Sunday, February 02, 2014

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Daley v. Lappin, (3d Cir., Jan. 29, 2014), the 3rd Circuit vacated and remanded for the most part a decision of a Pennsylvania federal district court in a suit brought by a former federal inmate who was a Rastafarian.  The Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in rejecting plaintiff's claim for a vegan diet merely on the ground that it was not a mandatory tenet of Rastafarianism.

In Harris v. Gipson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9792 (ED CA, Jan. 24, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed with leave to amend a Muslim inmate's complaint that he is being denied access to an adequate religious diet.

In Hollins v. Curtin, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10709 (WD MI, Jan. 29, 2014), a Michigan federal district court permitted a Nation of Islam inmate to move ahead with his challenge to a prison's blanket ban on group religious services for all inmates in segregation.

In Sousa v. Wegman, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11132 (ED CA, Jan. 28, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge recommended that a Mexican Indian inmate be permitted to proceed with his complaint that prison officials refused to recognize his religion or allot him outside grounds to conduct services, burn sage and hold sweats. The court held that plaintiff's free exercise claim should not be barred by collateral estoppel, the 11th Amendment, or PLRA exhaustion.

In Washington v. Cate, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12402 (ED CA, Jan. 31, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed a complaint by a Muslim inmate that his free exercise, equal protection and RLUIPA rights were infringed when was not permitted to have a conjugal visit to consummate his marriage that took place in a prison visiting room. Department of Corrections rules bar conjugal visits for prisoners serving life sentences.

In Martin v. Cate, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12414 (ED CA, Jan. 31, 2014), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a complaint by a Christian inmate serving a life sentence that his free exercise and RLUIPA rights were infringed by rules denying him conjugal visits with his wife.