Religion.

37. Religion

U.S. Appeals Court    Fenelon v. Riddle, 34 Fed.Appx. 265 (9th Cir.
                      2002). An inmate brought an action against prison
  WORK                officials, alleging that the First Amendment
                      required the prison to permit him to attend a
  RLUIPA--Religious   weekly Jumu'ah service for Muslims, and that time
  Land Use and        spent at the service should count toward reducing
  Institutionalized   his sentence under a state work incentive
  Persons Act         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
                      erred in interpreting Jumu'ah as a special
                      religious function in order to "avoid a
                      constitutional quandary." The court noted that
                      the state's voluntary cessation of the alleged
                      unlawful practice did not render the inmate's
                      actions moot. The appeals court advised the
                      district court, on remand, to consider the impact
                      of any intervening changes in the law, including
                      the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
                      Persons Act of 2000. (California Medical Facility
                      Prison)

U.S. District Court   Marria v. Broaddus, 200 F.Supp.2d 280 (S.D.N.Y.
                      2002). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983
  FREEDOM OF          action against prison officials alleging
  RELIGION            violation of the First Amendment, the Religious
                      Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
  OPPORTUNITY TO      (RLUIPA), and the Due Process Clause. The
  PRACTICE            prisoner challenged the confiscation of certain
                      religious materials. The district court denied
  RESTRICTIONS        summary judgment on the First Amendment and
                      RLUIPA claims, but granted qualified immunity to
  SINCERITY           the defendants on the due process claims. The
                      court found genuine issues of material fact,
  RLUIPA--Religious   precluding summary judgment, on the
  Land Use and        permissibility of the prison's ban on materials
  Institutionalized   and assembly, whether the inmate had an
  Persons Act         alternative means of exercising his First
                      Amendment rights, and whether accommodating the
                      inmate's religious beliefs would have a
                      deleterious impact on the administration of the
                      prison. The prisoner was a member of the Nation
                      of Gods and Earths ("Nation"), also referred to
                      as the Fiver Percenters, Five Percent, and the
                      Five Percent Nation. The defendants told the
                      court that it "deems incarcerated Five Percenters
                      an organized threat to the safety, order and
                      security" of their prison facilities, noting that
                      some other corrections agencies classify the Five
                      Percenters as a gang. (Green Haven Correctional
                      Facility, New York)

U.S. District Court   Murphy v. Carroll, 202 F.Supp.2d 421 (D.Md.
                      2002). A Jewish inmate brought a pro se [section]
  WORK                1983 action against prison officials asking for
                      injunctive relief and damages. The prisoner
                      alleged that the officials violated his First
                      Amendment right to the free exercise of religion
                      by refusing to accommodate his request for an
                      alternative cell cleanup day, other than
                      Saturday. The district court granted summary
                      judgment in favor of the officials, finding that
                      while the policy violated the inmate's First
                      Amendment right, this right was not clearly
                      established at the time of the violation and the
                      officials were entitled to qualified immunity.
                      The court found no rational relationship between
                      the Saturday-only cell cleaning policy that
                      outweighed the inmate's right to honor the Jewish
                      Sabbath by not working. The court was critical of
                      the officials', finding them entitled to
                      qualified immunity "despite the patent
                      unreasonableness of the defendants' refusal to
                      provide him with cleaning equipment on a day
                      other than his Sabbath." (Maryland Correctional
                      Training Center)