In Kaufman v. Karlen, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 6181 (7th Cir., March 20, 2008), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of appeals upheld a district court's rejection of claims by an atheist inmate who complained that he was not permitted to wear a silver circle pin which authorities found had nothing to do with religion. The court also upheld the prison library's delay in processing atheist books that had been donated to it.
In Pogue v. Woodford, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22438 (ED CA, March 21, 2008), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that prison officials be required, in response to plaintiff's interrogatories, to furnish any state-wide guidelines issued by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation regarding Muslim inmates' ability to practice Islam, as well as any information they have on why the prisons at which plaintiff has been housed have different Operational Procedures concerning how Islam is to be practiced.
In Dean v. Corrections Corporation of America, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24862 (ND MS, March 28, 2008), a Mississippi federal district court upheld the application of RLUIPA to a private company which under contract with the state provides prison facilities. It held however that a prisoner whose rights were violated by the denial of a diet meeting his religious needs is limited to recovering nominal damages.
In Daly v. Davis, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24851 (SD IL, March 28, 2008), and Illinois federal district court upheld a prison's requirement that in order for inmates to continue to qualify for the kosher food program, they may not eat, purchase or possess non-kosher food. The strict kosher diet requirement, according to the court, did not substantially burden plaintiff's religious exercise.
In Thomas v. Picio, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24828 (SD NY, March 26, 2008), a New York federal district judge found that plaintiff's assertion that she was denied kosher meals for several days was unsupported by her testimony.
Robinson v. City of New York, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25001 (SD NY, March 5, 2008), is another opinion in a series of cases brought by Muslim prisoner's at Rikers Island challenging the way in which prison personnel prepare and handle Halal meals as well as the manner of sale of food in the prison's commissary. The court concluded that plaintiffs have standing and permitted them to proceed to trial on their claim that the failure to list the non-Halal products in commissary items leads to their mistaken purchase by Muslim inmates who then place that food on the Halal trays in the dining facility, contaminating the trays for other observant users. However qualified immunity excused two correctional officers who merely worked in the commissary.
In Eberle v. Wilkinson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25067, (SD OH, March 28, 2008), an Ohio federal magistrate judge ruled that an inmate's claim that he was denied the opportunity to freely exercise his Asatru religious beliefs should be asserted as part of a pending class action instead of in this individual lawsuit.
In Perez v. Frank, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25196 (ED WI, March 28, 2008), a Wisconsin federal district court dealt with a variety of RLUIPA and free exercise claims brought by two Sunni Muslim inmates. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to denial of the inmates' ability to participate in a religious discussion group, denial of various religious items, claims regarding Halal food, claims regarding the prison's urinalysis policy, and the food served for Eid al Fitr. However the court refused to grant summary judgment to defendants on claims regarding scheduling of the Eid al Fitr celebration and the celebration of Eid-ul-Adha. The court also rejected Establishment clause and equal protection claims.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Perez Frank. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Perez Frank. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Monday, April 16, 2007
Court Analyzes Elements of RLUIPA vs. Free Exercise Claim
A recent decision by Wisconsin federal district judge Barbara Crabb contained an interesting discussion of an issue that presents itself in many religious rights cases brought by prisoners-- the difference between the elements of a free exercise claim and a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The case is Perez v. Frank, (WD WI, April 11, 2007), granting a Muslim prisoner summary judgment on claims that various correctional officials violated his rights when they prevented him from attending learning sessions, Friday prayer and group prayer during festivals; prevented him from eating dates during Ramadan and having Halal foods during festivals; and deprived him of a digital Qur'an player. Summary judgment was denied on various other claims. Here is Judge Crabb's analysis:
Although both the free exercise clause and RLUIPA protect religious "exercise," each defines religious exercise in a slightly different way. Under RLUIPA, a "religious exercise" is "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief."... In other words, RLUIPA protects individual acts of piety, regardless of their centrality. By contrast, the free exercise clause is concerned with the macrocosm of belief: so long as a believer's ability to freely practice his faith (rather than engage in all possible expressions of his faith) is not substantially burdened, the free exercise clause is not violated (hence the requirement that a belief be "central" before it can fall within the ambit of the free exercise clause....(See prior related posting.)
Despite the technical differences between the types of religious exercise protected by each law, courts frequently fail to differentiate between the central practices protected by the free exercise clause and the wider variety of practices protected by statutes such as RLUIPA. The reason for this is fairly apparent. Courts are poorly positioned to decide which religious practices are "central" to any given faith tradition or any given believer; therefore, increasingly free exercise jurisprudence has emphasized deference to individuals' professed beliefs, so long as there is no reason to doubt their sincerity.....
So what, then, is the practical difference between a free exercise claim and a claim arising under RLUIPA? It appears that the answer is "not much," at least insofar as the "substantial burden" requirement is concerned.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Lots of New Prisoner Free Exercise Cases Available This Week
In Sanders v. Ennis-Bullock, (9th Cir., Feb. 18, 2009), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the Arizona prison policy limiting inmates to ten religious audiotapes at a time did not substantially burden plaintiff’s exercise of religion. However it remanded for further findings a portion of plaintiff’s Americans With Disabilities Act claims relating to denial of biaural headphones. (See prior related posting.)
In Garner v. Morales, (5th Cir., March 6, 2009), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a portion of the district court’s summary judgment against defendant and remanded the case for the court to reconsider whether counsel should be appointed, and then to reconsider its rejection of plaintiff's RLUIPA challenge to the Texas prisons grooming policy. Plaintiff, a Muslim, wants to wear a quarter-inch beard. The court however affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's First Amendment and Equal Protection claims and of the lower court's holding that sovereign immunity barred damage actions against defendants in their official capacities.
In Adekoya v. Chertoff, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16980 (D NJ, March 4, 2009), a New Jersey federal district court refused to permit an immigration detainee to challenge the absence of Halal food at the Bergen County jail unless in an amended complaint plaintiff is able to detail facts distinguishing this from an earlier 3rd Circuit case that denied a similar claim.
In Prentiss v. Clark, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16951 (ED CA, Feb. 20, 2009), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with leave to file an amended complaint, free exercise, equal protection and RLUIPA claims brought by a Wiccan prisoner who claimed that religious activities for the Wiccan/Pagan Community in his facility were insufficient-- only one hour of worship every Saturday.
In Buckner v. Casaleggio, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17310 (D NV, Feb. 27, 2009), a Nevada federal district court permitted plaintiff , an Orthodox Sunnah Muslim, to move ahead with his claim for injunctive relief asserting that his rights under the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and RLUIPA were violated when authorities permitted only joint Juma'h religious services with Nation of Islam members, instead of separate services.
In Echtinaw v. Lappin, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17842 (D KS, March 9, 2009), a Kansas federal district court dismissed a Muslim prisoner's claims that his ability to practice this religion is infringed by disruption of worship services, lack of access to religious materials and problems with religious celebrations.
In Perez v. Frank, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18241 (ED WI, March 9, 2009), a Wisconsin federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to defendants and permitted two Muslim prisoners to move to trial on a variety of claims. They seeking access to several items of religious property-- primarily certain items of apparel worn to emulate the Prophet Muhammad. One of the plaintiffs seeks halal meals and also object to TB testing that involves subcutaneous injection of substance derived from pork. However 4 defendants were dismissed from the case. Over the past few years, 3 other opinions have been handed down in the case.
In Cabbagestalk v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18412 (D SC, Feb. 24, 2009), a South Carolina federal district judge accepted the recommendations of a federal magistrate judge to deny a preliminary injunction to a Rastafarian prisoner who objected to a number of aspects of prison rules relating to clothing, food and confinement that interferes with religious services.
In Amaker v. Goord, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19327 (WD NY, March 10, 2009), a New York federal district court rejected a claim by a Nation of Islam prisoner that prison authorities were in contempt of a prior injunction by transferring him to another detention facility. The injunction protected plaintiff in the wearing of dreadlocks.
In Musto v. Trinity Food Services, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18589 (MD FL, Feb. 20, 2009), a Florida federal district judge permitted an inmate to move ahead with his First Amendment claim that he was denied "Kosher dietary meals," appropriate Jewish materials, and visits from a Rabbi. The court also permitted plaintiff to proceed with his retaliation claim, and with his RLUIPA claim against individuals in their official capacities for nominal damages.
In Avery v. Chacon, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18958 (ND CA, Feb. 10, 2009), a California federal district court permitted plaintiff to move ahead with his claim that a corrections officer confiscated and destroyed his religious and cultural material.
In Garner v. Morales, (5th Cir., March 6, 2009), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a portion of the district court’s summary judgment against defendant and remanded the case for the court to reconsider whether counsel should be appointed, and then to reconsider its rejection of plaintiff's RLUIPA challenge to the Texas prisons grooming policy. Plaintiff, a Muslim, wants to wear a quarter-inch beard. The court however affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's First Amendment and Equal Protection claims and of the lower court's holding that sovereign immunity barred damage actions against defendants in their official capacities.
In Adekoya v. Chertoff, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16980 (D NJ, March 4, 2009), a New Jersey federal district court refused to permit an immigration detainee to challenge the absence of Halal food at the Bergen County jail unless in an amended complaint plaintiff is able to detail facts distinguishing this from an earlier 3rd Circuit case that denied a similar claim.
In Prentiss v. Clark, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16951 (ED CA, Feb. 20, 2009), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, with leave to file an amended complaint, free exercise, equal protection and RLUIPA claims brought by a Wiccan prisoner who claimed that religious activities for the Wiccan/Pagan Community in his facility were insufficient-- only one hour of worship every Saturday.
In Buckner v. Casaleggio, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17310 (D NV, Feb. 27, 2009), a Nevada federal district court permitted plaintiff , an Orthodox Sunnah Muslim, to move ahead with his claim for injunctive relief asserting that his rights under the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and RLUIPA were violated when authorities permitted only joint Juma'h religious services with Nation of Islam members, instead of separate services.
In Echtinaw v. Lappin, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17842 (D KS, March 9, 2009), a Kansas federal district court dismissed a Muslim prisoner's claims that his ability to practice this religion is infringed by disruption of worship services, lack of access to religious materials and problems with religious celebrations.
In Perez v. Frank, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18241 (ED WI, March 9, 2009), a Wisconsin federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to defendants and permitted two Muslim prisoners to move to trial on a variety of claims. They seeking access to several items of religious property-- primarily certain items of apparel worn to emulate the Prophet Muhammad. One of the plaintiffs seeks halal meals and also object to TB testing that involves subcutaneous injection of substance derived from pork. However 4 defendants were dismissed from the case. Over the past few years, 3 other opinions have been handed down in the case.
In Cabbagestalk v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18412 (D SC, Feb. 24, 2009), a South Carolina federal district judge accepted the recommendations of a federal magistrate judge to deny a preliminary injunction to a Rastafarian prisoner who objected to a number of aspects of prison rules relating to clothing, food and confinement that interferes with religious services.
In Amaker v. Goord, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19327 (WD NY, March 10, 2009), a New York federal district court rejected a claim by a Nation of Islam prisoner that prison authorities were in contempt of a prior injunction by transferring him to another detention facility. The injunction protected plaintiff in the wearing of dreadlocks.
In Musto v. Trinity Food Services, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18589 (MD FL, Feb. 20, 2009), a Florida federal district judge permitted an inmate to move ahead with his First Amendment claim that he was denied "Kosher dietary meals," appropriate Jewish materials, and visits from a Rabbi. The court also permitted plaintiff to proceed with his retaliation claim, and with his RLUIPA claim against individuals in their official capacities for nominal damages.
In Avery v. Chacon, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18958 (ND CA, Feb. 10, 2009), a California federal district court permitted plaintiff to move ahead with his claim that a corrections officer confiscated and destroyed his religious and cultural material.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Recent Prisoner Decisions
In Wilson v. Tillman, (3d Cir., June 2, 2006), the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a free exercise and equal protection claim by a prisoner in a group home pre-release program. Pennsylvania state prisoner John Wilson is a descendant of Ethiopian Jews. Adappt House insisted that he go on a required outing to a park with other residents on a Saturday instead of attending religious services. The court upheld the requirement as having a legitimate penological interest, and found that Wilson took advantage of an alternative-- praying alone before the trip began.
In Perez v. Frank, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34990 (WD Wis., May 25, 2006), a Wisconsin federal district court permitted a Muslim prisoner to proceed with RLUIPA and free exercise clause claims (and for some complaints, establishment clause claims) growing out of prison authorities denying him adequate quantities of prayer oil, denying him the right to engage in study and group prayer, and denying him various religiously required foods. It refused to permit him to proceed with his claim that the prison denied him access to rest rooms for Wudu (ablutions) when the unit's day room was closed.
In Perez v. Frank, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34990 (WD Wis., May 25, 2006), a Wisconsin federal district court permitted a Muslim prisoner to proceed with RLUIPA and free exercise clause claims (and for some complaints, establishment clause claims) growing out of prison authorities denying him adequate quantities of prayer oil, denying him the right to engage in study and group prayer, and denying him various religiously required foods. It refused to permit him to proceed with his claim that the prison denied him access to rest rooms for Wudu (ablutions) when the unit's day room was closed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)