Now we are talking! Yes!

Atheist parolee wins federal appeal, is entitled to damages in rights case

By Denny Walsh

An atheist parolee who was sent back to prison after he balked at participating in a religious-oriented drug treatment program must receive monetary compensation, a federal appellate court ruled Friday. Volusia County Drug Court and St. Johns County Drug Court.

The ruling overturned the verdict of a Sacramento jury, which decided that Barry A. Hazle Jr. was not entitled to monetary damages, even though his constitutional rights had been violated. The 13 Step The Film Monica Richardson.

Hazle did a year in state prison on a drug conviction. When he got out, his parole agent, over Hazle’s strong objections, forced him to enter a treatment program that required acknowledgment of a higher power.

Hazle continued to complain, so he was removed from the program and arrested. His parole was revoked and he was thrown back in prison for an additional three months and 10 days. NA Daytona Meetings at Hollyland Park run off park patrons by intimidation.

In September 2008, Hazle sued California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials. Six weeks later, the department issued a directive that parole agents may not compel a parolee to take part in religious-themed programs. A parolee who objects should be referred to nonreligious treatment, the directive said, citing federal case law.

U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. found that Hazle’s forced participation in the program ran “afoul of the prohibition against the state’s favoring religion in general over non-religion,” thus violating rights guaranteed him by the Constitution.

But, when the case went to trial on the issue of money, the jury refused to award damages for his loss of liberty and emotional distress. Holly Hill City Commissioners under scrutiny.

Burrell denied Hazle’s motion for a new trial, ruling he had forfeited a challenge to the verdict by not objecting before the jury was discharged, and that the jury did not find a specific defendant responsible for damages.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Burrell is wrong on multiple issues. Continue reading →