In Kanda v. Melching-Rianda, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65817 (ED CA, Sept. 1, 2006), a California federal Magistrate Judge held that a prisoner could file an amended complaint properly challenging denial of his request for a single cell so he would not be housed with someone who violated his religious belief that he could not have beef or beef by-products in his cell. He could also file an amended complaint alleging that he was placed in administrative segregation for invoking his religious beliefs.
In Scott v. Beard, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65673 (MD PA, Sept. 14, 2006), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that defendants had qualified immunity in a prisoner's claim for damages growing out of a denial of his request on religious grounds for an exemption from prison requirements about hair length. The prisoner was a member of the Assemblies of Yahweh and had taken a Nazarite vow. The court found that the prisoner's RLUIPA claim for an injunction was moot because he had now been released from prison and the prison system had adopted revised policies making it easier to obtain an exemption from grooming rules.
In Northrop v. Summersett, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65136 (ND CA, Aug. 30, 2006), a California federal district court dismissed on res judicata grounds a prisoner's claim that the removal of pork from menus in some California prisons violates the Establishment Clause, as well as his rights under the Free Exercise clause, RLUIPA, the equal protection clause and the California Constitution.
In Price v. Caruso, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64322 (ED MI, Sept. 8, 2006), a Michigan federal district court refused to grant summary judgment to defendants in a prisoner's suit claiming that policies prohibiting travel between prison complexes interferred with Jewish prisoners' being able to adequately have Sabbath services and a Passover Seder.
In Smith v. Crose, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64250 (D NJ, Sept. 7, 2006), a New Jersey federal district court permitted an inmate to move ahead with a claim that his free exercise rights were violated when he was prevented from attending Ju'ma services because he had an injured ankle. A number of plaintiff's other claims were dismissed.
In Skenandore v. Endicott, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64175 (ED WI, Sept. 6, 2006), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected a RLUIPA challenge by an inmate who is a member of the Oneida Indian tribe to Wisconsin policies on the practice of religion in correctional institutions. Plaintiff complained that he was not permitted to possess a prayer pipe, smoke tobacco or smudge herbs; that he was prevented from forming a Native American Cultural Activity Group; that he was not given time com complete sweat lodge ceremonies; that he is being denied religious feasts and ceremonial foods; that he may not possess traditional regalia; and that non-Native American inmates are allowed to participate in Native American religious activities.
In Dixon v. Wodruff-Fibley, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65911 (SD IN, Sept. 14, 2006), the court rejected a First Amendment claim by an inmate who was refused permission to pray outside of his cell. He claimed that his prayers are considered invalid if offered in the midst of pictures or drawings of living objects, such as his cellmate has in his cell.
