Hammons v. Saffle

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that prison officials have a valid and legitimate interest in maintaining prison security
• “[A]ceommodating [prisoner’s] need to access his prayer oils five times per day would likely have heavily burdened prison resources and other inmates’ religious interests.”
• remanding with instructions to construe a pro se prisoner complaint in light of RLUIPA even though the complaint alleged only a violation of “his religious freedom rights”
• affirming summary judgment that found logical connection between prison regulation that banned inmates’ in-cell prayer oil possession and preventing illegal drug use because inmates could still purchase and possess prayer oil in designated, supervised areas
• “the mere diminishment, as opposed to complete denial, of [plaintiffs] spiritual experience is relevant in determining whether the proffered penological interests suffice to justify the infringement”
• liberally construing a claim involving religious freedom to include a RLUIPA claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).