placing such religious exercise in the category of privilege to be earned is fundamentally inconsistent with the right to religious exercise that RLUIPA guarantees to prisoners.....

The court also held that the prison's grooming policy that precludes growing of a 4-inch beard imposes a substantial burden on the Muslim inmate's religious exercise. [Thanks to Will Esser via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Imam's Interpretation of Halal Held Relevant To Sincerity of Inmate's Beliefs

In Russell v. Pallito, (D VT, Nov. 25, 2019), a Vermont federal district court refused to exclude the testimony of Taysir Al-khatib, the main imam of the Islamic Society of Vermont, who was to be presented as an expert on Islamic dietary laws.  The issue arose in a suit by Justin Russell, a Muslim pre-trial detainee who claimed that Department of Corrections policies fail to provide him and similarly situated inmates a diet that meets their religious requirements. According to the court:

Russell contends that Al-khatib’s expert testimony regarding Islamic dietary law is irrelevant because the proper inquiry for purposes of his claim is whether his beliefs regarding Islamic dietary law are sincerely held, not whether they are correct as a matter of religious doctrine....

More specifically, according to Russell, “[t]he question of whether Muslims may properly subsist on a kosher diet is essentially a question of religious interpretation,” and “the validity of such interpretation is not a fact of any consequence in determining the action, and is therefore irrelevant.”

The court went on to hold:

The Court recognizes Russell’s concern regarding conflation of the sincerity and verity of his religious beliefs, and remains cognizant of its duty to refrain from adjudicating intra-faith disputes.....

But that fact alone does not render Al-khatib’s testimony about Islamic dietary requirements irrelevant as a matter of law.... Rather, evidence that some members of Russell’s religious community hold a contrary interpretation of Islamic dietary requirements may be valuable to a jury in assessing the sincerity or religious nature of Russell’s beliefs as well as whether Defendants’ actions substantially burdened those beliefs.

RLUIPA Allows Inmate To Grow Fist-Length Beard

In Sims v. Inch, (ND FL, Aug. 23, 2019), a Florida federal district court, in a 19-page opinion, extended the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 holding in Holt v. Hobbs which allowed a Muslim inmate to grow a half-inch beard for religious reasons.  In the case decided last week, the district court held that RLUIPA similarly entitles a Muslim prisoner to grow a fist-length beard (and trim his mustache) when his religious requires it. The court concluded that "a fist-length beard can be accommodated as easily as a half-inch beard-- or nearly so." [Thanks to Glenn Katon for the lead.]

9th Circuit Dismisses Suit After Prison Recognizes Humanism As Faith Group

In Espinosa v. Dzurenda,  (9th Cir., Aug. 22, 2019), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismisse as moot a challenge to a prison’s failure to recognize Humanism as a Faith Group. While the appeal was pending, the prison changed its policy and permanently recognized Humanism on an equal basis with other faith groups.  Nevada Independent reports on the decision.

Money Damages Unavailable Under RFRA

In Ajaj v. United States, (SD IL, Aug. 13, 2019), an Illinois federal district court, passing on an issue on which several circuits are split, held that money damages are not available in suits under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act against federal officials in their individual capacities. The suit was brought by a Muslim inmate who claims prison officials burdened his religious practices. The court said in part:

[T]he Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLIUPA)—RFRA’s “sister statute” that applies against the states ... contains nearly the exact same operative language as RFRA....But the Supreme Court has already held that damages against the states were not “appropriate relief” under that statute because Congress must “give clear direction that it intends to include a damages remedy” against a State for one to be available.....

While Ajaj says that the Court should treat RLIUPA and RFRA differently because Congress enacted RLIUPA under the Spending Clause, that looks like a red herring. “Given that RFRA and RLUIPA attack the same wrong, in the same way, in the same words, it is implausible that ‘appropriate relief against a government’ means something different in RFRA, and includes money damages.”

Georgia's Prisoner Grooming Policy Struck Down

In Smith v. Dozier, (MD GA, Aug. 7, 2019), (on remand from the 11th Circuit) a Georgia federal district court in an 18-page opinion held that the Georgia Department of Corrections grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The state's policy allows inmates only to grow a beard up to one-half inch in length. No religious exemption from the requirement is provided.  The court went on to hold that for inmates who qualify for a religious exemption, the state must allow beards up to three inches in length. In its opinion, the court examined and rejected several justifications offered by the state for its challenged policy. Law.com reports on the decision.

11th Circuit: Inmate's Complaint About Halal-Compliant Food Can Move Ahead

In Robbins v. Robertson, (11th Cir., July 23, 2019), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Muslim inmate's 1st Amendment claim regarding the adequacy of his religious diet should not be dismissed, saying in part:

Plaintiff also made some non-conclusory allegations that plausibly supported his claim that the Islamic-compliant vegan meals were so nutritionally deficient that he was forced to choose between abandoning his religious precepts (by eating religiously non-compliant food that was nutritionally adequate) or suffering serious health consequences (by eating nutritionally inadequate food that was religiously compliant).

6th Circuit Affirms Jury's Damage Award To Muslim Inmates

In Heard v. Finco,(6th Cir., July 15, 2019), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a jury's damage  award totaling $900 to four Nation of Islam inmates whose religious exercise rights were infringed when prison officials reduced the amount of calories they were served in their Ramadan meals. The inmates argued, however, that they suffered spiritual damage in excess of this amount because their hunger made it difficult for them to focus on prayer and Quran readings. The court said:

Here, the jury heard the inmates’ testimony and saw their medical records. The inmates also had two experts—a nutritionist and an Islamic studies scholar—testify about the harms (both physical and spiritual) that the inmates suffered. The jury weighed all this evidence and concluded that each inmate suffered $150 worth of harm for each Ramadan the prison officials disrupted. The district court had no good reason to second-guess this determination, and neither do we.

[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]