A prisoner raised a sufficient claim that his free exercise rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act were violated by the prohibition on him consuming wine during communion, the requirement that he work on the Sabbath, and assigning him non-Christian cellmates. Summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit was reversed. The total ban on consumption of wine during communion imposed a substantial burden on a religious exercise and the legitimate safety and health concerns involved in the ban did not preclude the possibility of a reasonable accommodation with minimal impact or the availability of reasonable alternatives. The prisoner's need to not work on the Sabbath could be accommodated by performing work hours entirely during the week, and the plaintiff sufficiently alleged religiously motivated harassment by assigning him a cellmate who chilled his exercise of religion, which could be accommodated by assigning a compatible cellmate. Jehovah v. Clarke, #13-7529, 792 F.3d 457 (4th Cir. 2015).
      New York City has reached a $2 million settlement in a lawsuit alleging that an intoxicated postal worker, detained after a dispute in which he was barred from his apartment, died in custody from the untreated effect of severe alcohol withdrawal. The decedent had reportedly told jail medical personnel that he had been drinking two or three pints of rum a day, and he appeared agitated and disoriented. The defendants subsequently allegedly failed to follow a written protocol on treatment of severe alcohol withdrawal, which includes hospitalization. Instead, he was kept in the jail's general population, and died approximately 28 hours after his arrival there. Livermore v. City of New York, $1:08-CV-04442, (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2011).
    A prisoner failed to show that he had a protected liberty interest in not participating in an alcohol treatment program. His required participation related to a legitimate penological interest. The prisoner failed also to show a violation of his equal protection rights, as the requirement to participate in the clinical rehabilitation program applied to all prisoners with a history of drug and alcohol abuse. Walter v. Fischer, #09-4365, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 18939 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
     A prisoner who was not convicted of a felony under New York Penal Law art. 220 (controlled substances) or 221 (offenses involving marijuana) and was not eligible for temporary release, was also not eligible to participate, at his request, in a comprehensive alcohol and substance abuse treatment (CASAT) program during his incarceration, since he did not meet the eligibility requirements under Penal Law Sec. 60.04(6). Blake v. Dept. of Corrections, No. 504009, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 6612 (A.D. 3rd Dept.).
     Federal Bureau of Prisons did not violate prisoner's rights by determining that he was ineligible to enter a residential drug abuse treatment program because he had only used, but had not abused, alcohol in the twelve months prior to his incarceration. Laws v. Barron, No. CIV.A. 6:04-133, 348 F. Supp. 2d 795 (E.D.Ky. 2004). [N/R]
     272:122 Requiring atheist probationer to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings as a condition of probation violated his First Amendment rights, but award of $1 in nominal damages was proper, since county probation officials would not have had reason to believe, at the time, that this was a violation of his rights. Warner v. Orange Co. Dept. of Probation, #95-7055, 173 F.3d 120 (2nd Cir. 1999).
     273:142 Requirement that prisoner attend a substance abuse program utilizing religion was a violation of the Establishment of Religion clause of the First Amendment; prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity, however, since unconstitutionality of such a program had not previously been clearly established. Ross v. Keelings, 2 F.Supp.2d 810 (E.D. Va. 1998).
     » Editor's Note: Two federal appeals courts have similarly ruled that coerced attendance at Alcoholic Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings that emphasized religion violated the Establishment Clause. Warner v. Orange Co. Dep't of Probation, 115 F.3d 1068 (2nd Cir. 1996); Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1996).
     272:122 Requiring atheist probationer to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings as a condition of probation violated his First Amendment rights, but award of $1 in nominal damages was proper, since county probation officials would not have had reason to believe, at the time, that this was a violation of his rights. Warner v. Orange Co. Dept. of Probation, #95-7055, 173 F.3d 120 (2nd Cir. 1999).
     242:26 N.Y. high court rules that Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) credo is religious, and that atheist or agnostic inmate could not be punished by losing eligibility for conjugal visit program based on his refusal to participate in substance abuse program at facility which used A.A. 12 steps; such action held to violate First Amendment prohibition on "Establishment of Religion." Griffin v. Coughlin, 88 N.Y.2d 674, 673 N.E.2d 98, 649 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1996 N.Y. Lexis 1522.
     251:171 Prison had adequate reasons for refusing to supply prisoner with a vegetarian diet requested for religious reasons; diet could have led to health problems and storage of more fresh fruit and vegetables would present a security concern that prisoners could use them to produce alcohol/mash; restricting hours of group religious worship was reasonable following inmate disturbances, also for security purposes. Jenkins v. Angelone, 948 F.Supp. 543 (E.D. Va. 1996)
     Prison did not violate muslim prisoner's religious rights by refusing to provide diet including ritually slaughtered meat despite past practice of providing Jewish inmates with kosher meals; policy of barring outside visitors from inmate religious meetings, while allowing outsiders at self-help group meetings like Alcoholics Anonymous, also did not violate inmates' religious freedoms. Salaam v. Collins, 830 F.Supp. 853 (D. Md. 1993).
    Failure to pay for full-time "imam" to serve Muslim inmates did not violate their religious rights; provision of pay for four hours of service each week, plus provision of religious diet and allowing volunteers to provide additional services showed reasonable religious opportunities were provided. Al-Alamin v. Gramley, 926 F.2d 680 (7th Cir. 1991). Requiring prisoner to participate in alcoholism treatment program modeled on Alcoholics Anonymous did not violate his religious freedom despite references to "Higher Power" in its philosophy. Stafford v. Harrison, 766 F.Supp. 1014 (D. Kan. 1991).