×
You have 1 more free article available this month. Subscribe today.
Muslims Entitled to Prayer Oils
Three Michigan state prisoners at the Jackson State Prison filed suit under section 1983 claiming that a policy banning all use of prayer oils to Muslim prisoners violated their first amendment rights. The district court appointed counsel to represent the prisoners. Both parties moved for summary judgement and the district court denied both motions.
The court held that the policy totally banning prayer oils was unconstitutional. The court noted that other Michigan prisons allowed prayer oils, that the inmate store at Jackson sold various oils and lotions as well as light bulbs and glass mirrors.
The court denied prison officials qualified immunity by holding the unconstitutionality of the prayer oil ban was readily apparent in 1988, when it occurred, even though no case law specifically allowed prayer oil in prison. Because so many alternatives were available to provide prayer oil to prisoners the total ban was clearly unreasonable. The district court set a trial date to resolve remaining disputed issues of fact and damages. See: Munis v. Scott , 792 F. Supp 1472 (ED MI 1992).
The court held that the policy totally banning prayer oils was unconstitutional. The court noted that other Michigan prisons allowed prayer oils, that the inmate store at Jackson sold various oils and lotions as well as light bulbs and glass mirrors.
The court denied prison officials qualified immunity by holding the unconstitutionality of the prayer oil ban was readily apparent in 1988, when it occurred, even though no case law specifically allowed prayer oil in prison. Because so many alternatives were available to provide prayer oil to prisoners the total ban was clearly unreasonable. The district court set a trial date to resolve remaining disputed issues of fact and damages. See: Munis v. Scott , 792 F. Supp 1472 (ED MI 1992).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Munis v. Scott
| Year | 1992 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 792 F. Supp. 1472 (ED MI 1992) |
| Level | District Court |
792 F. SUPP. 1472
DAWUD ABDULLAH MUNIR, TALIB KALEB SAAFIR AKTAB, S. SHAFIF ABDULRAHMAN, Plaintiffs, vs. ELTON I. SCOTT, Defendant.
Case No. 87-CV-73711-DT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION
792 F. Supp. 1472; 1992 U.S. Dist.
April 27, 1992, Decided
May 1, 1992, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Adopting Magistrate's Document of March 27, 1992, Reported at 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20371.
JUDGES: [**1] FEIKENS
OPINIONBY: JOHN FEIKENS
OPINION:
[*1473] HONORABLE JOHN FEIKENS
HONORABLE STEVEN D. PEPE
56ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation submitted in this case and any objections filed thereto. The Report and Recommendation is hereby accepted as the findings and conclusion of the Court. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant's second motion for summary judgment, filed on October 29, 1990, is granted only as it applies to plaintiffs' claims relating to the ban on incense and is denied in all other respects;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, filed on October 20, 1988, and on December 18, 1990, are denied with respect to their injunctive claims, which are hereby dismissed as moot, granted with respect to their damage claims relating to the ban on prayer oil, and denied with respect to their damage claims relating to the ban on incense;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs are given thirty (30) days from the date of this order to brief and document their claim for class certification or to withdraw their request [*1474] for class certification, and defendant is then given ten (10) days to respond.
SO [**2] ORDERED.
JOHN FEIKENS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 27, 1992
Detroit, Michigan
DAWUD ABDULLAH MUNIR, TALIB KALEB SAAFIR AKTAB, S. SHAFIF ABDULRAHMAN, Plaintiffs, vs. ELTON I. SCOTT, Defendant.
Case No. 87-CV-73711-DT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION
792 F. Supp. 1472; 1992 U.S. Dist.
April 27, 1992, Decided
May 1, 1992, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Adopting Magistrate's Document of March 27, 1992, Reported at 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20371.
JUDGES: [**1] FEIKENS
OPINIONBY: JOHN FEIKENS
OPINION:
[*1473] HONORABLE JOHN FEIKENS
HONORABLE STEVEN D. PEPE
56ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation submitted in this case and any objections filed thereto. The Report and Recommendation is hereby accepted as the findings and conclusion of the Court. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant's second motion for summary judgment, filed on October 29, 1990, is granted only as it applies to plaintiffs' claims relating to the ban on incense and is denied in all other respects;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, filed on October 20, 1988, and on December 18, 1990, are denied with respect to their injunctive claims, which are hereby dismissed as moot, granted with respect to their damage claims relating to the ban on prayer oil, and denied with respect to their damage claims relating to the ban on incense;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs are given thirty (30) days from the date of this order to brief and document their claim for class certification or to withdraw their request [*1474] for class certification, and defendant is then given ten (10) days to respond.
SO [**2] ORDERED.
JOHN FEIKENS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 27, 1992
Detroit, Michigan