Printer Friendly
The Free Library
5,678,192 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Ephraim v. Angelone.


U.S. District Court

NAME

Ephraim v. Angelone, 313 F.Supp.2d 569 (E.D.Va. 2003). A state prison inmate who was a Charismatic Christian brought a suit claiming that a prison violated his constitutional rights by failing to use his new religiously-inspired name and to honor his dietary requests. The district court entered judgment in favor of the prison. The court held that the inmate's equal protection rights were not violated when he was a denied a vegetarian diet his religion allegedly required, because there were no other members of his religion in his prison that were treated differently, nor was there any showing of intentional discrimination. The court found that the strict scrutiny A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.  test set forth in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Pub.L. 106-274, 42 U.S.C.  2000cc-1 et seq. (RLUIPA) is a United States federal law that prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please, as well as making it easier  (RLUIPA RLUIPA Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ) was not required because there was no showing that the prison was receiving federal funding, or that the burden imposed on the inmate affected interstate commerce interstate commerce

In the U.S., any commercial transaction or traffic that crosses state boundaries or that involves more than one state. Government regulation of interstate commerce is founded on the commerce clause of the Constitution (Article I, section 8), which
. The court held that the prison did not violate the free exercise of religion rights of the inmate by continuing to use the name under which he was committed when preparing money orders and on official documents. The court noted that prison computers were programmed with the commitment name and the prison's unwillingness to change programs to allow for the name substitution furthered a legitimate interest in holding down costs. The court also held that the inmate's right to free exercise of his Charismatic Christian religion was not violated when the prison declined to completely accommodate his dietary request for raw vegetables, fresh fruit, nuts, honey, whole wheat bread wheat bread
n.
A bread made from a mixture of white and whole-wheat flours.
, cheese and grains; it was sufficient for the prison to offer the inmate a vegetable option in lieu of Instead of; in place of; in substitution of. It does not mean in addition to.  meat main courses, in the interest of controlling costs. (Lunenburg Correctional Center, Virginia)
COPYRIGHT 2004 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:prisoner alleges violation of his constitutional rights
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1U5VA
Date:Aug 1, 2004
Words:296
Previous Article:Page v. Kirby.(provided food and medical services at prison)(Brief Article)
Next Article:Cline v. Fox.(prisoner alleges Department of Corrections violates First and Fourteenth Amendments violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments West...
Topics:



Related Articles
U.S. Appeals Court: WORK.(prisoners and prisons)(Brief Article)
Religion.
Oliver v. Scott.(CIVIL RIGHTS)(Brief Article)
Oliver v. Scott.(violation of civil rights)(Brief Article)
Neal v. Lewis.(prisoner alleges prison officials of violating his constitutional rights)(Brief Article)
Burks-Bey v. Stevenson.(prisoner files alleges violation of his First Amendment rights)(Brief Article)
Neal v. Lewis.(violation of constitutional rights)(Brief Article)
Neal v. Lewis.(violation of constitutional rights)(Brief Article)
Oliver v. Powell.(prisoner alleges violation of his constitutional violations)(Brief Article)
Ephraim v. Angelone.(prisoner alleges violation of his constitutional rights)(Brief Article)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2009 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles