Printer Friendly
The Free Library
5,675,610 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

McRoy v. Cook County Dept. of Corrections.


U.S. District Court

RELIGION

McRoy v. Cook County Dept. of Corrections, 366 F.Supp.2d 662 (N.D.Ill. 2005). A Muslim inmate INMATE. One who dwells in a part of another's house, the latter dwelling, at the same time, in the said house. Kitch. 45, b; Com. Dig. Justices of the Peace, B 85; 1 B. & Cr. 578; 8 E. C. L. R. 153; 2 Dowl. & Ry. 743; 8 B. & Cr. 71; 15 E. C. L. R. 154; 2 Man. & Ry. 227; 9 B. & Cr.  at a county correctional facility brought a civil rights action under [section] 1983, alleging that his opportunities to practice his faith were restricted in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights (part of the Constitution). As it states in full: . The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the inmate's free exercise rights were not violated vi·o·late  
tr.v. vi·o·lat·ed, vi·o·lat·ing, vi·o·lates
1. To break or disregard (a law or promise, for example).

2. To assault (a person) sexually.

3.
 by the cancellation of Muslim services during lockdowns, staff shortages, and when no volunteer imams were available to preside pre·side  
intr.v. pre·sid·ed, pre·sid·ing, pre·sides
1. To hold the position of authority; act as chairperson or president.

2. To possess or exercise authority or control.

3.
 over services. The court upheld the facility's decision not to create a Muslim-only living unit. The court noted that the inmate was permitted to pray in his cell using religious materials he was allowed to keep there, as well as being allowed to pray in the common area of his living unit. (Cook County Department of Corrections, Illinois)
COPYRIGHT 2005 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1U3IL
Date:Aug 1, 2005
Words:158
Previous Article:King v. Frank.(Brief Article)
Next Article:Scarver v. Litscher.(Brief Article)
Topics:



Related Articles
Services- prisoner.(Brief Article)
John v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Corrections.(ACCESS TO COURTS)(Brief Article)
Boyce v. Moore.(FAILURE TO PROTECT)(violation of United States Constitution. 8th Amendment)(Brief Article)
Ferrington v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections.(exhaustion of state remedies)(Brief Article)
Hightower v. Nassau County Sheriff's Dept.(ATTORNEY FEES)(Brief Article)
Liles v. Camden County Dept. of Corrections.(Former inmates sues Camden County Correctional Department for conditions of confinement and violation of...
Atkins v. County of Orange.(HYGIENE-PRISONER PERSONAL)(Brief Article)
McRoy v. Cook County Dept. of Corrections.(RELIGION)(violation of prisoners' rights)
McRoy v. Cook County Dept. of Corrections.(SAFETY AND SECURITY)(violation of prisoners' rights)(Brief Article)
McRoy v. Cook County Dept. of Corrections.(SEARCHES)(Brief Article)

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