Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) (CASES…

- - - - Johns v. Lemmon, 980 F. Supp. 2d 1055 Indiana DC - No negative treatment
        
        Cites Moussazadeh v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 703 F.3d 781, 793 (5th Cir. 2013) no kosher meals were available to the prisoner from the prison dining hall but he could buy them from the commissary. The court held that denial of religiously sufficient food where food is a generally available benefit constitutes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion.
        
        Court determined that in requiring Plaintiff to pay for his Sabbath food, thereby denying him an essential benefit that is provided to all prisoners, in order to practice his faith, there is a substantial burden on his religious exercise
        
        Lexis- Blue A - No negative appellate treatment - no citing cases- Cited Turner v. Safley which has been superseded by statute
        According to West- No flag. Only 1 case has cited to it and several secondary sources
    - - Pratt v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102434 Court found that the prison did not substantially burden Plaintiff's exercise of religion by serving no halal meats and instead offering a vegetarian meal - serving vegetarian meals serves a penological interest in food service, security and budget
        
        Green Flag
      - Patel v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 515 F.3d 807The inmate alleged that defendants violated his right to practice his religion by failing to provide him with appropriate meals in compliance with his religious beliefs. Additionally, the inmate argued that the alternative means by which he may practice his Muslim faith through dietary accommodation offered by the Bureau of Prisons were inadequate. The court found that the inmate had not presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that his right to exercise his religion was substantially burdened. The court reasoned that the record did not indicate whether the inmate requested or would be allowed to store halal food from the kitchen in his cell, such as peanut butter and bread, so that he could have a halal meal on days that kosher meat entrees were served. Also, the inmate did not address why less expensive food items available at the commissary, such as beans, rice, tortillas, cheese, oatmeal, and peanut butter, could not serve as a substitute for the kosher meat entrees. Regarding the equal protection claim, the court found that the inmate had not presented any evidence suggesting that defendants acted with a discriminatory purpose.
        
        Yellow Flag- Caution, Distinguished by 8 cases and criticized by 1
        Eighth Circuit BINDING
        
        HN4 - RLUIPA Claims
        
        Courts generally have found that no "substantial burden" exists if the regulation merely makes the practice of a religious belief more expensive.
        
        Cited Murphy v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 988 (8th Cir. 2004)
        Substantially burdening one's free exercise of religion means that the regulation:
        must significantly inhibit or constrain conduct or expression that manifests some central tenet of a person's individual religious beliefs; must meaningfully curtail a person's ability to express adherence to his or her faith; or must deny a person reasonable opportunities to engage in those activities that are fundamental to a person's religion.
  - - - Koger v Bryan (2008, CA7 Ill) 523 F3d 789.
      - Fegans v. Norris 537 F.3d 897
        
        8th Cir. affirmed DC award of $1500 for failure to provide kosher meals - FIND DC RULING
      - Muhammad v. Wheeler 171 F.Supp.3d 847
        
        E.D. Arkansas - Plaintiff survived motion for summary judgment - court found that genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the prison, in not offering halal meat, placed a substantial burden on prisoner. Genuine issues of fact exist as to whether prison's not serving halal meat was least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest
        
        Using Lexis Shepard's Report- No appellate history. Case has been cited in one additional case
        According to Westlaw case has no negative treatment and has been cited in 4 secondary sources to include a law review article and an ALR
      - Love v. Reed 216 F.3d 682 8th Cir 1st Amendment
        
        Court agreed that prison's refusal to serve P food in his cell on the Sabbath was a substantial burden on the exercise of religion
        
        1. Substantial Burden Test - there is an option for commissary food, but P did not have the means to purchase. DC requires P to exhaust all commissary funds before he seeking accommodation from prison 2. Validity based on real penological interestes 1) whether there is a valid, rational connection between the regulation and the interest asserted; (2) whether alternative means of exercising the right remain open to the prisoner; (3) the effect the requested accommodation will have on guards, other inmates, and the allocation of prison resources; and (4) whether there is some alternative which will accommodate the prisoner's needs with de minimis impact on the prison's asserted interests. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987).
      - Goulding v. Kaemingk unreported SD
        
        “[w]here the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct prescribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists. While the compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial. When the significance of a religious belief is not an issue, the same definition of substantial burden applies under the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA.
    - - Jenkins v. Stutsman County Correctional Center Com'r Chairman
        Unreported
        
        SJ granted to D for failure to state a claim. Determined that P did not exhaust all administrative options
- - - - § 2000cc-1. Protection of religious exercise of institutionalized persons
        (a) General rule. No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution, as defined in section 2 of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997), even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person--
        (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
        (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
        (b) Scope of application. This section applies in any case in which--
        (1) the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance; or
        (2) the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes.
      - § 2000cc-2. Judicial relief (b) Burden of persuasion. If a plaintiff produces prima facie evidence to support a claim alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause or a violation of section 2 [42 USCS § 2000cc], the government shall bear the burden of persuasion on any element of the claim, except that the plaintiff shall bear the burden of persuasion on whether the law (including a regulation) or government practice that is challenged by the claim substantially burdens the plaintiff's exercise of religion.
      - 42 USCS § 2000cc-5 (7) Religious exercise.
        (A) In general. The term "religious exercise" includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.
    - - Case Note 4: Particular claims, violations found AKA Pro-Plaintiff
        
        Request for non-meat diet
        
        Koger v Bryan (2008, CA7 Ill) 523 F3d 789.
        
        Prevention from eating halal meats during Eid
        
        Abdulhaseeb v Calbone (2010, CA10 Okla) 600 F3d 1301.
        
        No cost concerns for DOC
        
        Willis v Comm'r, Ind. Dep't of Corr. (2010, SD Ind) 753 F Supp 2d 768.
        
        Payment for food a substantial burden of inmate
        
        Johns v Lemmon (2013, ND Ind) 980 F Supp 2d 1055.
      - Case Note 5: Particular Claims, Violation Not Found AKA Pro-State
        
        Providing of kosher kitchen
        
        Baranowski v Hart (2007, CA5 Tex) 486 F3d 112
        
        Cold meals during Ramadan
        
        Ramadan. Couch v Jabe (2006, WD Va) 479 F Supp 2d 569.
      - Summary Judgement
        Case Note 13
        
        Plaintiff Requested
        
        Successful
        
        State. Thompson v Vilsack (2004, SD Iowa) 328 F Supp 2d 974.
        
        Unsuccessful
        
        Defendant Requested
        
        Successful
        
        Moussazadeh v Tex. Dep't of Crim. Justice (2012, CA5 Tex) 703 F3d 781.
        
        Ciempa v Jones (2010, ND Okla) 745 F Supp 2d 1171.
        
        Unsuccessful
        
        Shakur v Schriro (2008, CA9 Ariz) 514 F3d 878.
        
        Abdulhaseeb v Calbone (2010, CA10 Okla) 600 F3d 1301.
        
        Rich v Fla. Dep't of Corr. (2013, CA11 Fla) 716 F3d 525, 24 FLW Fed C 269.
- - - - Validity, Construction, and Operation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000cc et seq.), 181 A.L.R. Fed. 247
  - - - Holt v. Hobbs Keynote 5 > Prisoners
    - - Validity, Construction, and Operation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000cc et seq.)181 A.L.R. Fed. 247 Also found in Lexis
        
        CASES
        
        Moussazadeh v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 703 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2012).
        
        According to Lexis - Yellow Flag - has been distinguished in 3 cases but positive in 16. Has been cited 97 times
        According to West- Yellow Flag- was distinguished by two cases, cited in 95 total
        
        Hudson v. Dennehy, 538 F. Supp. 2d 400 (D. Mass. 2008).
        
        Citing references > secondary authorities
        
        95 Va. L. Rev. 2053
        Virginia Law Review
        December, 2009
        
        First, the claimant must demonstrate that the prison policy at issue interferes with his “religious exercise.”60 RLUIPA specifies that the term religious exercise “includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”61 Second, while centrality and compulsion need not be alleged, the plaintiff must demonstrate that his religious beliefs are “sincer[e].”62 Third, the plaintiff must prove that the prison policy “substantially burdens” the practice of his religion. Demonstration of these three elements makes out a prima facie RLUIPA claim and shifts the burden to the government to prove that its policy is (1) “the least restrictive means” of achieving (2) “a compelling governmental interest.”63 Failure to prove either of these elements entitles the plaintiff to an exemption from the challenged prison policy.
        
        Models of Strict Scrutiny: 1. Deferential - courts show substantial deference to judgment of prison administrators. Look at the prison holistically, not specific to the challenged policy 2. Hardlook
        
        Patel v. U.S. Bureau of Prison Eighth Circuit Case allowing a Muslim prisoner to receive a vegetarian meal mitigated the level of burden imposed by refusing to provide him halal meat
        
        APPLYING STRICT SCRUTINY: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF FREE EXERCISE CASES
        78 Mont. L. Rev. 275 , 312
        
        RLUIPA applies the same way as RFRA in most cases, but it only extends to institutions (like prisons) and to land use regulations (such as zoning).75 RLUIPA also says governments may not “treat[ ] a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.”76 The statute's construction makes clear that a substantial burden is not required in such cases; discriminatory treatment is enough.77 The crucial inquiry, then, is whether a religious institution has been the victim of unequal treatment.78 If there is unequal treatment, most circuits *286 hold the regulation invalid per se,79 but the Eleventh Circuit requires strict scrutiny.80
        
        SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENED, SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFLICT, OR SUBSTANTIALLY UNNEEDED? A DISCUSSION OF ABDULHASEEB V. CALBONE
        2011 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 189 , 207
        
        Discussion of 10th Circuit case that ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, in not providing halal meals, the state placed a substantial burden on the prisoner's freedom of religion
- - - - Hobby Lobby and Hobbs to the Rescue: Clarifying RLUIPA's Confusing Substantial Burden Test for Land-Use Cases, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1025
        
        Discussion of RLUIPA pertaining to land use, but discussion of Substantial Burden Test
      - NOTE: RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT OF 2000: UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNNECESSARY*, , 10 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 189