37. Religion.

U.S. Appeals Court DIET

Beerheide v. Suthers, 286 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2002). Three state prisoners who were Orthodox Jews brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials based on the officials' failure to provide them with free kosher meals. The district court granted a permanent injunction and the officials appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that failure to provide free kosher meals violated the First Amendment, and that a proposal under which the prisoners would be required to make a 25% co-payment for the cost of providing such meals was not rationally related to the legitimate penological concerns of cost and abuse. The court also found that the officials' alternative proposals that the prisoners buy their kosher meals at the prison canteen, or have the Jewish community provide the meals, were not reasonable. (Freemont Correctional Facility, Colorado)

U.S. Appeals Court WORK RLUIPA- Rel. Land Use and Instit. Persons Act

Fenelon v. Riddle, 34 Fed.Appx. 265 (9th Cir. 2002). An inmate brought an action against prison officials, alleging that the First Amendment required the prison to permit him to attend a weekly Jumu'ah service for Muslims, and that the time spent in the service should count toward the reduction of his sentence under a state work incentive program. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the inmate and entered a permanent injunction. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the district court had erred in interpreting Jumu'ah as a non-routine religious function, which made it eligible for a prison regulation that governed excused time off. (California Medical Facility Prison, California Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court RFRA- Religious Freedom Rester. Act BEARDS HAIR

Gartrell v. Ashcr0ft, 191 F.Supp.2d 23 (D.D.C. 2002). Rastafarian and Muslim inmates, on behalf of a class of inmates whose avowed religious beliefs forbid them from cutting their hair or shaving their beards, sued District of Columbia and federal prison officials. The inmates challenged the policy of housing inmates from the District of Columbia in facilities operated by the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC), which had a policy that prohibited long hair and beards. The district court ruled in favor of the inmates, finding that each individual decision to place or keep an inmate in a VDOC facility was subject to scrutiny under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA). The court held that the inmates' sincerely held religious beliefs were substantially burdened by the VDOC policy and that the Federal Bureau of Prisons failed to demonstrate that housing the inmates in VDOC facilities was the least restrictive means of achieving their governmental interest. (Federal Bureau of Prisons and Virginia Department of Corrections)

U.S. Appeals Court FREE EXERCISE

Lomholt v. Holder, 287 F.3d 683 (8th Cir. 2002). A prisoner appealed the district court's dismissal of his [section] 1983 action against prison officials. The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appeals court held that allegations that the prisoner had been placed "in the hole" for religious fasting were sufficient to state a free exercise of religion claim under [section] 1983. The court found that the sore feet from which the prisoner suffered did not amount to a serious medical need. The court also held that the prisoner had no right to a particular prison job. The court upheld the dismissal of the prisoner's complaint concerning the handling of his grievances because the prisoner only alleged that officials had denied his grievances, not prohibited him from filing any grievances. The court also held that regulation of the prisoner's access to his attorney did not violate the First Amendment or [section] 1983 because the prisoner did not show how being denied access to his attorney had impeded his access to the courts. (Iowa)

U.S. Appeals Court RLUIPA- Rd. Land Use and Instit. Persons Act DIET

Love v. McCown, 38 Fed.Appx. 355 (8th Cir. 2002). A state prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action seeking to compel corrections officials to provide him with a kosher diet. The district court granted preliminary injunctive relief and ordered prison officials to deposit $15 weekly deposits into the inmate's prison account for use in purchasing kosher food items. The appeals court upheld the preliminary injunction, noting it was prospective in nature, under the provisions of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). (East Arkansas Regional Unit, Arkansas Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court WORK

Murphy v. Carroll, 202 F.Supp.2d 421 (D.Md. 2002). A Jewish inmate brought a pro se [section] 1983 action against prison officials, seeking injunctive relief and damages resulting from their refusal to accommodate his request for an alternative cell cleanup day other than Saturday. The district court held that the officials' designation of Saturday as cell cleanup day violated the inmate's First Amendment right to practice his religion, but that the policy did not violate a clearly established right at the time, entitling officials to qualified immunity. The court found no rational connection between the prison policy of Saturday-only-cell-cleaning and the prison's interest in efficiency, safety and security. According to the court, at the time of the violation there was "virtually no guidance in case law regarding observance of Jewish sabbath in [the] context of prison work." (Maryland Correctional Training Center)