USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 1 of 22

No. 18-7300

IN THE
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit
_______________
ALFONZA HARDY GREENHILL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees. _______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division
Case No. 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Honorable James P. Jones _______________

BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF FORMER CORRECTIONS OFFICIALS DAN PACHOLKE, JEANNE WOODFORD, PHIL STANLEY, DICK MORGAN,
AND ELDON VAIL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND REVERSAL
_______________

ELIZABETH HAGERTY CLAUDIA PARE HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 637-5600

ALLEN P. PEGG HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 (305) 459-6500

Counsel for Amici Curiae

January 21, 2019

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 2 of 22

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE...............................................1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................3
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................5
I. THE EMPIRICAL LITERATURE DEMONSTRATES THAT ACCOMMODATING PRISONER RELIGIOUS PRACTICE PROMOTES PRISON SECURITY. ...............................................................5
A. Allowing Prisoners to Practice Their Religion Promotes Adjustment. ...........................................................................................6
B. Accommodating Religious Exercise Promotes Prisoner Rehabilitation and Reduced Recidivism. ..............................................8
II. IN PROMULGATING RLUIPA, CONGRESS WAS WELL AWARE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS AND PRISONER REHABILITATION AND SECURITY. ......................................................10
III. COURTS AND EXPERTS RECOGNIZE THE POSITIVE IMPACT THAT ACCOMMODATING RELIGIOUS EXERCISE CAN HAVE ON PRISONER ADJUSTMENT AND REHABILITATION. ...........................................................................12
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................15
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.......................................................................16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................17

i

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 3 of 22

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Brown v. Livingston, 17 F. Supp. 3d 616 (S.D. Tex. 2014)..................................................................13
Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2012) ..............................................................................13
Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015)..........................................................................................13
Sasnett v. Sullivan, 908 F. Supp. 1429 (W.D. Wis. 1995) ...........................................................13, 14
Statutes
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb...............................................................................................3
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc ......................................................................................passim
Other Authorities
Byron R. Johnson et al., A Systematic Review of the Religiosity and Delinquency Literature: A Research Note, 16 J. of Contemp. Crim. J. 32 (2000) ...........................................................................................................9
Byron R. Johnson, Religious Participation and Criminal Behavior, in Effective Interventions in the Lives of Criminal Offenders 1 (J.H. Humphrey & P. Cordella eds., 2014) ...................................................................7
Byron R. Johnson & Sung Joon Jang, Crime and Religion: Assessing the Role of the Faith Factor, in Contemporary Issues in Criminological Theory and Research The Role of Social Institutions, Am. Soc’y of Criminology 2010 Conference 117 (2012)................................................................................................................8, 9

ii

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 4 of 22

Christopher P. Salas-Wright et al., Buffering Effects of Religiosity on Crime: Testing the Invariance Hypothesis Across Gender and Developmental Period, 41 Crim. J. & Behavior 673 (2014)................................9
Jeff Duncan et al., Women’s Engagement with Humanist, Spiritual and Religious Meaning-Making in Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Its Impact on Recidivism, 9 Religions 1 (2018)....................................................9
Kent R. Kerley et al., Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors, 44 J. for the Sci. Study of Religion 443 (2005) ....................................................................................................................6
Pew Research Center, Religion in Prisons: A 50-State Survey of Prison Chaplains (Mar. 22, 2012)..................................................................9, 10
Protecting Religious Freedom After Boerne v. Flores: Hearing Before the House of Representatives Subcomm. on the Constitution of the Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 7 (1997) (Testimonies and Prepared Statements of Charles Colson, Jeffrey Sutton, and Thomas C. Berg)...........................................................................................11, 12
Protecting Religious Freedom After Boerne v. Flores (Part III): Hearing Before the House of Representatives Subcomm. on the Constitution of the Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 40 (1998) (Testimony and Prepared Statement of Isaac M. Jaroslawicz)...........................12
Religious Liberty: Hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on issues relating to religious liberty protection, 106th Cong. 20 (1999) (Statements of Sen. Strom Thurmond and Glenn Goord). ..........................................................................................................10, 11
Richard Stansfield et al., The Role of Religious Support in Reentry: Evidence from the SVORI Data, 54 J. of Res. in Crime & Delinquency 111 (2017) .......................................................................................9
SpearIt, Religion as Rehabilitation? Reflections on Islam in the Correctional Setting, 34 Whittier L. Rev. 29 (2012)........................................7, 8
Statement of Sen. Hatch, 146 Cong. Rec. S6687 (July 13, 2000)...........................12

iii

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 5 of 22

Thomas P. O’Connor & Michael Perryclear, Prison Religion in Action and its Influence on Offender Rehabilitation, 35 J. of Offender Rehab. 11 (2002)...............................................................................................6, 7
Todd R. Clear & Melvina T. Sumter, Prisoners, Prison, and Religion, 35 J. of Offender Rehab. 125 (2002) ....................................................................6
Todd R. Clear et al., Does Involvement in Religion Help Prisoners Adjust to Prison? NCCD Focus (Nov. 1992) ...................................................6, 7

iv

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 6 of 22

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1 Former corrections officials Dan Pacholke, Jeanne Woodford, Phil Stanley, Dick Morgan, and Eldon Vail respectfully submit this brief as amici curiae in support of Plaintiff-Appellant Alfonza Hardy Greenhill’s position on the merits and in support of reversal of the district court’s judgment under review. Dan Pacholke has a long tenure as an officer for the Washington State Department of Corrections. Among other positions, he has served as Secretary of the Department (October 2015-March 2016), Deputy Secretary (April 2014October 2015), Director of Prisons (July 2011-April 2014), and Deputy Director of Prisons (July 2008-July 2011). He also served as the Superintendent of a number of individual Corrections Centers. He has over 33 years’ experience in the field of corrections. Jeanne Woodford served the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for many years. Among her roles, she was Director (February 2004July 2005) and Undersecretary (July 2005-July 2006) of the Department, and Chief
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a), amici represent that all parties have consented to the filing of this brief amici curiae. Pursuant to Rule 29(a)(4)(E), the undersigned counsel further represent that no party or party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part; that no party or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparation or submission of this brief; and that no person other than the amici curiae and counsel identified herein contributed money that was intended to fund preparation or submission of this brief.
1

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 7 of 22

of the San Francisco Adult Probation Department (November 2006-May 2008). She was also Warden of San Quentin State Prison (February 1999-February 2004). She has over 30 years’ experience in the field of corrections.
Phil Stanley is a long-time officer serving both the New Hampshire Department of Corrections and the Washington State Department of Corrections. In New Hampshire, he was Commissioner of Corrections (May 2000-November 2003). In Washington, his roles have included Director of a regional justice center (2007-2012), Probation Officer (2004-2017), Regional Administrator (1997-2000), and Superintendent (1992-1997). He has about 49 years’ experience in the field of corrections.
Dick Morgan is a veteran officer and administrator for the Washington State Department of Corrections. He served as Secretary of the Department (March 2016-January 2017), Director of Prisons (2008-2010), and Assistant Deputy Secretary of Prisons (2006-2008). He also served as Superintendent of three different prisons. He has over 35 years’ experience in the field of corrections.
Eldon Vail is a long-serving corrections official for the Washington State Department of Corrections. He was Secretary of the Department (2007-2011), Deputy Secretary (1999-2006), and Superintendent of three institutions (1987 and 1989-1994). He has over 35 years’ experience in the field of corrections.

2

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 8 of 22

As former corrections officials with over 180 years of collective experience, amici have substantial first-hand experience administering secure prisons while accommodating religious freedom under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, Section 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, and analogous provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. In the experience of amici, granting reasonable requests for religious accommodations—in Mr. Greenhill’s case, by permitting him to watch Jum’ah on television once a week and to maintain a four-inch beard—serves to enhance prison security and rehabilitation, while rejecting such requests has the opposite effect. The importance of accommodating religion is only heightened when prisoners, like Mr. Greenhill, are in long-term solitary confinement. Amici respectfully submit this brief to set forth the basis for those views.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Alfonza Hardy Greenhill is an observant Muslim prisoner in the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections (the “Department”) and housed in solitary confinement. Consistent with the obligations of his faith, Mr. Greenhill wishes to participate in a weekly Friday prayer—the Jum’ah—and maintain a four-inch beard. Based on his security classification, the Department has prevented Mr. Greenhill from physically attending in-person group prayer services and from
3

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 9 of 22

watching the televised service broadcast by the prison. Additionally, Department grooming policies prohibit Mr. Greenhill from growing the four-inch beard that his religious observance requires. Appellees have cited (and the district court credited) prison security and the success of the Department’s incentive-based StepDown Program as the basis for denying Mr. Greenhill’s requests for religious accommodations.
Based on the observations and experience of amici across a variety of correctional settings, Appellees’ prison security and rehabilitation claims are inconsistent with sound penal policy, contradicted by experience, and not entitled to the deference they were given by the court below. Reasonably accommodating individual religious practice can have a demonstrably positive effect on prisoner adjustment and rehabilitation and, as a result, on the prison security environment as a whole. In contrast, restrictions that unreasonably impede individual religious practice under the banner of prison security and rehabilitation are likely to have the opposite effect. In amici’s experience, allowing latitude in prisoner religious exercise meaningfully contributes to both prison security and individual rehabilitation.
The district court’s decision should be reversed.

4

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 10 of 22

ARGUMENT In the experience of amici, reasonable religious accommodations operate to enhance prison security and individual rehabilitation. The requested accommodations in this case are, in fact, far more likely to support prison security than to diminish it. Consistent with amici’s own experience, an established body of academic literature supports the proposition that the free exercise of religion among prisoners contributes to their adjustment to harsh prison life and rehabilitation from prior criminal activity. Both of these effects, in turn, have a positive impact on prison security and public safety. Accordingly, Appellees’ actions in denying Mr. Greenhill’s requests for reasonable religious accommodations are unlikely to further the cited interests in rehabilitation and prison safety on which the district court relied in entering summary judgment in Appellees’ favor. I. THE EMPIRICAL LITERATURE DEMONSTRATES THAT ACCOMMODATING PRISONER RELIGIOUS PRACTICE PROMOTES PRISON SECURITY. Abundant social science research shows that respecting the right of prisoners to practice their religion promotes their adjustment to prison life, enhances rehabilitation, and reduces recidivism. Amici’s collective experience administering prisons confirms this research. “Broad[ly]” accommodating religious practices to the “maximum extent” permitted by the state’s demonstrated security objectives

5

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 11 of 22

puts prisons in the best possible position to take advantage of these very real benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(g).
A. Allowing Prisoners to Practice Their Religion Promotes Adjustment.
Allowing prisoners to practice their religion in accordance with their faiths can serve an important role in promoting prisoners’ adjustment to the new environment in which they find themselves.
Studies show a robust relationship between prison policies that accommodate religious practices and a diminished deviance among prisoners. This relationship is observed across various measures of religious practice or participation when tested against indicators of “deviance” as varied as instances of disciplinary confinement, Todd R. Clear & Melvina T. Sumter, Prisoners, Prison, and Religion, 35 J. of Offender Rehab. 125, 125, 152 (2002); the number of infractions, Thomas P. O’Connor & Michael Perryclear, Prison Religion in Action and its Influence on Offender Rehabilitation, 35 J. of Offender Rehab. 11, 11, 26, 28 (2002); and the propensity to engage in conflict with fellow prisoners, Kent R. Kerley et al., Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors, 44 J. for the Sci. Study of Religion 443, 453 (2005). In sum, multivariable studies consistently show that “religiousness is directly important in reducing infractions,” “even after other variables [like age and prior record are] entered into the equation.” Todd R. Clear et al., Does Involvement in Religion Help Prisoners
6

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 12 of 22

Adjust to Prison? NCCD Focus (Nov. 1992), at 1, 4 (confirming the importance of religion as a “potential suppressor of [infractions]” and concluding that religion may help prisoners in “dealing with the emotional strains of incarceration and dealing with the deprivations of the prison environment” (emphases in original omitted)); see also Byron R. Johnson, Religious Participation and Criminal Behavior, in Effective Interventions in the Lives of Criminal Offenders 1, 14-15 (J.H. Humphrey & P. Cordella eds., 2014).
Amici’s experience confirms the conclusions in the research: allowing prisoners to exercise their religious beliefs can help moderate the harsh impact of prison life, particularly where prisoners are housed in solitary confinement. Incarceration introduces severe deprivations of freedoms, including significant impediments to the ability of religious prisoners to practice their religion at a time when those prisoners may need the solace and stability provided by their faiths more than ever. For some, faith and religious exercise can provide a new sense of purpose or meaning in the absence of these freedoms. SpearIt, Religion as Rehabilitation? Reflections on Islam in the Correctional Setting, 34 Whittier L. Rev. 29, 38-39 (2012); see also O’Connor & Perryclear, supra, at 28 (faith can contribute “hope and motivation to change” for some prisoners in the correctional setting). For others, the freedom to exercise religious beliefs can lead to engagement with religious communities within the prison, which can have its own
7

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 13 of 22

intrinsic benefits as well as steering prisoners away from more harmful social groups like prison gangs. See Clear et al., supra, at 6 (religious exercise “exposes a prisoner less to the problems of prison life”); SpearIt, supra, at 48. It is amici’s experience that allowing prisoners reasonable latitude to exercise their religious beliefs as they see fit enables prison administrators to harness the positive influence of religion in the prison setting.
B. Accommodating Religious Exercise Promotes Prisoner Rehabilitation and Reduced Recidivism.
Allowing prisoners to practice their faith in accordance with their beliefs also promotes rehabilitation and moderates the likelihood of recidivism. Again, the research is abundant.
In 2012, Byron R. Johnson and Sung Joon Jang conducted “the most comprehensive assessment of the religion-crime literature to date by reviewing 270 studies published between 1944 and 2010.” Byron R. Johnson & Sung Joon Jang, Crime and Religion: Assessing the Role of the Faith Factor, in Contemporary Issues in Criminological Theory and Research The Role of Social Institutions, Am. Soc’y of Criminology 2010 Conference 117, 120 (2012). The results of this metaanalysis “confirm[ed] that the vast majority of the studies”—approximately 90 percent (244 out of 270)—“report pro-social effects of religion and religious involvement on various measures of crime and delinquency.” Id. The studies that were part of this systematic review “utilize[d] vastly different methods, samples,
8

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 14 of 22

and research designs,” and yet nearly all pointed to the same conclusion:
“increasing religiosity is consistently linked with decreases in various measures of
crime or delinquency,” a link that was “particularly pronounced among the more
methodologically and statistically sophisticated studies that rely upon nationally
representative samples.” Id.; accord Byron R. Johnson et al., A Systematic Review
of the Religiosity and Delinquency Literature: A Research Note, 16 J. of Contemp.
Crim. J. 32, 46 (2000); Christopher P. Salas-Wright et al., Buffering Effects of
Religiosity on Crime: Testing the Invariance Hypothesis Across Gender and
Developmental Period, 41 Crim. J. & Behavior 673, 689 (2014),
http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/02/04/0093854813514579.2
Further, the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religious and Public Life
conducted a large-scale survey of professional prison chaplains from across the
U.S. in order to collect data on the role of religion in prisons. Pew Research
2 See also Jeff Duncan et al., Women’s Engagement with Humanist, Spiritual and Religious Meaning-Making in Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Its Impact on Recidivism, 9 Religions 1, 1, 10-12 (2018), https://www.mdpi.com/20771444/9/6/171 (“Controlling for ethnicity, risk of recidivism, participation in other programs (education, substance use, cognitive and work), length of time incarcerated, and infractions during incarceration we found an overall significantly positive impact of [humanist, spiritual and religious] involvement on recidivism [in women] during the first year after release and over a 13-year follow-up period post prison.”); Richard Stansfield et al., The Role of Religious Support in Reentry: Evidence from the SVORI Data, 54 J. of Res. in Crime & Delinquency 111, 135 (2017) (finding that religious and spiritual support “had strong and robust prosocial effects on both postrelease employment and substance use”).
9

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 15 of 22

Center, Religion in Prisons: A 50-State Survey of Prison Chaplains, at 8-9 (Mar. 22, 2012), http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2012/03/ Religion-in-Prisons.pdf. When asked about which elements were “important for successful rehabilitation and reintegration into society,” the vast majority of chaplains rated access to religion-related programs as among such elements. Id. at 13, 63. Indeed, about 73% of surveyed prison chaplains considered access to “high-quality religion-related programs” while in prison to be “absolutely critical” for rehabilitation and re-entry, and an additional 23% said those kinds of programs were “very important.” Id. II. IN PROMULGATING RLUIPA, CONGRESS WAS WELL AWARE
OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS AND PRISONER REHABILITATION AND SECURITY. Congress enacted RLUIPA against the foregoing academic backdrop—well developed even by 2000, when RLUIPA was passed. The statute’s text confirms Congress’s determination that prison officials must accommodate religious freedom to the maximum extent possible, and the legislative history is replete with references to the importance of allowing prisoners the right to exercise their faiths as they see fit. This legislative history again is consonant with amici’s experience. For example, Senator Strom Thurmond observed that for some prisoners, allowing religious practice “helps rehabilitate them and makes them less likely to commit crime after they are released.” Religious Liberty: Hearing before the

10

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 16 of 22

Senate Committee on the Judiciary on issues relating to religious liberty protection, 106th Cong. 20 (1999) (Statement of Sen. Strom Thurmond). And even while testifying against the bill, New York’s Department of Correctional Services Commissioner acknowledged that “every correction administrator in the country recognizes the vital role played by most religious practices and beliefs * * * in maintaining a sense of hope and purpose among individual prisoners and in enhancing overall institutional safety and well-being.” Id. at 175 (Prepared Statement of Glenn Goord, Commissioner, New York State Department of Correctional Services) (emphasis added). As Mr. Goord stated: Most prisoners who sincerely practice their religious beliefs “do not pose institutional problems,” but rather “promote institutional stability.” Id. Indeed, witnesses emphasized the “societal interest” in protecting prisoner religious liberty, given that “[r]eligious observance by prisoners is strongly correlated with successful rehabilitation.” Protecting Religious Freedom After Boerne v. Flores: Hearing Before the House of Representatives Subcomm. on the Constitution of the Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 7 (1997) (Testimony and Prepared Statement of Charles Colson, President, Prison Fellowship Ministries) (the “Protecting Religious Freedom Hearing”); see also id. at 76, 79 (peaceful practice of prisoners’ religious beliefs has been shown empirically “to have powerful rehabilitative effects” (Testimony

11

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 17 of 22

and Prepared Statement of Prof. Thomas C. Berg, Cumberland Law School, Samford University)).3
This abundant testimony was not lost on Congress. In a floor statement urging the passage of RLUIPA, Senator Hatch explained that “[s]incere faith and worship can be an indispensable part of rehabilitation, and these protections [provided by the bill] should be an important part of that process.” 146 Cong. Rec. S6687, S6689 (daily ed. July 13, 2000) (Statement of Sen. Hatch on behalf of himself and Sens. Kennedy, Hutchison, Daschle, Bennett, Lieberman and Schumer). In sum, the rehabilitative impact of freedom of religious practice was squarely before Congress when it considered and passed RLUIPA in 2000, and constituted a motivating factor in the passage of the bill. III. COURTS AND EXPERTS RECOGNIZE THE POSITIVE IMPACT
THAT ACCOMMODATING RELIGIOUS EXERCISE CAN HAVE ON PRISONER ADJUSTMENT AND REHABILITATION. Courts, too, have recognized the salutary relationship between accommodating religious practices inside prison and a prisoner’s adjustment and rehabilitation. Most recently, taking note of “‘the policies followed at other well-
3 See also Protecting Religious Freedom Hearing at 59, 86 (Testimony of Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, then Solicitor of the State of Ohio) (discussing positive role of religion in rehabilitation); Protecting Religious Freedom After Boerne v. Flores (Part III): Hearing Before the House of Representatives Subcomm. on the Constitution of the Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 40, 43 (1998) (Testimony and Prepared Statement of Isaac M. Jaroslawicz, Director of Legal Affairs, Aleph Institute) (same).
12

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 18 of 22

run institutions’” with respect to beard length restrictions, the Supreme Court concluded: “That so many other prisons allow inmates to grow beards while ensuring prison safety and security suggests that the Department could satisfy its security concerns through a means less restrictive than denying petitioner the exemption he seeks.” Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853, 866-67 (2015) (quoting Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 414 n.14 (1974)) (finding that grooming policy violated RLUIPA “insofar as it prevents petitioner from growing a ½-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs”). Similarly, in Brown v. Livingston, a Texas prisoner challenged prison policies that prevented unsupervised gatherings of more than four persons for religious services and limited the supervision of prisoners for the purpose of holding religious services to no more than one hour per week. 17 F. Supp. 3d 616, 619 (S.D. Tex. 2014). The court held evidentiary hearings and received “undisputed testimony” that “overall, the regular practice of religion improves prison safety.” Id. at 626. The court acknowledged the body of social science research supporting this point, and found that allowing religious prisoners to practice their faith makes for a safer prison unit and a safer community. Id. Even the State’s witnesses supported these points. Id.
In sum, courts recognize that “accommodating a genuine religious observance might reduce rather than increase the risk of prisoner misconduct.” Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Sasnett v. Sullivan,
13

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 19 of 22

908 F. Supp. 1429, 1439 (W.D. Wis. 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 521 U.S. 1114 (1997) (“Religious practice confers many benefits to prisoners. Religious practice and faith can introduce an element of morality into inmates’ thinking that leads them to behave lawfully. Religious practice and faith can give prisoners a great degree of personal satisfaction. Inmates who are involved in church activities and who are behaving in ways consistent with religion usually act in ways that are consistent with penological goals.”). That conclusion is consistent with the experience of amici demonstrating that reasonable religious accommodations support prison safety and enhance the rehabilitation of individual prisoners.
* * * That accommodation of religion can have a positive impact on prisoner rehabilitation and prison security is well established in social science research and academic literature, was a motivating factor underlying RLUIPA’s passage, and has been routinely recognized by the judiciary. It also is consistent with the practical experience of amici across diverse correctional systems. The modest religious accommodations that Mr. Greenhill requests fall well within the “maximum extent” available under the law, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(g), and are likely to promote (rather than to detract from) prison safety.

14

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 20 of 22

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those set forth in Plaintiff-Appellant’s
brief, the District Court’s judgment should be reversed.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Elizabeth Hagerty ALLEN P. PEGG ELIZABETH HAGERTY CLAUDIA PARE HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Counsel for Amici Curiae
January 21, 2019

15

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 21 of 22

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Fed R. App. P. 29(a)(4)(G) and 32(g)(1), I certify the following: 1. The foregoing brief complies with the type-volume limitations in Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(5) and 32(a)(7) because it contains 3,088 words, excluding those parts exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f). 2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because the brief was produced in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word Times New Roman 14-point font.
/s/ Elizabeth Hagerty Elizabeth Hagerty

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-1

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 22 of 22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 21, 2019, the foregoing was electronically filed through this Court’s CM/ECF system. All counsel of record are registered CM/ECF users, and service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
/s/ Elizabeth Hagerty Elizabeth Hagerty

Dan Pacholke, Jeanne Woodford, Phil Stanley, Dick Morgan, and Eldon Vail

Filed: 01/21/2019 Pg: 1 of 1

USCA4 Appeal: 18-7300 Doc: 28-2

 
 PRIS,PROSE
U.S. District Court Western District of Virginia (Roanoke) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:16−cv−00068−JPJ−PMS

Greenhill v. Clarke et al Assigned to: Judge James P. Jones Referred to: Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent Case in other court: USCA, 16−06542
USCA, 17−06696
18−07300 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/19/2016 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Alfonza Hardy Greenhill

represented by Jarred Lee Reiling King & Spalding, LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006−4707 202−737−8616 Email: jreiling@kslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Stewart Lehman King & Spalding LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 404−572−2716 Email: klehman@kslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kevin Jordan O'Brien McGuireWoods LLP Gateway Plaza 800 East Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219−3916 4045722442 Email: kobrien@kslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Scott Michael Edson King & Spalding, LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006−4707 202−626−2908 Fax: 202−737−0500 Email: sedson@kslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

represented by

Harold W. Clarke Director of the State of Virginia Department of Corrections
Defendant A. David Robinson Chief of Corrections Operations of the State of Virginia Department of Corrections
Defendant Earl Barksdale Warden of Red Onion State Prison

Laura Haeberle Cahill Office of the Attorney General of Virginia − Richmond 202 North Ninth Street Richmond, VA 23219 804−786−5630 Fax: 804−786−4239 Email: lcahill@oag.state.va.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Grace Miller Office of the Attorney General − Richmond 202 North Ninth Street Richmond, VA 23219 804−225−4021 Fax: 804−786−4239 Email: mgmiller@ohaganmeyer.com TERMINATED: 04/29/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Laura Haeberle Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Grace Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/29/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Laura Haeberle Cahill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Grace Miller (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/29/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/19/2016 02/19/2016 02/19/2016
02/24/2016

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against All Defendants, filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A thru J, # 2 Envelope)(slt)
2 FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (slt)
3 Order entered Conditionally Filing this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; Advising inmate as to 3 strikes rule of PLRA; Assessing a filing fee; Deferring all action in this case; Advising inmate to comply within the allotted time and to notify of changes in address or risk dismissal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou on 2/19/2016. (slt)
4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit A − B)(tvt)

03/07/2016 03/07/2016 03/07/2016 03/07/2016
03/16/2016 03/16/2016 03/23/2016 03/23/2016 03/23/2016 03/23/2016 04/14/2016 04/14/2016
04/14/2016 04/15/2016
04/18/2016 04/18/2016
05/13/2016 05/18/2016 06/06/2016 06/13/2016
07/11/2016 07/13/2016

5 Inmate Account Report by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (tvt) (1) Affidavit)
6 Statement of Assets by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (tvt)
7 Verified Statement by Plaintiff Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (tvt)
8 Order entered Conditionally Filing this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; Advising inmate as to 3 strikes rule of PLRA; Assessing a filing fee; Deferring all action in this case; Advising inmate to comply within the allotted time and to notify of changes in address or risk dismissal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou on 3/7/2016. (tvt)
9 Additional Evidence re 4 Motion for for Preliminary Injunction by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(slt)
10 Consent to Fee by Plaintiff Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (slt)
11 Order entered Directing the Clerk to attempt service of process upon the named defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou on 3/23/2016. (slt)
12 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Harold Clarke, et al on 3/23/2016. Waiver of Service due by 4/22/2016.(slt)
13 OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 3/23/2016. (slt)
14 ORDER denying 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 3/23/2016. (slt)
15 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 14 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. (tvt)
16 Transmittal of Notice of Appeal to 4CCA re 15 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal NOTE: The Docketing Statement and Transcript Order Form are available on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals website at www.ca4.uscourts.gov. If CJA24 form(s) are applicable, you must submit a separate Auth−24 for each court reporter from whom you wish to order a transcript through the District Court's eVoucher system. (tvt)
Assembled Electronic Record Transmitted to 4CCA re 15 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal (tvt)
17 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 15 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. USCA Case Number 16−6542. Case Manager: Karen Stump. (am)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Laura Haeberle Cahill on behalf of Earl Barksdale, Harold W. Clarke, A. David Robinson (Cahill, Laura)
19 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Earl Barksdale, A. David Robinson, Harold W. Clarke. Earl Barksdale waiver sent on 3/23/2016, answer due 5/23/2016; A. David Robinson waiver sent on 3/23/2016, answer due 5/23/2016; Harold W. Clarke waiver sent on 3/23/2016, answer due 5/23/2016.(Cahill, Laura)
20 ORDER of USCA granting leave to proceed without full prepayment of fees as to 15 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (tvt)
21 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Earl Barksdale, Harold W. Clarke, A. David Robinson.(Cahill, Laura)
22 REQUEST for Admissions by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill.(tvt)
23 Order to Respond −defendants shall file any motion for summary judgment within 30 days from entry of this order, or this matter will be set for trial on the plaintiffs claims. Responses due by 7/13/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou on 6/13/2016. (slt)
24 MOTION for Protective Order by Earl Barksdale, Harold W. Clarke, A. David Robinson.Motions referred to Judge Robert S. Ballou. (Cahill, Laura)
25 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Earl Barksdale, Harold W. Clarke, A. David Robinson. (Cahill, Laura)

07/13/2016 07/14/2016 08/08/2016 08/15/2016
08/30/2016 10/03/2016 12/22/2016 12/22/2016 01/13/2017 01/13/2017 01/13/2017 02/06/2017
02/06/2017 02/07/2017 02/17/2017 03/20/2017 04/10/2017 05/10/2017 05/10/2017

26 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by Earl Barksdale, Harold W. Clarke, A. David Robinson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Cahill, Laura)
27 Roseboro Notice and Notice to Parties of Right to Consent to Jurisdiction of United States Magistrate Judge re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment Deadline set for 8/8/2016. (slt)
28 RESPONSE in Opposition re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Brief, # 2 Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Factual Issues)(tvt)
29 ORDER denying 24 Motion for Protective Order; they are DIRECTED to file a joint response to plaintiff's request for admissions within 21 days after entry of this order, and plaintiff SHALL file any additional responses to defendants' summary judgment motion within 45 days from entry of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou on 8/15/2016. (tvt)
30 Response re 29 Order on Motion for Protective Order, . filed by Earl Barksdale, Harold W. Clarke, A. David Robinson. (Cahill, Laura)
31 RESPONSE/Declaration in Opposition re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Opposition)(tvt)
32 USCA Memorandum Opinion from 4th Circuit re 15 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal Affirmed in Part, Vacated in Part, and Remanded decided on 12/22/2016 (tvt)
33 USCA JUDGMENT as to 15 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (tvt)
34 MANDATE of USCA as to 15 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (slt)
35 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit A− B)(tvt) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
36 Additional Evidence regarding 35 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Envelope)(tvt) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
37 OPINION and ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 35 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill; defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25) is STAYED, pending the outcome of the proceedings on the plaintiff's preliminary injunction motionMotion referred to Pamela Meade Sargent.. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 2/6/2017. (tvt)
38 MINUTE Order to Respond re 35 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 36 Additional Evidence Defendants' Responses due by 2/20/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 2/6/17. (PMS)
39 NOTICE of Appearance by Mary Grace Miller on behalf of Earl Barksdale, Harold W. Clarke, A. David Robinson (Miller, Mary)
40 RESPONSE in Opposition re 35 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . filed by Earl Barksdale, Harold W. Clarke, A. David Robinson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Affidavit of A. Duncan)(Miller, Mary)
41 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 35 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill Objections to R&R due by 4/3/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 3/20/2017. (tvt)
42 OBJECTION to 41 Report and Recommendations by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(tvt)
43 OPINION & ORDER denying 35 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; accepting 41 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 5/10/2017. (tvt)
44 JUDGMENT : For reasons stated in the Opinion and Order, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's action is hereby DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the case. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 5/10/2017. (tvt)

05/11/2017 06/01/2017 06/01/2017
06/01/2017 06/01/2017 06/20/2017 10/31/2017 10/31/2017 11/22/2017 12/15/2017
01/12/2018 01/12/2018 01/16/2018 02/12/2018 03/28/2018 09/19/2018 09/19/2018 10/22/2018 10/22/2018

45 Order to Vacate 44 Judgment, it is ORDERED that the Judgment is VACATED and case place back on the docket. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 5/11/2017. (tvt)
46 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 43 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. (tvt)
47 Transmittal of Notice of Appeal to 4CCA re 46 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal NOTE: The Docketing Statement and Transcript Order Form are available on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals website at www.ca4.uscourts.gov. If CJA24 form(s) are applicable, you must submit a separate Auth−24 for each court reporter from whom you wish to order a transcript through the District Court's eVoucher system. (tvt)
Assembled Electronic Record Transmitted to 4CCA re 46 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal (tvt)
48 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 46 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. USCA Case Number 17−6696 case manager Cathy Poulsen (tvt)
49 ORDER of USCA granting leave to proceed without full prepayment of fees as to 46 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (slt)
50 USCA Memorandum Opinion from 4th Circuit re 46 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal Affirmed decided on 10/31/2017 (tvt)
51 USCA JUDGMENT as to 46 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (tvt)
52 MANDATE of USCA as to 46 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (tvt)
53 OPINION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion is DENIED as to Greenhills claims under RLUIPA against the defendants in their official capacities for injunctive relief regarding beard length and Jumah participation and the motion is GRANTED as to all other claims. The defendants are granted leave to file a supplemental motion for summary judgment within 28 days of the date of entry of this Opinion and Order or the matter will be set for trial. (Opinion and Order mailed to Pro Se Party). Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 12/15/2017. (slt)
54 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment by Earl Barksdale, Harold W. Clarke, A. David Robinson. (Cahill, Laura)
55 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 54 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by Earl Barksdale, Harold W. Clarke, A. David Robinson. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Cahill, Laura)
56 Roseboro Notice and Notice to Parties of Right to Consent to Jurisdiction of United States Magistrate Judge re 54 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment Deadline set for 2/9/2018. (slt)
57 RESPONSE in Opposition re 54 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment . filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition, # 2 Enclosure A, # 3 Enclosure B, # 4 Enclosure C, # 5 Envelope)(tvt)
59 Notice of Correction: Changed viewing restriction of Document No. 58 (Transcript) due to the document being filed in the incorrect case; only viewable by court personnel. Document correctly filed in Case No. 7:17CV00129 at ECF No. 76. (ca)
60 OPINION and ORDER granting 54 Motion for Summary Judgment (Opinion and Order mailed to Pro Se Party). Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 9/19/2018. (slt)
61 JUDGMENT is rendered in favor of Defendants. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 9/19/2018. (slt)
62 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 61 Judgment, 60 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. (ck)
63 Transmittal of Notice of Appeal to 4CCA re 62 Notice of Appeal NOTE: The Docketing Statement and Transcript Order Form are available on the 4th

10/22/2018 10/23/2018 11/07/2018 06/21/2019 12/06/2019 12/06/2019 12/30/2019 04/06/2020
04/06/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/10/2020 04/27/2020 04/28/2020 04/28/2020
06/05/2020

Circuit Court of Appeals website at www.ca4.uscourts.gov. If CJA24 form(s) are applicable, you must submit a separate Auth−24 for each court reporter from whom you wish to order a transcript through the District Court's eVoucher system. (ck)
Assembled Electronic Record Transmitted to 4CCA re 62 Notice of Appeal (ck)
64 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 62 Notice of Appeal filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. USCA Case Number 18−7300, case manager Ashley Brownlee (ck)
65 USCA Appeal Fees received $ 505 receipt number 700058420 paid by Amir Ali; re 62 Notice of Appeal filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (ck)
66 ORDER of USCA granting motion to withdraw from further representation as to 62 Notice of Appeal filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (aab)
67 USCA Memorandum Opinion from 4th Circuit re 62 Notice of Appeal vacated and remanded; decided on 12/6/2019 (ck)
68 USCA JUDGMENT as to 62 Notice of Appeal filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (ck) (Main Document 68 replaced on 12/13/2019 with correct pdf and nef regenerated) (ck). Modified on 12/13/2019 (ck).
69 MANDATE of USCA as to 62 Notice of Appeal filed by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (ck)
70 Order to Respond; Defendants may file a supplemental motion for summary judgment, consistent with the Fourth Circuit's Opinion, within 60 days of the date of this order; plaintiff shall file any brief in opposition within 28 days thereafter; the defendants may then file a reply in support of their motion within 14 days of the filing of the plaintiff's brief in opposition. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 4/6/20. (flc)
Document 70 mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff via US Mail (flc)
71 MOTION for Scott Edson to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0423−3369156. by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(O'Brien, Kevin)
72 MOTION for Jarred Reiling to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0423−3369164. by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(O'Brien, Kevin)
73 MOTION for Kathryn Lehman to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0423−3369167. by Alfonza Hardy Greenhill. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(O'Brien, Kevin)
74 NOTICE of Appearance by Kevin Jordan O'Brien on behalf of Alfonza Hardy Greenhill (O'Brien, Kevin)
75 MOTION Motion to Terminate Mary Grace Miller as Counsel of Record for Defendants by Earl Barksdale, Harold W. Clarke, A. David Robinson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Laura)
76 Pursuant to STANDING ORDER 2019−5, the U.S. Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent is referred to this case. Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou no longer assigned to the case. Motions referred to Pamela Meade Sargent. (tvt)
77 ORDER granting 75 Motion to Terminate Mary Grace Miller as Counsel of Record for the Defendants Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 4/28/20. (ejs)
78 ORDER granting 71 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney Scott Edson for Alfonza Hardy Greenhill added; granting 72 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney Jarred Reiling for Alfonza Hardy Greenhill added; granting 73 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney Kathryn Lehman for Alfonza Hardy Greenhill added Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 4/28/20. (ejs)
79 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 70 Order to Respond, by Earl Barksdale, Harold W. Clarke, A. David Robinson. Motions referred to Judge Pamela Meade Sargent. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cahill, Laura)

06/08/2020 80 ORDER granting 79 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 6/8/20. (ejs)

 
 NITE6 SYAYES OXSTQIC.-VCOUI
ESTER/ ;IsTRIcT oF YX RG I NQ A

CLERKS OFFICE U S DIST.COUR-I
' . . . V RoAxdxk vA FILED

kïçoov-q Bqcq Gre,enk'tsl
Psmnk f.f )

FEB 1! 225

JULIA C UDL ,CL RK

BK

. x

**'

-42.z D

ER

, V,
Uûcokhk4,Csq.-he-sdkreeh rVkrsxfxnqBe-r>.<t- : W CmcreoM ooî.&.oovtcîRok nsorq,c-hke.çe4Eorriobx'u
SQQ.%-W H Z:S-JG.a<J$V mkslqk.yY ar& m % .&ooku O qW G l% n,
iorkvkttkrgsïafxuylawswarok(x:u$o a u.ues,

c:.'.ïxobkefxuo.qltzckm otp8
c ou vuxx ua

Berkenàla'k ,

X .J uqmlûc cxx ou xwùMç-9k3E-
6' TALs lso cs+,ïac.kooluw osz.u N Rau-s.c,sec-yiorxlqq'sMocezrus'ï.K,-oueqvu-tun,
a'nlk,rcoi.. oks.u .i tuuâ).fckqhlssûcwru o .ku cossv.ukoo oî.lu' ussu askxus.''> ioor4hos
.)f-ue-tçilse.l;le'kucosnuouno.paie.ao-qa%% aus.G.c.cs.-escezutzobnuaSaaqasuoswkqot'ashaiaotcao.o9lïc.c%atvïcx..vW.avGLçc.fw Gmkre.xsîw'wssîuïaskœmxsh4sx,tru'scrçok.urxcaw.v'eM.j.
efticel are-o.o#h- .z.euï b:aa u,s.e.se..p..o aauq c.oa aalq ooà Ruï. &5 J #u 7.dev.ïAows
;.ltecorovu c. .
.Q . Tu .vlesu g.n %ll.bc-voy oî Vkcsyalq 'ks (m ttvvcoe uye vem oa uoàv q : u.s.c.. seobkoax-uqk(u3kal
e eeqws. L#ksultuzî.e . e-uw.u xvvlls r-ysœ .yo +hvs c2tt'.m ecc.wcmcs.

I x . Pt-c uq'l fF

5. P$u'...k.W' As#o.axqqaco,k ûree-rykti.ksûacî=qs<'tczxïyk- swto-ascoaeâk..x'.aufelkaee-c

e î11. &l.q#e ocvlgy.ruq hnlu 'cwsu ck c4 44w.Vlo irwqibeporA.- xbc,çcovf-c'%toni.tde-ksr-ueçws-Bï

r.onl-ea.-cî'.aqu

oovoal.,.u

gcksooy-.ox

v'ooaà ,

gkoyo:x

.

'

111.bç-çlltdèKwxs

'H . beçe-ectawt ucrotclw .cwruq- ls-w.q-clrv-c-koropysw swkou okvycx sq oepcw-vlwwzwvot
(Cxrwœotloas.$4Gks$%aN Gsçonshktik.on.% ovvokiekecobpoaol.l-kq-Bœeool-gkœnïanAitxch
iinsklwkoq uacîa (.tsa'wcksdiczsk-on.taosocsvaa Qu$oovoa3.G .%4-ecyx a.

%d5.

èx

aeay â .

bav:4 koknrooo

ls4:.

cw.efo.ico.-reouo.asope-ccauoas 0%

.Bw-sh

w

crC

vhr-up'xvh

*oe4acl-t.'4 o.fcocceobuv . ueks1%.w cvo fezvur o.îoh oevcyox.wwxxlxq ow-r. 9<o:>-,I.,c.s .W.-A.

E.lovern etxoù'vastk4ww..waée.r&he-u'welxlikrwoacrç.:u vkesNm-'q O- - A-- A o.k Gw-cv -vkonl.

Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 10 Pageid#: 1
4t

6. beçemAaob E.0:-ïBcwhsAaïe-'$sA#<.Y cbrle,n o.7 Qe-lOimonSW 'h-Vcuorx.AAG''Sïesûhst

cesvooskiïe

G

r

W

o-oee-cwbkm'x

o.$

Rœa.oçuoa

S.h.se-Petson

.

.

nnà

.Vor -ïu

O G G A ofuh lko-

laaxoles'$a V< # eclsoa.

7o Eoch Je-#eaAuu.bLssuu,'sadkvlduusujonakrskksotf.kcAuscxvqo.wj. :.ylq .vkx q
m e/ iele.d'.n#Alscom etqyayix k tkfexzoa# Oc'Ve.z taalœccoïoc4 st.k-ïwuo.

6

-1 9. EAcq's

qhfMtqr-ïosûhLcekvre$wmotmê>-x'so'?q-lI4,upfs.o(aos?w#ûse-Wxt-b:km.wfLna<5Gkc:ak.rsvwe.ypeScû.<aowaîkd's.tL-ïycajqok.usa,xc.uohcsuaaiMs.oytyuo.,ssotsueml-w.wù.1u.Iusbsmoi-qrsstlwetsvk(x.eqx-,v-gvagkmlvmtoc'k-cuso-slow.oçs,sI,ïuotszrwîvmoîwkmscs.,bkiJ.wu'ù.:eolno'kl'fk.texs-sovu.voss?vjuW$qo.e'ms.0fks1z4qce'uv.Wr:vït-.i.G.VWsrcwe#Q-œrulneoh+ebmïqhy'q

.

, plokakiT
.(.14. . $x. kt

GIrsesetnx-ttlitc'sAcqw.ttk:auieverkrlrïjsTKssGoo..-,aokotsraJx es:;-40$x

vrescny, boakty ocv:s- skj,

'kszçv.zqks V
q SûQ% Q

ke.s fltzcx ,u'ortâ-uu
iwolgrcsjovlof&

e.,

e..w

m fqq .'xum t.h x aewvia ûaavah ,*uaqvk--% .*'
gcyax. .Jumkk coasyx4soîqwçwo-glrykho.ïboktseo-- ojon4.

(NkS-mcr'Mroel'qhittke$q3sk'k)ks'lqe)(v.'.ûcaanaKId,l.1wv.t%.kvtsqttéks.$.vo-0w.ak.vk4iqozd:oa.wQ.0Iou=.?lss-qAdtvuks.,tyo..vec,e.ut(;sfc.kxxct.qaeaau-k.ejsrauw.jwwxz.rjw.wavwl..t-(y-cuouswu.uvUw.Xscuk.stewaveuvsu)-uxvso..thv.tCvva--..wlv'bwzkku-.ç.r:a4uw0o'z%uï.qbo..w*a'oup-auwr'vxsx.ntx'uxkesuux--ce--u.tNqG.ou4ï.$e.w-c.a%.'s,nn'u'o%qurzl.r-ss'Qq3qt=.xmx

'1o.%''
,

bc. Ptccks.kf.l Gceo
AGJIsitrx:u '.ûïk

kLttIsc.weee..lïq

sec-way

ïe-ve-t''se3moo.yxo''(u

awxpktu,cje-wu:)petsoaa.r

.2heûoscQskaô(EJûokz-.ïeov-vtxe,staâq.ik.owx..ms

((-bwkstusj14ku oowqsusç Pc.kxsa (qosp'j .=wxusw&-ao-ç

t.v.ts

uowsy,xl .

vlqva.u.w.o

e.ovxh-.àï-kscoa-kvn.a .w

h..sœ t&.èrv's

'AnS'zeqq-tt'e4*vettî#ue..-avss.r-w.- oosvk''Vtzrae-.syuu

sea #w-w -.çvo-?u'uee-scw :acxat- .œ..ox..-..ua kaw

vu jkou nzc-mw s
xa.c+.7:su --zv

ûaâ shxkwx,.u c:n owxsm
,wu-aï'ta.ti-'.ïz. ,e< .

l

1 ayvw lre-om k,ltks xvo.v w -r- vw .a.w 0-boA'.h vv-se-- .4=u-tqR.

t. Qûsfbceqtïcûsisavkdaugeof swmrqk

qkc-vlzeou ?eo.ç'zw m
ïtvet: bowsku . Ju *koo--n q ye -

otlaAt.1yisuvxulcc:avueyxqc.o.ssvgcuceu-ivsoooxlw'xcvwsjvulark-.e'#..u.Qj'uossoeuxeykmcuu.ts.kecm.sovsxo.awol4k'gq-saoueço-otvqq-uwhvio.acavjcueïoey4=h$o<%.

1

kave

rsoa.yiu lotueul.Iw vks

cscoa .

As .0

.ykos.

tovea

s .

vc-o

ox

uàhoôoxw b ovâ.a ulv- sonqtw k-vllvoa

AGF'G-'A'eouC'e='c*'-ueGw%n4-AcaPcwz-eacaausseoz.k.iw'.qom-q'iqeucccs.4os.xsuo,lb.to.A...wacovp',-kcs-rv-o.pîrsisu.scve.û1.w-.-:v.a.lw.'cooaruwy-ttucçukcu.vAeT-vaov.evvuosoïw!xyxsxs,.&cex.t-.-ï..œ.olowcelscq-?znot;xn.co''Kasith'stoq*czavabla,

ff'e.a.et:l-tpRqolegsceleqvzatamo-iPsoqf-)oox.çx-stuo.im.us%.-JApv+sohaoo0, orcxzouuw.ksfvoGorevs.uaxk..sktoysseo.b.vs-oswuotv-kaoï.(wv.ow,r.qtpvx:awonplotqafoectucehnx.Is.ylJa'.faGaro/sa 1 .u..(ja wv o.2x su m.

4z
,

Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSeB aDocument 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 2 of 10 Pageid#: 2

ta Vlr 'vaRq ûeacvvi-ezta.bo.fCoere-ovvoos ovv-rowl4xo Fcotxcu ve-gqt.3 ''okfxolerQ ,lellowsGosmmsâ'

.

.>

,

Sk3nez bq c..%.aaoo.> &.Bw v4Qou asou)m oaau.tq.s +h4 4-he ookjvkrsbo'eq G vcsov- 'bo.ç

cocceo< s(vooc)sev csqtuoovvvsow scohokwxa vvswalsq ûcœsscxa4 pcw.txovqkm xa re-Nk.'po-a
e'oAcc- o'rv .1'*0%2.qnkvoowae.p- sorua R w wvston. ove-rcl.- s eco- 2.4:.3 vsemov- ..:,oh

Vûoc pevsols.

l3- çïqhaiq.ç4 Gcceaklïï swbm'..s&z4 ua'xoocmqïc.ovvvîcdo: .%c- ,onoouox-NogokGsracîciœ'xw.t

.ïo % .%nA.4 s lh- oyAw .ûzaa e-oçxa A.>

vA Rou

lson .

ço.oxlxrs:h-ls'kaak.ï'I.%

V

v'vsoqltq 4 cce-i.i

N -ik% um o.k .%

'swçvx..h w cïa

a akr.cïq:

Rol? 3

uur.îihq'î h'ksY'A:juaï tkcœ

%

'%

Yo'-Gh

Kœs %ea coddkkow ufoa vvzrcM ww ûncîouam sW se o ç G çe sonuï jwaww vsycaw qy u .

ûaaaoyaç.foca (szce-swhu.yâj. etrsolcm Grev wyïïx s ç.,n5.oce-svaaw cïqyexhoovow î'sa

-
lots-ae-,sA4a5 yt.:s.u.@ tvce-a wttsc.va sorva w uvsspoauq ehxoh hc c...nvn% czïtutnQ-**.*:%

'Du

ax

ih

rxaa

Vwb$''.kt %.l's

ce-ïxttgews

=

s$.<

oiksrz.uw.Qsae-K'KGY''V8 3 - 'I*xVu 'zP?%y.w

I'KE4 çksvoas'-, Ptqxq#-..W cxeee-eu sïvo eosel,cts (ya cxî-umrw%w e-Aoq V'-x'w-Ne2 'bcxe-vksf%œq,

1K.1 % .be attu-ecï #o iozlu qy.hzxA wu- cqh , ocxwqv co- m wnoïMeïiw'srûur.s u B'xe
'ka q$t le-ve.t> eods q1 eose 'oxa .$,wo fsova.b4.ç.çcv ew awqïï cootà w souïujrxccu s,una. -
Pqcilclpaie lrs -x m uu yhmcv.sj(.'sex exu u çs l uvs;Q 3 .

IGHre.o kM:%lt* !.(o'çA4eïcavvtAmsrckscwjoe MtzNa.kc.4nv-4 W roahoA Bw.e-xhoosiko.xO G SSJ.ï.hq-vpï0.4-..f.('

vtswqîtrqcces:L-un'lk s3eeaR 'knak#ukonqsoosvNoxje 0:*1e

ePAn$sloIwSal1uh:o.Wk,wvGofatcu.uqeool.tvko.WvpttwQïrs.cxcv.okw4q$v$aAutsçfauwxîjka-Myoeoa-cevovêsçtoycovaqïsse-oesut'hsAua.vcs'.ul

, q yea.zç'b u qqlxse-.qaw

-.m
- cuv.rvm*b , o ''ta-oj.

Pïltnletnm,G'lCAa.M:WtW%A!tWsk:taGhv;ïexh-<h.kk'io.ovn.atx.tîuok,n.4;ec,i-uvcseubwuar.st.ubostexau>caBs-s.oapsu,.:kuv.%aczy).vçqku.w,çxwzGsamc.v.mwyexaacw.q.ovm'-.$ïav*s.Ns.'uuk.k.y.u*.ww.%â,.aG.'ibusumcewk.q-cvorxao.4a-om.ty-aht'.s4.ynl.ww%w-t.ouul+rxv-'N-sxeouo-kox,'xsio-qm

W Vcoc's b

.u œ tsvoa,asum ,cotwmwfxzq. o a.k:î v$> #-Jç Gva oussyeo- euu ='.m

W

uqtl w01

ic.d $a s.h bw low K.pae .kuu io ûo

teuxh vssox , canRas.k:l wa.ï4.-

w . hu vowu
eV Nv M

%

@lt.k

o

vYocko3a

.

l5. ô'ç W

aa <#
-

cvt.uj sevu .+ eoA œkobo'.'uq oo'btezu h

a.k Row ave cxsGïe

.%< cooo

a.a e,ïv-c,tac.! ouxuau oa4u b

w o ts..s..

QOSP ug,d 'io blve com
fcroowôtrâh'-vys'wnAd4lj4.a*c-tfersesxaa.a:wa4ahtgpc.i.#u,.uewwprawpokmosJiwolu4s.

SwG'eo-.rcsqu'qî-ûuqjtmgf-vrooxnuveapvio'octuussv-ss'e-+Grvwww*o'kKxulocuMvabsurzhœexepxetjsûlq'obx'u''?s-n'-k?uo<'o.SmioM.

J epoa ln pôspzu G bw.u:.o hzzs t.o--arw!'fek-< vorkq

.

slci.tkals-c?,od#.r,ocw4Ps/ttya:-tkxatweliaqu.Ws-,bok.t-Qlc4ccra,yùqnkzsufh-thlcstîcyzst.z.kcPhet-(tatc)anek#oylnoWc,iIG4sretlaemmotK:tiiouttb'oslrxiVajq7l.G.k#k.ms1.sBkiQ.#m'uwVce1c3ooocpkouva..,>syh'Mtt%sotGekqlaanr-bcmsk'b.aot1t,(o.ik.nokgd%=nm.outycencwîk1o1ûaaqw',x-j

''ok.f<e-r4com 4. Votut'bktusvt.s;ï4
lAovhae'.cossiok'ow0.k%q.tL.%VI

yowrbe-z:prdamo.M*nlS%fzve $owr > hzSW L,hœ.''

* 3 Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 3 of 10 Pageid#: 3

'
% a# Lo- wsûn; hasbkx.u le()vnG usta ctox com pooyout.xl4u -Qcovu ,bao4Tw kxqu-uoool
fJwrls#of 'xsïemvcuaw,x ulumc.vz

14w u . 'I B.aJo - ervvNoac hks qo-z'(vktscvmueo aa,yo-rak (lk-sse-.ç'.lacw coi.ij < woutl koté %lu ba cd :.k'ks.fysvy uwtsxkqu ve-ce-xt'oozu kvs.ç'.A kq-uooutlQ-A off.3' 1 (tukkoc:cqaauust.- coittc.vto.sJ'uoch4kj

àV.EotcFïcGqorrblYclodiîoqqfqr,ls.Koaaw.uvoiooch-uAvuicsuooûcféosï:oc.,q.?l.lr-'s.xrtuta-,us,v-ho.b=evna'as-oïx'sg-4ï.q.q.qv.'o.bouc

ezxrds 1o(ex/xovt.o A< $*-1 .1 oçq sutsr

,

voocv- oïe-mqawu wes -vn.vo '
v.r> '..v

PAï-q:%1ïGr-sQ0el'-O%wœ.m-%bsklWo;):mït.q$.%FQ'tûtœk'-mq.4cw.kwq.rtûtelkkiq.a4isw.çeacthoâ.toqc.qe,kmck)c.#couoasavkkolpitkcssakcsssr:kça.ey,as-.kut;as.sfo.u(co4,ooGok.$as2,r.,a'ex.mclt$çsr.uuûwvlrt-.sï-utcos,uqo!so-eh'cv,Sskamus-mçqua.hssfqwGpyhsawuuvqsesoe.e,vvccah-eexGhi.u-x4xsxshlk.uS<yswoq.v.eaç;)o-aA.xa-Cv.yv.s,awuswx&uz..utuacmav+a-ok,o.s<aosm.li%assc4stwap,x-xaM.su.qm.oxyo..x.hûqn.la%-s..-qs'k)u&,k.u.ovqn.bxeuw,+ïwoz(.x.$'.hWuQn. +v:.,.k)N#.x:q.sw.q

,

wrm rv.5 oa ooiou c ço:aokc,tw d .%s p%sqavuusocowresoo-

1V#tlk(?Swa01lû.içik'.,ïtQhàttaz.ocz':a-iif.attwbîutfu'rqhunc2oco.dul1q$;4jayyqlbjukv(eJcchjsvtqikvsktseah.ql.tA#o%a.oe0swerxcLo.ouswwbo4qzNo.îls%v'w',a.ùkn..haqtsak.ks#t.oacvj'q-<A*.o('.lkist1os:aqPk.t1%aVov:icoxsue.oxj/alœtcecq/Iki.-.sssrW.qum'.yif1y,Gut$1o.mar,s-aeaaJetPzal#'roInka:3ars$o.lqeh#atAmtwm'Ghscsr4uaroe,uew-1?Vrgecsu.o,aèw.,hCcv,.4q%oatL.ypuk.ïïnet!sooz.œçj,uq.(''qa&.vosG.vyuçocusprvqç-ozouec.sa;-eussAvuuxqowuvi:t,cswuwïaozcw,.xuz'kj.wskxreqs1o,Ron'ovkrof'o-eï;.ybwrmoou-qsvtxauvt:u'umcoyuo<uqs0zxçwooî4qh.o:vuytyRu-.î1nw*.qaox-1o+jy+iaHgwœ.eh.yImj,.ke-nw'.!< VMt*'sïne*owsqw1uisAsolSrhtioon-wwtsncw#ivvkorcf:qa;sltltxqbjt:ufwa.oibtawsw.l,rtîu.a.v.foiGoïw$ar.roqeou..auïa.a#îbks-m;e:'ql.uuwt..b'aysou+y'o.o,coz..v..î$auu.s.la,.eyuxqok.wo,uoaz.y#orsm,u.a..:w.xaaZ.k4aa-c,'tsîaktaso.uuoe-awoloa-ejsw,ah- vo.4foi<t.xç.tçua=n.c-si'.xkei.cvcsu,evxouu;o'.raeu-wbqovct.woswtwxooIrwquhataFetue.açswcr-s.wboovt.we,cb$ocvoecvo-v..ro.vao:.'..s-.qxivs-ouvwsao-ueq'oiasoAuw--ef.wooqcxeqbù--yayhs>kuuc.l.Qzkx,bs-euïwk

19.

,loka#lf-f'Cxrex-nù-.dsswbîvo.w u

oo'n .ç .

lcovvseîxnw

.a oo.v.wv

Io ,

a

osc

,

'qAcïc- ed % oefemdqa.ts tk rou w ,Lt- H. onA A.tovkdM uwson :remrvâyos #u suBs-borm cï

'K 4 u fîqu,d w onk5s 'Isïl'-tcceaîu kousexv clse o.çsvowknjqw G .w ,God mm ojw ohaskw

qb t'G

tknôh

o'l G

wr'koruox

(se.cxh'.u'$#

?

) -

=

-
ixkts qpewî,ps-

ayv.tf <

k'.It% ue-siu

q çûvzskuo.;o.v.gbqollhilw iota qlto. ky-- 4osrox ku îetkrxl1% qoé M utn'bqetq'.#q'%,

lu t- 3.% of-foorkwcw xtvaa4u .e-h a -ove-.bu soyakoaw.twwcacnt-reen% ueonw'sqbgerav-o.ç

Khz-srstol.'-f-hmbce-xoo:wu datu.(s.axoxhïbl.bF)

Aq
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 4 of 10 Pageid#: 4

ao. etqpa#l.w Greemk-,t!'s.îka'.0.,:nsum,oùt'salo k:m w eatontqknuy',stl.al-.ïa uum.osy
taxwl)owkoso ('xwaalcqssusaw-Lïn.InImta-,kokaœv.rtsno-buotwtksoo.kkosw . Fl?'q#'G'ûxelkikl's œ tuvoa,isu-, G rud,k'- V onea.bo qqïQ eâ* *4krw''O'Ckqtql'

QjI.

lqqlûiQ ccï.cad.<

uw askta usu

w

fœgcrzoa4sevve-swokG oz,

aifovva alorNy..-

,

j*ve coau cl
L2:.4:r*4 oe.q-

x k.< -xstc-xclt oaotean'k.kom slaact..a,.y.fsuca coauokoccwcs,1- 4,.-a'.s llwtql.xa etx a.k.g'tvceemw,ysksçcudtbm bxjk?sceapxea-asïtk-,.% axe-e..t.%.asuch

oA..

2A. -H szrveé oo

va .<

c of.c' co- -

è#svmsou oo-Vn r4. 4

o cotvakoua &e oa .wwasysstocsw

R.). Pt.:n#T4'Gceak:llKqsbex.aceceovx.o ecom-

oeko. tqlo- wûs ''com
%. koa- (see- e.xha',+

axoa

''
,

'n.

.Q

A ,sqou on.L4 .q

,A .'%.v

.

a-To.eo eâ .h->s svoc aota

.

Q3
(w 'I

..$1Ptha:unw.ksikfrz'.fCq>lcesRf+os'.ptt.-its'iosïqps'ss;.Ac-..Abwùijtz.#luu

vcoc oscvlcve; â.poisow
ks cusksxsq.wu e-suwskvs .>

orvi-çsh'wsedka wweaw wousko .

*q'#qn1R#t-'OGEœPiâruhAswxsk.klo4na',1:,s3Ftmewvsxokrw,lsxaqmrc.ozïuxx-hew.akwhavayo.%-c

cxals ai yowcs qcym
aaïs.Qoch cuï's

ooa
zooc

m us.yw-. .ve
'.n hcve.ï.k

-
a .u
hoasvm

#i.q1 ks took

atuu-

q

îw

.f=o: volza- x u .acu

xou

aauï.c sïoy .

wu

svw hqsaz-r

Prdoru tl4v-GA

-stœ4o-e'e'Aaveqa.<aqmct.ouuoxa.ea.

:

pco
l a

oawc-cas.e'a.àLyusmha-av w

v,. .

.s

o

,
a.1.x

sw y.$s covx

aysNovMwoyïaxu s . ujrw.tw .a wu qsyu

Q%. q'u e,a#kre,N of i-< .tâ!sa qttos?se

le-weî S vclsou

-mvesqim .hu vaqumxy Q c.jua Mx 's

L-t

a.4

G

G

.s. '-rwaa kelskoW Kw

.rc skx e Hqu

vozs-ta c.- hw'.ïAkxa : c-l

ass
,

esrsi

.tto&u

z

a
vou.kska

.
G a,-t--%,t-R,Q--&)L-G .
L-hwvtz'.a h uve a a e aïs eucA

.

h'M'<e'baeoqTlWlvlr.b.ekCoo-:xwos'ocs#aeTlexw$uuwIckv!b.me1c.So%.4sx.h,v.$.tvz$cao.ueJbb'clooololo'..lzstrsms,âzaJwoaoo.dkaeriv..îqyeeo--lsw:.<httmwzv:o-kacc#lqe'ak.'.aral>e'.u>cc,uz-céuouokavwoqq'b.ryuw.wrAï4o.s.o.c.oöcel.u'oq=.svoyecîu.ml.Ak,css.'.w.<su'mC'eze-es-'$x:zssœïovvs#eîoïquq-+<r',ooh.nâA.ïû:o>t'tîan..<hW.h.t<.#W...vm-uxAe-tqo'î+uGah.Wscq.-e,v-G.cî4m.uhvnwoo.Asx0-,k

lsofiau O kyi

s 'Ia yu

box .

d'umcyakQ'- ksB.yleu.yotx:J

%

,A'u sïyz.tro iouv

lnl=

#1kR -

G

M:o.1.h.l0,u

.<boxisutld -.sïooku

u.z .<

î),& aaz revrksves .yu kyc,evtsks aoer-tsskoy.aaA

a .
voxsom- -vu.bs
Apruozyu.a .<

.ku -
vo,is

.k,$.i-

,vnhqy*-vu

-w

on Awwcz ovena .&u

.v>

6c )

't1:'o1bo,fmeoveaAzssN>tos.<ryûo-yG.oulsv?ooaoAms,lwo..ku.vaezxqy.uudce.%coœobsybJ,o.x=meus.y'.suïcvtï.w<qœ.zz.co,exav1ïooa's.y.%urAxc'hcea'>ïxsào-xîsotore:sk;aAmx+uur.&um.oaw-A,>ura-wsmtob v-w 'e v:a .

*5
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 5 of 10 Pageid#: 5

Q7. Lœwe-l%' f<1soav.s q1 Qose lcoattoi.eed one howrooouzislR cev w yzonTyvc-au-tx
f'rrkwtxzh,al4 W re. skoxv s ?% u;u ,K- Klùm- e,rq îevœïâ.kr%*û< hiW ïK- ,-h's*-q

Cecrecceœb-on,skowv - 0 ..1vksk.k,eyc.,hn-wvus'kualv se û ''s'%e.?%u.mrM ,''Yu a
tevolA vuso. w uslabz.fore ù,s ca 'saoor-ssoftm.,z,ce-ovetm soïouh qsîcïoa lnsowax

h'ks bodujarvâ ?u1 -bho.t oto.yhv.h '$u#o yu box bowu oaloMvsaaN's% oc,'or uvoniu -h-o -ssovs

goec @ %7s cczl's c1ooc k.swo w=x .. .yuzx.ycvoyu o -srscàweu.q shoœs,sox,claA oaaca--- .

-ef/Lk-ek'qensuaccts

suxcoh

.$$ok .

#w? # *

u

ow

vao ç.v coavwwu

d---

s.ëeA.à vrqaoka.w*u o

:s ctew % b.c,k oa (s.a xs.< klu a .lf.a ..a suûoksa ..a escocw a .u -:h,-

tk- eqm

o

wx.q - cas

s ,

sh :w

v

s ,

m

eavou

ww.,ïyya:

,.<

.

Q 3.
#%ï(M

t qoq sg

$zvo! S

etlsotxo-c%s qttoi'i'u

.G oNuko,- b lnok to% K V.Q '%nok OXQW KVbXGG

1#P-G-'Soqbcoo.rxwl.sboooSzloufaetvzesrho%uoub-csostkaezûayksnvk:y'vœbok.zutsdtoc'sLe,aaaattcvwsovcux,lhdos,cp'I-aocLmo?to-w.yks.%aa.skckeosbwe.a-lstetzah

a.44toor. Eve-mxju onao ,zcwuîevu à kjcmvsoaiucvcas, .hpw œ hlssvoauvo..n jctocc'..f'kvsoas.stuockcsnohox ioï.wa

W zxp ,spoo o q

ed oale.m o.svoasesaaa .<

.u corw- o o.s .x ,.cu sts raa axrs .

iweîâ e rxm
'

ccve.e-vv,s

Q q.
t*uG

E..c,n
e'ee.4 - I

u ou x
u evâ.r

, e.,h Sevu .w kavœ kl

4

frvsom -yssjvo

.<

oppur-uqx.u w huw. wiscuyu aq .

'1*Veo*k2t*m0u-C-X--sGstwkooi7k:iaœaiuokœtrottc.'tus,qfwAu.oaoWoawrycksLes.vwsïlhwirnoo-a:vtwebbaexl.(.cuskyj4.owhl:j.sk.c<h..q.au.,çexAttuuaobwvo.e'vtba.$ouaaoxs,z.tloobruamboxawtœlsl.uocwu..yàvuzsoca>ulï4.oe*î'vsvuu-aïod>ovœ.ce,ezïcoïâvctsseu?-?Aroouno'ocs.ya:<œcoctrœ>Ntowvwq'csaq.-UsMuxu'ex*'sucat

1%b4''*0o:.%x4'.esa40%a-4n1.d%4bosxuveskî-asbchtookl#aii#,.jlecst4Jo.o1tr5ssuleùIooqse#.-otsuul-i.suloocxat)sbiq'wsuxngocbooîoaooclst#oue,adnoqrztoxwJanmxwuî,ajkt-Plq.tyuûG-cnçoàruj.(w.'t.-soKûltxrl).Sl#QJ#,BooRorAcGc:o3rhqmtqvnws;-.yc4cuhmlrt'çt.h4x.hetb.âlGoWWloöotasse-

re-$eqWuc&k#?i-#kczw<-%ofiPsstqqeoine.sk,.çsfucx,auaaawekvtt'eswcc,os.wpcrwooau-.oooragqwooatew.ql,Axa.uiv.l.,st.pt:xu.çzuaew-nçkhukoî.î',soœaattdi'.ro+ecyBtea-vwwosaa#u;

eqlpu

uoa-

eadv cd n
Ij.l.j.goua,

x

-

gqsqt.

Flqinlik>4

uceoojj;jt,sa-o

ou .uq.>4:oorxu?.ydus ù&kmeor#.sruwo o
roojasju-

,

31. ?1q-ka#-,4 ivcokkïk's pqsy qaa

1.. %:seotl's d

m o ts uovzux rja.u j

At$tlë >
eptarkfvyikç.ç

tsoec.w ow xwots ww o gu ou you ox

w e-ro co 4a .
kuj(

oo.,-kjqjpj uju yys

5 w j(uo-s.c.

uox u js ;s osrye-w o. uo, uosj.u

..,o. x .k qo r

yy.oa j

.

osu a xu,-. x s oj.o.a ooyo

31 . I sïww

#ik0whk-f.xcedau.e.-

xuws 4:.y

uoux .ku .sm
co.#a.4 . ..w

ooyuz w uojt .k.
u.&.$.k.a cs.t.w

.orso yoou.n . a#ov.oyuro s.j.e s
uyosjssa.u.uvr.wwooo(j. v.

l ù Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 6 of 10 Pageid#: 6

gno. -Al ooAer V l'Ve,Plq%a#i.W Greêmkkslmvs'b'èa.#-Geka:ele<ea un oekonbo4 .4oeml

î.eè4 .çu + ks.4 qqutetqos osobsu q.uqïbwra- upa?tasakW Gcewmkkq's X ït-shm%e,'e c%Y

o; ealvas ontx tusw.khs qqîqî- ikq.t swbsiqkvkqtKzcdn = ûsocuuee'o upkum eîckvo&vW Gcq.œk%h.st

Sut-'l4e4 uq 'x o4oom lco-vJïoa.v abou.p1.> oo oou becar.aoïrûseee-xuuy:5)aoatvnc.efaî

'%

#Kâ.resvolse -

oa

u ove-..bex-$a,aoys. %

o4 sobsyqalyqtwwmz.

kx

woyt..s.& occurao

qIeP-oxldkq:GluiIs:VoowWqfs)koGk4çosearqe-4$î!u,&,ïuylo'.asq,cqz..pjuw.,o.mq'ï'co.iq,qsyksqaaac'q=woywqaxq%lia'=kqqso:qhk.e.o4eo-vx1su.,Tk$k44l0cx.1cîo-),sa;hr,-u.>ïïs.u.<emyïcouoaoslaqoooqyew.uwçv-uxo'ksvxuko.aïoç.se-sqlsctqw-ow-u

x k.q ..sojsoacm u tsa u ck g zxw,u.jx j' .

9 LEG AL CCAX M S
3y. ?l.'.q1'.W ceqyteae.sqlttkacoceorqtes% çv-< . eciçwsxphs$-'z3
35. % ckzuhazPtq-.q.k.(<tacm h,sjvlsuajqccus.% Uu-fqh oeWczxAaayuocotcîwvctvkc
''Lœphke*qrkq-slSso''saeQMwussskisAeFuocxtaq#eakd.rkq(u.xkq.s/tsut'.fsoyGu.i,.uc-.eaueo-mo.-wea.ua.kç!.q'x.Lkus4avwcpcro..ojat-xuasowaauuos.avssAa.mu.kavh(suuRuu:uasuouuaxaaop.uscur;q.lc<kv.r-awuuc-lwcuïuy,'poasw,.fcmsuaou-,wuav.pasuw.ï.uà,.çsxio,aswrvv-w---,qosxu-ae.azïxxq'ssulqsx&avkvssssyuwvw-aaaûqxicî
kozpwj.
'%ù. % dex'ia.jftqlfïlkf.tsGca ak.ttvlsoasqccusj.oomuq xp-ruqal.&.uvkaqosason:ox Lsr'wcbiisqshioauilveqxlit%x/-cbluseectoone.aooomaqctqttJooi.nkvavyocsu4tolosqwJkslpctla..:yov4x:l.pt)ûocerca'aoA.o.lit:,s$oNcak.auh.y.u?oGaraex.-ou#ws.tIsqo'xjsslrqoww.axvc
4&e1Uscaxclxas-pllo/onqtkzed fersons Ac1(quoxpA).aho.kJeovotKas''m,,su c'qlvs CM-*OSI% Fl.)nlv.ff kIIIïo-uc:4où:sr.&!k4i OnJCC'% AœtttbLoua LûM 0**-Q''d Iq* ''QA-*n*V=Q
-
soasAc# (:tozpA; .
#lr3'nhrrekeaU:qrspsts-vz.ûGl?astû3lsaewaWIulqà4slkcs%s4keue(xOonpoa>I.lL<oJGeu4eùuzC.wsïlpepbv.l4ktAkf.uk)#oa;.:àîàc.auvQ.#.:esu.wa&w..os9tmuPof.?twquq.4Gs.l:ucnogslk.ic.oL=lkùaa4.w.nïaru.s::ePl-cvxltboor.'osovuoxwn4-recaJotayùaxanqauw:.su,lualacts,.'I.s.9v.twoum..saas0u-.cka-su,.ou.'.rmaokalsrb4cato.yuot:.uunxoa.xqkl.kc0p:uu.x..,-e.wnewlxtkdAuor-lut.vfPatx.-ow.kIwb#.sue8pooeacuc#tarouxd,:anmaAa4e4.j&.-uk.0oeo.;olf(sr%s.Qnz:-yGnuoafa:r.auvuJ.xs.av.4ofa.yufpIluAtosso3otas0'xr.4yxv4a-cx.,àatwahzuwmawwtv-ut.puwc.wlc.z,$slat.oy.xsrq.-k-ys1.a .
3(èPP4qktSqâxT.vqwer'.rblkkce*T%iun.tsoc,?ktlwaczrvoees-a.kwekûmï:,vbsAt.ttk-sckïusrev4..svœuarwrP.tz.çli.sop.x(or.uxsnl-u):se.fz-.fxc-s<*,ct-c.msc4-eow,eA'vnom.bk-u..i;1zt;lai.sçhs.koo4smu1.ua:vcr,.o.oe4-awas.v?<x,'-.quackwe.key.>soo-aotbi-aeyua-v,4ocou.ala..J.1vg0a.,eecqnoaavtv4.dnt.twpvufx..fi.cs-Gntcleeicectwheassvzun-,ïAktqs'i.uscltkeoLatlsup',kl.o'.Is--cu).o-lezs'bh
slmww ruhu .

*7
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 7 of 10 Pageid#: 7

39. Eyleavlo esq'sa#-vf.fGceeaklts='%.#K nochoktcYA 'W e-q#Q % uukvcqv'sèïo.u s #u cïye.'u n ïaw so.k%vs'Isïqîu c cexwskoo,Dœfe-azqa: Govoï:&4.t-îûche-hqssubs-hnmqltuf
L cdeqed oaJcoa-knues.t.0 sobsu nixqilv éwraeu fto'.n.pl iceeuqkït's œ lvaqcuse-x- x= 4
eqlAqâ.oqh oukq.ktsqqtqs)'$avlotqyqoa'etvtraw.ff'srkawysuoàv A.u Qa-ïiizwsLûnàose-un4
'Ins.b:'kterwtlz.a PecseasA?+ (quuxem .w ssu?scw searx.acooyuuu :locz- w Vtqqawkf
Ctxrecokzkt'aa-w % usro k&s uaw < ceusvo-su u ow a.a.cosy.u .kw m u v.cso-sxw vuoxem .

tlö, R
tu dy

luvtu

ft.vlyvl

Cxrctnwktl

a

1.:%

loohokce -

<

.%.%o*w%Q

oà=hobm

ow <

*Q

w.l.a tiu ofks 'rsla-vccetukoa

co4 vaovsh s

,

œ-.k

aatba.yEortGoekscusc

h.ss u

ba-u

a.uxtlkjbwveto-

x

tcKl is A us 'okskntvov bwraeovt.a.kf.lGa.:Aitt'so-ïw uuse-xause-J ea'b:'o'on%

*'t'r4*lsuluikzorp11wlu').nJnqalk)za.4a*vkploouctsqpo.kuooswaaAoc'44uapCapteitrv.nv+yzo-,qp,m'cner.oe.a%,k?ejt-ss,lzhsuu.rauatwhelosssieodokoatwanczx1enudsnl.bRooovllu-v-j-apu%-l'vLexûaoudyè-Q-Pss-itosûtn>.'d#.-e+of

.

Llt. 6$ Jkaïlx.! gsayo<-T4(xkakyjtvys.ltaccesg.u xw-hk,acovwqs.u..w+ o.l ptaoyyxkf '

V ek-xzetzl-cIspx-ros.fIeA-kr.lcrrooblsj?.jlcpa:n,,wkr-sfcvxkacwtoii.poga.roofkaetwul.oc-ht.afcsiceiasocukz$x1q'sa.jcptljubolysyvotaRurrz'z%hkvll.(u

I)rs# AMeaa-

.# o

.l.u

tpayu.as:.us coaio #wkon. % .4 da lwl,*,,.sz.9w

eon.hxwqt

o = 'œ fl.axu. o - kzîjko.u .l.ktap1.,4A- . .ycouu .

92.

: kï

dcnv

s

puzo.qéfcca.k:tswswclqcceu

.to w

a ca .v.!.om..v.ç ptovayvw

4'cc.

rtl'; Istou rœttjuo
oxecccszo.ûk&!cutj?,

na

oaca4

A.nw

pâ

wm '.k
gobvbsoa lsao,

vaqguohw

:-

u14 .>

Gplav4nMl?affG,#.u -H

tla:.iu

s1u>n,'fscovnpsoktl< vkoooao..c-TPut..:#n:A.W.-Q1wtwvskeîdtlc'saaG'eoha&.f.siwùoGcs'rto'Hc-

C'tcsm
s,-

rw kll'lxavryG kzsFkrsl A< - rtjuu

t'<X*I. 3G.MdtekeE,naye.halvetulcovk%asso.vFçtlkqolvtsûqè.zbe.s('.t(F'otG-qvc-oec.vkxeutvtGstckuoezaala.hkhîesc'sok7oa.k#.œ-Gebxuoyekrâvhswo.ao.qç#ei%c&'cokoàerexkhlwsvvoovqa)vvokhtaoatv.uapuozuskca
G wsku voa xreo kqs's evauvso,gqz .> vkcsy Aexewtk- tw .- uvu zsu ï.s
&w w .e'Pwuy,ku c. xa w eooy.ao.su ra.,p.pï.ov.q ûrea uu wzm u %> vws.v
Y.

tlq, qy kavyo plq'.oi-l Gxvezk:lt.0u locxopœ b4 .loe.ai4oa wok't.A vpot..ua

G' dleo a tu

efk'elskeocrltuon ,

%

fe.atu

EeolK cks&te Ixs vpolaled

a@t7--uootaf#îckœ-clnnv-tlakli'o.v0c4ea. :4xoceav.auwltr.putui'sc.prxl,h'as-eukz4uax.ofdrnsacc.o,.znç,4k1a,ol.ela'lsw.(.la.ycxAq-u-cxxe.pc.tvozxen.y&o..@flou.t<osecaoolauor.kutoun:as6.,ta.o.Xvu/ox.i=t..k.:a

,rs4 A-w tas,oto uu.

q:
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 8 of 10 Pageid#: 8

3

,

NI .

itqvoqt.ptq',a#:lfG sEecWuïtutvcls#kowtW w cowa ea.v- vj'wlsem eo:--
G-ok-o etqkno W Gree-ouhlla aeobocexykoaw qy .uo aoA.sawâ o-x.sstoasAûsolcveà .wvn vyou u kw evshu uaze.r< coos.uiul.voacaaa ïqw soç#u klatk lFvtqve-s:*?&

, A QrebMlqœçq qaz vec-aaûalyogwac#roaorao Az.keoqyoal ùx otâw .f.ïczvkœ%

2Loth-oAq.$v,ptq%r$#W.(Csrqo kstsu,:#k #u,kawaou.t.ow'qlwoltujûctels N wxîuh ocolAo-u.

o&lt: atœss . ouJ.q pîxy xûlzrvtqoapo.wwv .y kogwoouoaorzcass c1c,.00n&:.0 Gocoîaw .u- u,-

.

.

q(lQ* Ftq'.n'Fv.flZfxtzm:ttioscox hysbeaa .Io,qa4ww n.i.œv.n:#a1,.i.%-taq/hof'Q..''lies

oth o.l-latorria.j dlsc:pllnuej m sw= usqcesuil; q preelT-:akajunaperroaaeoytrçlunomoq

24-153 delenn a.ls Q rou w .ct..u

aaaE.rIKzvltsclqte G

ee-frm a

ço.asewwlo

Ptqlnyiçé

roenkttG oa 1&w4 k.s kêen > ae,.a non-A tulasqreswil o.l14orl1swR os',Isilovpa

Conk ol-u,11A kia s .#u# u. aku

.j

-xqtq.oaueau lou

:d*e7mi.<maâ'1ttvtolfalos$.gk,kncaercel?aatsqt$tovar#.vscvlf.t#atc-lCkvœicoeatiaaokawilE.scaettroolao-LeporkssqaGqlnena-ytxy-atsjls4*)as.<,w

qm w4
mlly ;

J <
euai

s-zooo qaokas.#
veJ.> ln.<

.

q8. eswsaltç.lQîvèowm aïsostzksqa-ua 'Wlqtoaattttsuu Wkaktebkjqàuc.j,
ttA, ?$A;a.b.R ûro ak:îl1ts0seeksrecoveryo.7%B eas'l'S)>W GSusl'yao

. % . An

act&kw.scetle,lW u ccG

J4xzwagwsl,vcoor ,

œxés

uwsbh.,

lta.teé: Ve-bcwtxe.jlbzlol:

fke-swoWwkî.jSwk-%iieA hG oZA Cvce-nkiït l
4 lax luû

Rt.Aoluaso ,era n P.o.L x tqx ftwu )va.âqânq

MEU FILAN IOL

-2 kove= A11tq.#orsykaa co-vhï.iûu

vew w lôm .- #lvw aheoea

+ 'Vhm nam.pwe,extp kqsJoww'-#k.rsaslee oq'sal wswko. u ysel,.u ,as.w m ow ,x.
1 V kive.- .$ou,lv - . 'xeeavhulazrçpnat:Jvebwq.%1W.Qreovohs#w.qecor-

tyetA tïa.kVwoAavksNavqonGbcxryw yauku

At gwcay &c- ktii
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 9 of 10 Pageid#: 9
'@ q

CEQTI FXCATE oF SKRVXLe

1 . kcfsoaerAToo.qqwcaqtGcuexk,St@ Saoos:o, bgc- #'k.f4u #kq-t

on #kys - IU- ax .(!

Al:x a;aTa('...#Aztos-viha.w .% wsqyï

.

j

ql Red ookoa siq-ko-pclso'n a m a.ot. e-kw olol. ,cqzzreosea vo a u-ïex.u ,qlm:e-àsku -u s

,

D'slvpabG wc.b-atcFrnmkuwqooa sw sw-.u s H o Roqaoïxœ,vàrsxkavq l'Aohï-aaoa

TvaaIGw*'wteo.m-.Wkcuq-ô'.A..fbuïo'keq.zoadtncwtuo-tcodakaovc..okros#bs'e'.aklvnxoqw'VwMûcv)ewa'wekswrv.,.-eJcç4.,uoerl.ccoh0mvp'eqcïhom-.txa-cy.fks..<q.osauv'qmow-wwïivwouu'xçsvc&woqx-,emct.oQ#ovvo1aw-uQ

.
rhno o- voovo
e-xuvr.q .
so- v,

s ,

qwouwxs.

'

To:

Cto

k ,

tl-àt.àSh lestw.k

'rA.G

wv:

atto vswakv.ltou zsw,sw'..< jktô

oa hw1kq.aqott-z4bk

= s=-
Execw-k,a

uaz.a f<.l$.h orpecyvu #u #.<

a.k

euwsa ,

vlrsvxm

oapJbcoia

l b

G rm-zovo
4aosw

ys#.w.- .aà

cooceol.

A

7JJ,b.zùn'vq,

t xq tl% cwrevk-.îs

Suzeen.k w suks

NMotG.er?wktrcs

cz
('

c. . k.a..ypxsvw yuxs )c
a.

a.j.(

o.

ï -- psxcon Esgvr.s: w w .-y u (p

? .-

zoy .

I cea -fx #k..t#u qbo. nolw
uysa.#.?.oN.%w<xaœotpow, G MmA

.

-

.

.

.

NWM9YuPtpJ:ELEICj-

feml:Y lqwealhofvjrginia' '
? .i.XI$q,ël:jll-4h/,//6l:*tëà46'N1ô.v.3o,2017

Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 1 Filed 02/19/16 Page 10 of 10 Pageid#: 10

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

ALFONZA HARDY GREENHILL,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

HAROLD W. CLARKE, ET AL.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

Alfonza Hardy Greenhill, Pro Se Plaintiff.

Case No. 7:16CV00068
OPINION
By: James P. Jones United States District Judge

The plaintiff in this prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeks

a preliminary injunction. After review of the record, I conclude that the motion

must be denied.

Greenhill is an inmate at Virginia’s Red Onion State Prison. In both his

Complaint and the motion, Greenhill alleges that the defendant prison officials are

burdening his right to free exercise of his Islamic religious beliefs in three separate

respects, in violation of his rights under the First Amendment and the Religious

Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. In particular, he claims that (1) as a

Security S inmate, he cannot be bodily present at the Friday night Jum’ah service

and, without access to a television, cannot be visually present for a videotaped

version of Jum’ah that the prsion broadcasts; (2) he is not allowed to grow his

beard to the length of his fist as his religion requires, absent restrictive living

conditions and loss of privileges; and (3) his religious diet meal trays are contaminated when placed in the tray slot box where other, unclean items must also be placed. In his motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief, Greenhill asks the court to order the defendants to provide a communal television broadcast of Jum’ah, to revise the grooming policy to allow him to grow a four-inch beard (the length of his fist) in general population living conditions, and to return to utilizing removable tray slot boxes for Level S inmates, with one such box, properly cleaned, to be used exclusively for serving religious meals.
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). The party seeking the preliminary injunction must make a clear showing “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. A “plaintiff[] seeking preliminary relief [must] demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. Id. at 22. Because the primary purpose of injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo pending a resolution on the merits, interlocutory injunctive relief that changes the status quo pending trial cannot be “availed of to secure a piecemeal trial” and will only be granted when the court determines that “the
-2-

exigencies of the situation demand such relief.” Wetzel v. Edwards, 635 F.2d 283, 286 (4th Cir. 1980).
After review of the record, I conclude that Greenhill has not made the required showings for interlocutory injunctive relief. His motion seeks to change the status quo — to achieve court-ordered changes to the prison’s established accommodations of Islamic religious beliefs. Rather than maintaining the status quo between the parties, granting the requested relief would require prison officials to expend substantial resources and alter established Virginia Department of Corrections and institutional procedures. Moreover, Greenhill has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims or irreparable harm he will suffer absent the requested interlocutory court intervention. His own allegations indicate that the defendants have taken substantial steps to accommodate his religious dietary beliefs and provide him supplies to clean his cell, including his tray slot box. The record also reflects that officials will allow Greenhill to grow his beard to the length that his religion dictates, provided that he remain in a more secure housing unit.
I also cannot find that the balance of the equities tips in Greenhill’s favor or that the public interest will be best served by requiring prison officials to assume the financial burdens required to achieve the changes to Level S living conditions that Greenhill proposes, before his claims are resolved through the normal
-3-

litigation process. “In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 548 n.23, 29 (1979) (noting that operating penal institutions in manageable fashion involves “considerations [that] are peculiarly within the province and professional expertise of corrections officials” to which courts should give “substantial deference”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Furthermore, to grant the relief Greenhill seeks, I would have to decide, prematurely, the very legal questions he raises in his Complaint and order the defendants to make drastic changes to the status quo. Deciding issues in this piecemeal fashion is highly discouraged. Wetzel, 635 F.2d at 286. I simply do not find any “exigencies” in Greenhill’s current situation that warrant the immediate court intervention he seeks.
For the reasons stated, I will deny Greenhill’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
A separate Order will be entered herewith. DATED: March 23, 2016 /s/ James P. Jones United States District Judge
-4-

 
 UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6542
ALFONZA HARDY GREENHILL, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the State of Virginia Department of Corrections; A. DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Corrections Operations of the State of Virginia Department of Corrections; EARL BARKSDALE, Warden of Red Onion State Prison,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: November 18, 2016

Decided: December 22, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfonza Hardy Greenhill, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 32 Filed 12/22/16 Page 1 of 3 Pageid#: 280

PER CURIAM: Alfonza Hardy Greenhill appeals the district court’s order
denying his request for a preliminary injunction in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2012). Greenhill, a Muslim inmate currently confined in segregation, sought an injunction ordering prison officials to provide a television broadcast of the Jum’ah, a revision in the prison’s grooming policy, and a change in how he is served halal meals. The district court denied the requested injunction because Greenhill did not show that he could satisfy any of the factors set forth in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). On appeal, Greenhill only challenges the district court’s denial of injunctive relief regarding his access to the Jum’ah. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order as to its disposition of the grooming policy and halal meal claims. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014); Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004).
As to Greenhill’s claim concerning access to the Jum’ah, the district court made no specific findings of fact or conclusions of law in denying this claim. Rule 52(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., requires that the district court make particularized
2 Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 32 Filed 12/22/16 Page 2 of 3 Pageid#: 281

findings of fact supporting its decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction; such findings are necessary in order for an appellate court to conduct meaningful appellate review. See H & R Block Tax Servs. LLC v. Acevedo-Lopez, 742 F.3d 1074, 1078 (8th Cir. 2014). In the absence of any such specific findings, we are constrained to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying the requested injunction as to Greenhill’s Jum’ah claim. See WV Ass’n of Club Owners & Fraternal Servs., Inc. v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order as to the grooming policy and halal food claims, vacate it as to the Jum’ah claim, and remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
3 Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 32 Filed 12/22/16 Page 3 of 3 Pageid#: 282

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

ALFONZA HARDY GREENHILL, )

Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

)

HAROLD W. CLARKE, et al., )

Defendants

)

Civil Action No.: 7:16cv00068
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION By: PAMELA MEADE SARGENT United States Magistrate Judge

The pro se plaintiff, Alfonza Hardy Greenhill, (“Greenhill”), an inmate incarcerated at Red Onion State Prison, (“Red Onion”), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5, against the defendants, Harold W. Clarke, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, (“VDOC”), A. David Robinson, Chief of Corrections Operations for the VDOC, and Earl Barksdale, Warden of Red Onion. Greenhill asserts that restrictive living conditions in long-term administrative segregation interfere with his ability to exercise his Muslim religious beliefs related to his participation in the weekly service know as Jum’ah, as well as wearing a beard and maintaining a religious diet.
Greenhill has filed two motions, (Docket Item Nos. 4, 35) (“Motions”), seeking, among other relief, preliminary injunctive relief ordering prison officials to provide him with a television for viewing a weekly broadcast of the Jum’ah service. This court originally denied Greenhill’s request for preliminary injunctive relief, and Greenhill noted an interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of
-1-
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 41 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 11 Pageid#: 417

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings on Greenhill’s request for preliminary injunctive relief. On remand, Greenhill’s request for preliminary injunctive relief is before the undersigned magistrate judge on referral pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for a report setting forth appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended disposition.
I. Facts
In his sworn Complaint, (Docket Item No. 1), Greenhill claims that he has been a practicing Sufi Muslim since 2000. He claims that his religion requires “strict adherence, outwardly and inwardly, to the Sunnah (ways, habits, traditions) of the Prophet Muhammad…, his Sahabah (companions) and Sufi Masters.” He states that his religion obligates him to be present bodily or visually at the weekly Friday Islamic gathering known as Jum’ah. He states that Jum’ah is a central tenet of Islam and that “any adult Muslim male who is absent therefrom incurs a terrible sin and is deprived of the opportunity to acquire many blessings.”
In his Complaint, Greenhill concedes that he is housed in the S security level or segregation housing at Red Onion. He states that, as an inmate housed in segregation, he is confined to his cell for 23 hours a day and is only released from his cell to be escorted in handcuffs and leg shackles to an outside recreation cage, shower or medical department. As a segregation inmate, Greenhill is not allowed to attend weekly Jum’ah services. He states that Red Onion broadcasts a videotape of Jum’ah services every week for inmates in general population and segregation housing. According to Greenhill, the only segregation inmates who may view this service are those who can afford to purchase their own television from the commissary. Greenhill states that one of these televisions costs $212 and, as an
-2-
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 41 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 11 Pageid#: 418

indigent prisoner, he cannot afford to purchase a television. Therefore, he argues, he is precluded from visually accessing and participating in the weekly Jum’ah services. He claims that this preclusion places a substantial burden on his free exercise of his religious beliefs as a Sufi Muslim.
Greenhill further alleges that, because he refuses for religious reasons to comply with the VDOC’s policy limiting beards to a quarter of an inch in length, he is not eligible to obtain a prison job, which would allow him to earn money to buy a personal television from the commissary. Greenhill states that there are no communal televisions in Red Onion’s segregation pods, although there are cable and electrical outlets on the walls where there used to be communal televisions.
Greenhill has provided the court with a copy of VDOC Operating Procedure, (“OP”), 841.3, Offender Religious Programs, effective July 1, 2015. (Docket Item No. 4-3.) This OP establishes “protocols to provide reasonable opportunities for offenders incarcerated in Department of Corrections facilities to voluntarily pursue religious beliefs and practices subject to concerns regarding facility security, safety, order, space and resources.” This OP does not, however, address how inmates held in segregation can participate in religious services.
In response to the Motions, the defendants have filed the Affidavit of A. Duncan, the Unit Manager of C-Building at Red Onion. (Docket Item No. 40-1.) According to Duncan, Greenhill is serving a 15-year, 40-day sentence. Since Greenhill’s arrival at Red Onion in 2013, he has received 10 institutional disciplinary convictions. Duncan states that segregation at Red Onion is “utilized for the protective custody and/or custodial management of offenders and is not punitive.” She stated that VDOC OP 861.3, Special Housing, which she attached to
-3-
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 41 Filed 03/20/17 Page 3 of 11 Pageid#: 419

her Affidavit, sets forth the conditions of segregation. Duncan stated that offenders assigned to a segregated housing assignment are limited in their out-of-cell activities, and they may not attend group religious services. According to Duncan, these inmates may practice their faith in their cells and may request that the Chaplain visit their cells for private worship and counsel.
Duncan states that Greenhill has been in segregation at Red Onion since September 4, 2015, after receiving institutional disciplinary charges. Operating Procedure 830.A establishes procedures for the Segregation Reduction Step-Down Program, (“Step-Down Program”), at Red Onion. According to Duncan, the StepDown Program is an “incentive-based housing program which creates a pathway for offenders to step-down to lower security levels in a manner that maintains public, staff and offender safety.” Duncan states that the Step-Down Program is “a cognitive program which includes pro-social goals and requires the offender to complete 7 workbooks in the Challenge Series.” Duncan states that Greenhill refuses to participate in this Step-Down Program, and, therefore, he remains confined in a Special Management segregation assignment.
Duncan states that there are no communal televisions in the housing pods of the C-Building at Red Onion. She states that televisions are considered a privilege for offenders. According to Duncan, if Greenhill participated and met certain goals in the Challenge Series and remained infraction free, he could be considered for a pod job which would enable him to earn money to purchase a personal television.
-4-
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 41 Filed 03/20/17 Page 4 of 11 Pageid#: 420

II. Analysis
Greenhill seeks preliminary injunctive relief requiring the defendants to provide him with “the means,” i.e. a television, to visually observe Jum’ah services in his cell in segregation housing. “The standard for granting either a [temporary restraining order] or a preliminary injunction is the same.” Moore v. Kempthorne, 464 F. Supp. 2d 519, 525 (E.D. Va. 2006) (quoting U.S. ex rel. $12,642.00 U.S. Currency v. Commonwealth of Va., 2003 WL 23710710, at *1 (E.D. Va. 2003) (not reported) (citing Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton, 926 F.2d 353 (4th Cir. 1991); Ry. Labor Execs. v. Wheeling Acquisition Corp., 736 F. Supp. 1397 (E.D. Va. 1990)). A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief is required to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, that he is likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of equities tips in his favor and that an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, never awarded as of right. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 24. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court should grant a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. See Manning v. Hunt, 119 F.3d 254, 263 (4th Cir. 1997) (citing Hughes Network Sys., Inc. v. InterDigital Commc’ns Corp., 17 F.3d 691, 693 (4th Cir. 1994)).
Greenhill argues that the defendants’ failure to provide a television for his cell violates his rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to freely exercise his religion. Courts have held that, although inmates lose some constitutional protections upon incarceration, they retain the right to freely worship while in prison. See McManus v. Bass, 2006 WL 753017, at *4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2006) (citing O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987); Bell v.
-5-
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 41 Filed 03/20/17 Page 5 of 11 Pageid#: 421

Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545 (1979)). The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. …” U.S. CONST. amend. 1. The Free Exercise Clause extends to prison inmates. See O’Lone, 482 U.S. at 348; Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648, 656 (4th Cir. 2001). However, an inmate’s religious rights must be evaluated within the context of his incarceration. The Supreme Court has long cautioned that “courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration[,]” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405 (1974) (overruled on other grounds in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989)), and, therefore, the court “must accord deference to the officials who run a prison, overseeing and coordinating its many aspects, including security, discipline, and general administration[,]” Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 199 (4th Cir. 2006).
This deference is achieved by a rational basis test, under which the court considers four factors to determine if prison regulations are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests: (1) whether there is a “valid, rational connection” between the prison regulation or action and the interest asserted by the government, or whether the interest is “so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational;” (2) whether there are alternative means of exercising the asserted constitutional right that remain open to inmates; (3) what impact the desired accommodation would have on security staff, inmates and the allocation of limited prison resources; and (4) whether there exist any “obvious, easy alternatives” to the challenged regulation or action, which may suggest that it is “not reasonable, but is [instead] an exaggerated response to prison concerns.” Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 200 (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-92 (1987)). When applying these factors, the court must “respect the determinations of prison officials.” United
-6-
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 41 Filed 03/20/17 Page 6 of 11 Pageid#: 422

States v. Stotts, 925 F.2d 83, 86 (4th Cir. 1991). The burden of proof under the Turner analysis is on the prisoner to disprove the validity of the prison regulation at issue. See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003).
In order to establish a right under the Free Exercise Clause, Greenhill must make two threshold showings before turning to the rational basis test. First, he must show that he sincerely holds his religious beliefs. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 214-16 (1972). Second, Greenhill must show that his claims are rooted in religious belief and are not “purely secular.” Yoder, 406 U.S. at 215. If Greenhill can make these two threshold showings, he then must show that the free exercise of his religion is substantially burdened by the government policy or action at issue. See Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)
RLUIPA requires a “more searching standard of review … than the standard used in parallel constitutional claims: strict scrutiny instead of reasonableness.” Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 186 (internal quotations omitted). Section 3 of RLUIPA provides that “[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution … unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden … (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc-1(a) (West 2012). The term “government” as used in § 2000cc-1 is defined broadly to include: “(i) a State, county, municipality, or other governmental entity created under the authority of a State; (ii) any branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official of an entity listed in clause (i); and (iii) any other person acting under color of State law[.]” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc-5(4)(A) (West 2012). RLUIPA defines religious exercise as “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled
-7-
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 41 Filed 03/20/17 Page 7 of 11 Pageid#: 423

by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc-5(7)(A) (West 2012). “If a plaintiff produces prima facie evidence” of a RLUIPA violation, “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 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc-2(b) (West 2012).
As under the First Amendment, although prison officials may not question the truth of an inmate’s belief, an inmate must demonstrate that the belief is sincerely held in order to establish a protected right under RLUIPA. See McManus, 2006 WL 753017, at *5 (citing Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 725 n.13 (2005)). Under both the First Amendment and RLUIPA, an inmate also must show that his right to the free exercise of his religion has been “substantially burdened.” McManus, 2006 WL 753017, at *5 (quoting Hernandez v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). RLUIPA does not define “substantial burden.” However, the Fourth Circuit has held that a “substantial burden” on religious exercise occurs when a state or local government, through act or omission, puts substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs or one that forces a person to choose between following the precepts of his religion and forfeiting governmental benefits on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of his religion on the other hand. See Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 187 (internal quotation omitted); see also Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 404. Furthermore, this court previously has held that “[n]o substantial burden occurs if the government action merely makes the ‘religious exercise more expensive or difficult’ or inconvenient, but does not pressure the adherent to violate his or her religious beliefs or abandon one of the precepts of his
-8-
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 41 Filed 03/20/17 Page 8 of 11 Pageid#: 424

or her religion.” Marron v. Miller, 2014 WL 2879745, at *2 (W.D. Va. June 24, 2014) (citing Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1278 (11th Cir. 2007); Living Water Church of God v. Charter Tp. of Meridian, 258 F. App’x 729, 739 (6th Cir. 2007)).
The defendants do not contest Greenhill’s assertion that he is a practicing Sufi Muslim who must observe Jum’ah every Friday, and there is nothing in the record before the court to suggest that Greenhill does not sincerely hold this religious belief. To be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, however, Greenhill also must show that he is likely to prevail on his claim that the free exercise of his religious beliefs has been substantially burdened. Greenhill seeks preliminary injunctive relief ordering the defendants to provide him with “the means to visually access Jum’ah.” It is important to note that Greenhill conceded in his Complaint that Red Onion broadcasts a video recording of Jum’ah services every Friday. He also conceded that segregation prisoners who own a television were able to view the broadcast of Jum’ah services. Greenhill also conceded that Red Onion prisoners may purchase a personal television from the prison commissary for use in their cells. Nonetheless, Greenhill asserted that, because he is indigent and cannot afford to purchase a television, the defendants have denied him the right to visually access Jum’ah. Thus, the facts alleged by Greenhill, himself, show that the government action complained of here merely makes Greenhill’s exercise of his religious beliefs more expensive or difficult; the action does not pressure Greenhill to violate his religious beliefs or abandon one of the precepts of his religion.
I further note that the defendants also have produced evidence that it is Greenhill’s own action in refusing to participate in the Step-Down Program that prevents him from being transferred from segregation to a housing unit where he could receive a prison job and earn money to purchase a television. Also, the
-9-
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 41 Filed 03/20/17 Page 9 of 11 Pageid#: 425

defendants have produced evidence that Greenhill may freely practice his religion in his segregation cell in other ways, including requesting a visit from a chaplain to participate in private worship.
Based on the above reasons, I find that it is unlikely that Greenhill can demonstrate that the defendants’ actions have placed a substantial burden on the free exercise of his religious beliefs. That being the case, I also find that he has failed to show that it is likely he will prevail on the merits of either his First Amendment claim or his RLUIPA claim. Therefore, I will recommend that the court deny Greenhill’s request for preliminary injunctive relief.
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
As supplemented by the above summary and analysis, the undersigned now submits the following formal findings, conclusions and recommendations:
1. It is unlikely that Greenhill can demonstrate that the defendants’ actions placed a substantial burden on his right to freely exercise his religious beliefs;
2. Therefore, Greenhill has failed to show that he will likely prevail on his First Amendment claim or his RLUIPA claim; and
3. The court should deny Greenhill’s request for entry of preliminary injunctive relief.
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
Based on the above-stated reasons, I recommend the court deny the Motions requesting preliminary injunctive relief.
-10-
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 41 Filed 03/20/17 Page 10 of 11 Pageid#: 426

Notice to Parties Notice is hereby given to the parties of the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C): Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of this Report and Recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Failure to file written objection to these proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days could waive appellate review. At the conclusion of the 14-day period, the Clerk is directed to transmit the record in this matter to the Honorable James P. Jones, United States District Judge.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Report and Recommendation to all counsel of record and unrepresented parties.
DATED: March 20, 2017.
/s/ Pamela Meade Sargent
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-11-
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 41 Filed 03/20/17 Page 11 of 11 Pageid#: 427

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

ALFONZA HARDY GREENHILL,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

HAROLD W. CLARKE, ETC., ET AL., )

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 7:16CV00068
OPINION AND ORDER
By: James P. Jones United States District Judge

Alfonza Hardy Greenhill, Pro Se Plaintiff; Mary Grace Miller, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Criminal Justice and Public Safety Division, Richmond, Virginia, for Defendants.

This prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is before me on the

Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). The magistrate judge recommends that I should

deny the plaintiff’s motions seeking preliminary injunctive relief allowing him to

participate in a weekly group religious service. The plaintiff has filed timely

objections to the Report. After conducting a de novo review, I will overrule the

objections, adopt the Report, and deny Greenhill’s motions for interlocutory relief.

I.

In his Complaint, Greenhill contends that prison officials violated his right

to free exercise of his religious beliefs under the First Amendment and the

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). After I denied

Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 43 Filed 05/10/17 Page 1 of 5 Pageid#: 437

Greenhill’s motion seeking a preliminary injunction, he took an interlocutory appeal. Greenhill v. Clarke, No. 7:16CV00068, 2016 WL 1179225 (W.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2016), aff’d in part and remanded in part, No. 16-6542, 2016 WL 7414198 (4th Cir. Dec. 22, 2016) (unpublished). The court of appeals affirmed this court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief as to Greenhill’s claims regarding the prison’s grooming policy and process of serving religious meals, but remanded the case for further consideration of his contention that the court should order prison officials to allow him to participate in Jum’ah, the Islamic Friday congregational service. I referred the matter to the magistrate judge, resulting in the present Report and Greenhill’s objections to it.
The Report’s recites certain facts to which Greenhill does not object. Greenhill’s sincere religious beliefs require him to be present bodily or visually at Jum’ah. Greenhill arrived at Red Onion State Prison (“Red Onion”) in 2013. He was classified as a Security Level S inmate in September 2015 after he had incurred ten institutional disciplinary charges during the previous two years. Level S inmates are segregated from other inmates and therefore cannot bodily attend Jum’ah services. Red Onion broadcasts a videotape of Jum’ah services every week for inmates. There are no communal televisions available to Level S inmates like Greenhill. Level S inmates who own a television may view this service but Greenhill is indigent and cannot afford to purchase a television, which costs $212
-2Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 43 Filed 05/10/17 Page 2 of 5 Pageid#: 438

from the prison commissary. Greenhill remains in Level S and its restrictive conditions because he refuses to participate in the prison’s Step Down Program.
II. The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The district judge is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of a report and recommendation to which a party makes proper objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). The party seeking the preliminary injunction must make a clear showing “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. To state a viable claim under the First Amendment or RLUIPA, Greenhill must demonstrate that the defendant prison officials’ actions or policies place a substantial burden on his free exercise of his sincere religious belief. Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981) (First Amendment); Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 185 (4th Cir. 2006) (RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc1(a)). For purposes of the First Amendment or RLUIPA, a substantial burden on religious exercise occurs when a state action or policy “put[s] substantial pressure
-3Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 43 Filed 05/10/17 Page 3 of 5 Pageid#: 439

on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.” Id. at 187 (quoting Thomas, 450 U.S. at 718). “No substantial burden occurs if the government action merely makes the ‘religious exercise more expensive or difficult’ or inconvenient, but does not pressure the adherent to violate his or her religious beliefs or abandon one of the precepts of his or her religion.” Marron v. Miller, No. 7:13CV00338, 2014 WL 2879745, at *2 (W.D. Va. June 24, 2014) (citing Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1278 (11th Cir. 2007); Living Water Church of God v. Charter Twp. of Meridian, 258 F. App’x 729, 739 (6th Cir. 2007) (unpublished)).
Based upon these principles, the Report concludes that the facts in this case are not likely to support a viable claim that the defendants’ policies have prohibited Greenhill from practicing Jum’ah in segregation; rather, the Report finds, the policies have merely made his practice more inconvenient or expensive. To practice his beliefs, he must participate in the Step Down Program to work toward leaving segregation and/or purchase a television.
The Report finds that “[i]t is unlikely that Greenhill can demonstrate that the defendants’ actions placed a substantial burden on his right to freely exercise his religious beliefs,” and therefore, he “has failed to show that he will likely prevail on his First Amendment claim or his RLUIPA claim.” Report 10, ECF No. 41. The magistrate judge recommends that I deny Greenhill’s request to grant
-4Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 43 Filed 05/10/17 Page 4 of 5 Pageid#: 440

preliminary injunctive relief. Greenhill objects to of these findings and complains that his indigence and his inability to have a prison job (because of his noncompliance with the beard-grooming policy) prevent him from purchasing a television, and in turn, prevent him from practicing Jum’ah, in violation of his beliefs. These inconvenient or difficult aspects of his problem, however, are not caused by the challenged Jum’ah policies. On the contrary, the policies accommodate inmates’ Jum’ah practice. Greenhill’s Level S status, caused by his disciplinary problems, combined with his financial status, prevents him from participating in Jum’ah at this time. Thus, I find that Greenhill has not demonstrated a likelihood of success in proving a defendant-caused, substantial burden on his religious practice as required for a successful claim under the First Amendment or RLUIPA.
III. For the stated reasons, after de novo review of pertinent portions of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 42, are OVERRULED; the magistrate judge’s Report, ECF No. 41, is hereby ACCEPTED, and the plaintiff’s motions seeking preliminary relief, ECF Nos. 4 and 35, are DENIED.
ENTER: May 10, 2017 /s/ James P. Jones United States District Judge
-5Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 43 Filed 05/10/17 Page 5 of 5 Pageid#: 441

 
 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6696
ALFONZA HARDY GREENHILL, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the State of Virginia Department of Corrections; A. DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Corrections Operations of the State of Virginia Department of Corrections; EARL BARKSDALE, Warden of Red Onion State Prison,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: October 31, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfonza Hardy Greenhill, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Mary Grace Miller, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 50 Filed 10/31/17 Page 1 of 2 Pageid#: 452

PER CURIAM: Alfonza Hardy Greenhill appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s report and denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.* See Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Greenhill v. Clarke, No. 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB (W.D. Va. May 10, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
* By this disposition, we express no opinion as to the ultimate merits of Greenhill’s claims.
2 Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 50 Filed 10/31/17 Page 2 of 2 Pageid#: 453

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

ALFONZA HARDY GREENHILL, Plaintiff,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, ET AL.,
Defendants.

) ) ) Case No. 7:16CV00068 ) ) OPINION AND ORDER ) ) By: James P. Jones ) United States District Judge )

Alfonza Hardy Greenhill, Pro Se Plaintiff; Laura H. Cahill and Mary Grace Miller, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Defendants.

The plaintiff, Alfonza Hardy Greenhill, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se,

filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use

and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5.

Greenhill asserts that restrictive living conditions in long-term administrative

segregation interfere with his ability to exercise his sincere religious beliefs related

to group religious services, wearing a four-inch beard, and maintaining a religious

diet. After review of the record, I conclude that the defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment must be granted in part and denied in part.

I.

Greenhill is serving a fifteen-year prison term in the custody of the Virginia

Department of Corrections (“VDOC”) for convictions including assault, robbery,

Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 53 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 15 Pageid#: 459

and firearms offenses. He is currently assigned to Red Onion State Prison (“Red Onion”). Red Onion and its sister facility, Wallens Ridge State Prison (“Wallens Ridge”), house all “Level S” inmates, reserved for inmates who must be managed in a segregation setting.1 Once in this status, a Level S inmate may participate in the Segregation Reduction Step-Down Program, designed to “create a pathway for offenders to step-down from Security level S to lower security levels in a manner that maintains public, staff and offender safety.” Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., Duncan Aff. Enclosure B, Operating Procedure (“OP”) 830.A(I), ECF No. 26-1.
The Step Down Program is goal-oriented. When inmates succeed in completing the established goals in each stage of the procedure, they are rewarded by moving to the next step and earning its additional privileges. An inmate’s status on a step-down pathway is formally reviewed every ninety days by the Institutional Classification Authority (“ICA”). At the most restrictive level of the inmate’s assigned pathway, he cannot attend group religious services, possess a television in his cell, or hold a job. If he completes certain goals of the Step Down Program, however, he may be assigned to less restrictive steps and earn back privileges, including the ability to have a paid job and use a personal television in his cell.
1 According to the current VDOC operating procedure for security level classification available online at http://www.vadoc.virginia.gov/about/procedures, inmates are classified to Level S based on various qualifying history of serious prison conduct, including violence and gang activity
-2Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 53 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 15 Pageid#: 460

After Greenhill arrived at Red Onion in February 2013, the ICA recommended him for assignment to the Structured Living Phase 1 pod. In this status under OP 830.A, inmates can have jobs and use a television in their cells, among other privileges. Greenhill refused to participate in the Step Down Program at that time, and as a result, he was assigned to the most restrictive step of the Special Management pathway, known as SM-0 status. In May 2014 Greenhill was assigned to the Secure Integration Pod Phase 1, where the privileges again included job possibilities and possessing a television in one’s cell. In September 2015 however, Greenhill was returned to SM-0 status after he had incurred ten institutional disciplinary charges during the previous two years.
Greenhill states that he has been a Muslim since 2000. He asserts that his Muslim faith requires him to participate in a weekly Jum’ah service with at least three other Muslims. He also contends that he cannot perform Jum’ah alone or with Red Onion’s Christian chaplain. As a Level S inmate, Greenhill cannot physically attend Jum’ah group services. The prison broadcasts a videotaped version of Jum’ah that Level S inmates with personal televisions may watch once they have progressed beyond SM-0 status. Greenhill does not own a television and is classified at SM-0 status, so he cannot use a television or work to earn money toward purchasing one. No communal televisions are made available to Level S.
-3Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 53 Filed 12/15/17 Page 3 of 15 Pageid#: 461

Greenhill also states that his Muslim faith requires him to grow and keep his beard trimmed to the length of his fist, or about four inches long. The VDOC’s grooming policy, OP 864.1, requires inmates to keep their beards trimmed to no longer than one-quarter inch. Since at least October 2015 Greenhill has worn his beard longer than allowed under OP 864.1. All violators of this policy must remain in segregated confinement unless they meet qualifications for transfer to the Grooming Policy Violators Housing Unit (“VHU”), a unit designated for special management of male inmates not in compliance with OP 864.1. At the time of this lawsuit, for eligibility to seek transfer to the VHU, Greenhill was required to complete the Challenge Series, serve a minimum of six months in segregation, and remain free of disciplinary charges for three to six months.
Greenhill receives the Common Fare diet that is comprised of halal foods consistent with his Muslim dietary beliefs. At mealtimes, officers place his Common Fare meal tray in the security box attached to his door so that he can retrieve the meal through the tray slot. Greenhill contends that the security box contaminates his meals, because at other times, he must place dirty clothes, shoes, and used cleaning materials in the box.
Greenhill filed this lawsuit in early 2016 against three VDOC officials: Harold Clarke, Director; A. David Robinson, Chief of Operations; and Earl Barksdale, Warden of Red Onion. The suit seeks monetary damages and
-4Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 53 Filed 12/15/17 Page 4 of 15 Pageid#: 462

permanent injunctive relief.2 He contends that the defendants should adjust prison policies to accommodate his religious practices by allowing him to view the weekly Jum’ah service on a communal television in the pod area, in a nearby classroom or in person; by permitting him to maintain a four-inch-long beard without remaining in segregation; and by serving Common Fare meals in a manner that does not contaminate the serving trays. The defendants have moved for summary judgment, and Greenhill has responded, making the motion ripe for disposition.
II. A. Standard of Review. A court should grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “As to materiality . . . [o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the
2 I have already twice denied Greenhill’s separate motions for preliminary injunction. See Greenhill v. Clarke, No. 7:16CV00068, 2017 WL 1929669 (W.D. Va. May 10, 2017) (Jum’ah), aff’d, Greenhill v. Clarke, 699 F. App’x 280 (4th Cir. 2017) (unpublished); Greenhill v. Clarke, No. 7:16CV00068, 2016 WL 1179225 (W.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2016), aff’d in part regarding the grooming policy and halal food service claims, remanded as to Jum’ah claim, No. 16-6542, 2016 WL 7414198 (4th Cir. Dec. 22, 2016) (unpublished).
-5Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 53 Filed 12/15/17 Page 5 of 15 Pageid#: 463

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. I must draw all reasonable inferences from the facts in favor of Greenhill, the nonmoving party. Williams v. Staples, Inc., 372 F.3d 662, 667 (4th Cir. 2004).
B. First Amendment Claims. Under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, prison officials must reasonably accommodate an inmate’s exercise of his sincerely held religious beliefs. O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 350 (1987). To prove a violation of this right, an inmate must first state facts sufficient to show that the challenged prison regulation substantially burdens his right to free exercise of a sincerely held religious belief. Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 187 (4th Cir. 2006). In this context, “a substantial burden is one that puts substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because “courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration,” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405 (1974), they must defer to the expertise of prison officials in crafting policies addressing those problems, such as security, discipline, and efficient use of limited resources; therefore, a prison regulation that substantially burdens inmates’ religious practices is, nevertheless, “valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate
-6Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 53 Filed 12/15/17 Page 6 of 15 Pageid#: 464

penological interests.” Id. at 199 (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). This determination turns on a four-factor test: (1) “whether there is a valid, rational connection between the prison regulation” and the asserted government interest; (2) whether Greenhill was “deprived of all forms of religious exercise or whether [he was] able to participate in other observances of [his] faith; (3) what impact the desired accommodation would have on security staff, inmates, and the allocation of prison resources; and (4) “whether there exist any obvious, easy alternatives to the challenged regulation.” Id. at 200 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The defendants do not challenge the sincerity of Greenhill’s Muslim beliefs. Rather, they argue that Greenhill’s First Amendment claims fail under the fourfactor Turner test and/or the substantial burden requirement. I agree.
Given the violent, disruptive histories of the inmates classified to Level S, Red Onion officials clearly have legitimate security interests that are furthered by keeping Level S inmates physically separate from each other and from other inmates. See Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648, 660 (4th Cir. 2001) (“Without question, prison safety and security is a legitimate, indeed compelling, penological interest.”). The defendants also assert that the VDOC has a legitimate penological interest in the success of the Step Down Program to maintain order, motivate inmates to reduce disruptive and dangerous behaviors, and promote the successful
-7Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 53 Filed 12/15/17 Page 7 of 15 Pageid#: 465

re-entry of a Level S inmate post-incarceration. They contend that current restrictions on SM-0 inmates’ privileges, including the television ban, are rationally related to and further this interest by maintaining incentives for inmates to participate in the Step-Down Program. I so find.
Moreover, I also find that Greenhill can practice his religious beliefs in many ways other than group service participation. As consistent with his religious beliefs, he may engage in personal study of religious texts and prayer in his cell, he receives Common Fare meals, and he may grow his beard. Finally, I find that Greenhill fails to demonstrate any readily available alternative means to provide the requested Jum’ah access and accomplish the purposes of the step-down program to the same extent without additional financial and staffing costs. Thus, I conclude that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Greenhill’s First Amendment claim that SM-0 regulations violate his free exercise right related to group religious services.
Similarly, the VDOC’s quarter-inch beard limit meets the factors of the Turner test. This court has held that the current VDOC grooming policy on beard length is reasonably related to legitmate prison security interests. See Bayadi v. Clarke, No. 7:15CV00618, 2017 WL 4248522, at *8 (W.D. Va. Sept. 25, 2017) (Moon, J.). In the Bayadi case, the court found that:
Bayadi does not show that it is unreasonable for the VDOC to prohibit inmates from growing beards of indeterminate length while housed in
-8Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 53 Filed 12/15/17 Page 8 of 15 Pageid#: 466

general population. There is a “valid, rational connection” between regulating beard length and defendants’ explanations about security and sanitation. See Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 182, 190 (stating “emphatically that any substantive explanation offered by the prison must be viewed with due deference”). . . . [T]he government has legitimate penological interests in identification of inmates, preventing the spread of contraband, and inmate hygiene. There is a rational connection between OP 864.1’s beard length restrictions and these interests. . . . [I]t is Bayadi’s burden to disprove the reasonableness of these regulations — and he has not done so.
Id. I find the reasoning in Bayadi to be persuasive. As such, I also find that the
defendants in this case have satisfied the rational relationship aspect of the Turner
standard. Greenhill is able to maintain his beard at the desired length and to
practice other aspects of his religious beliefs. Finally, he fails to show any easy
alternatives to address to the same extent the security concerns presented by his
four-inch beard. Therefore, I will grant summary judgment for the defendants on
Greenhill’s First Amendment claim regarding his beard.
I also find no merit to Greenhill’s First Amendment claim that current tray
box procedures violate his religious dietary practices. The defendants’ undisputed
evidence is that each inmate is responsible for keeping his tray box clean as part of
his cell. An inmate receives two sponges for cell cleaning, replaced as needed
upon request. Once each week, he is also provided cleaning chemicals. Greenhill
complains that this cleaning system does not meet Muslim standards that require
any item touching food to be rinsed three times in clean water. He proposes that
-9Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 53 Filed 12/15/17 Page 9 of 15 Pageid#: 467

officials should use portable tray boxes and maintain one to be used only for halal meals.
The defendants’ refusal to follow Greenhill’s portable box proposal does not violate the First Amendment. First, Greenhill fails to show any substantial burden on his religious dietary beliefs. The two sponges provided allow Greenhill to reserve one sponge to clean his tray box after every transaction, while using the other sponge for cleaning other parts of his cell. Prison practices do not substantially burden an inmate’s rights if they merely make his “religious exercise more expensive or difficult,” but fail to pressure the adherent to violate his religious beliefs or abandon one of the precepts of his religion. Living Water Church of God v. Charter Twp. of Meridian, 258 F. App’x 729, 739 (6th Cir. 2007). Second, the two sponge practice meets the Turner test factors. It clearly furthers the prison’s interests in keeping costs low and teaching inmates responsibility. Greenhill may comply with his dietary beliefs by eating his Common Fare meals and keeping his tray box clean himself, and he has presented no easy alternatives that would both accommodate his concerns over cleanliness and further prison interests to a similar extent. Finding no genuine material fact in dispute, I will grant the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on this claim.
Finally, I will grant the defendants’ motion as to Greenhill’s complaint that the defendants’ failure to provide a communal television for Level S inmates
-10Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 53 Filed 12/15/17 Page 10 of 15 Pageid#: 468

violates OP 830.A, the Step Down procedure.3 State officials’ failure to abide by state procedural regulations is not a federal due process issue, and is, therefore, not actionable under § 1983. Riccio v. Cty. of Fairfax, 907 F.2d 1459, 1469 (4th Cir. 1990) (“If state law grants more procedural rights than the Constitution would otherwise require, a state’s failure to abide by that law is not a federal due process issue.”); see also United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 751-52 (1979) (where a government agency is not constitutionally required to adopt certain regulations, a violation of those regulations, without more, does not “raise any constitutional questions”).
C. RLUIPA Claims. RLUIPA provides federal statutory protection of prisoners’ religious exercise under a stricter legal standard: “RLUIPA prohibits [state] prisons from imposing a substantial burden on an inmate’s religious exercise unless prison officials can demonstrate that the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest by the least restrictive means.” Miles v. Moore, 450 F. App’x 318, 319 (4th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)). A RLUIPA analysis consists of two steps. First, the inmate “bears the initial burden to demonstrate that the prison’s policy exacts a substantial burden on religious
3 Appendix G to OP 830.A indicates that inmates at all levels of the SM pathway will be provided with a television to watch education and religious programming. Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., Duncan Aff. Enclosure B, ECF No. 26-1.
-11Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 53 Filed 12/15/17 Page 11 of 15 Pageid#: 469

exercise.” Incumaa v. Stirling, 791 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2015). For purposes of a RLUIPA claim, “a substantial burden on religious exercise occurs when a state or local government, through act or omission, ‘put[s] substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.’” Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 187 (quoting Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981)). Only if the inmate proves that there is a substantial burden on his religious practice, does “the burden shift[] to the government to prove its policy furthers a compelling governmental interest by the least restrictive means.” Incumaa, 791 F.3d at 525.
Greenhill raises all three of his claims under RLUIPA as well as the First Amendment. All of Greenhill’s claims under RLUIPA fail to the extent that he seeks monetary damages, because such relief is not available under RLUIPA. See, e.g., Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277, 285-86 (2011) (finding damages not recoverable against defendants in their official capacities under RLUIPA); Rendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182, 189 (4th Cir. 2009) (finding no RLUIPA claim for damages available against defendants in their individual capacities). In addition, I conclude that Greenhill’s third claim, regarding tray box cleanliness, fails under the substantial burden facet of the RLUIPA standard, just as in the First Amendment analysis. Therefore, I will grant summary judgment for the defendants on the tray box claim and on all claims for monetary damages.
-12Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 53 Filed 12/15/17 Page 12 of 15 Pageid#: 470

The defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Greenhill’s beard length claim under a prior decision of this court, Coleman v. Jabe, No. 7:11CV518, 2014 WL 2040097 (W.D. Va. May 16, 2014) (upholding VDOC grooming policy under RLUIPA). The defendants also argue for summary judgment on Greenhill’s claim concerning his inability as a Level S inmate to participate in Jum’ah services, based on their contention that he fails to show how the VDOC policies at issue have substantially burdened his religious practice.
The defendants contend that prison officials have provided an avenue for Level S inmates who are Muslim to participate in Jum’ah by participating in the Step Down Program to achieve greater privilege levels where they can work to earn money to buy a television, and thereby participate in the Jum’ah broadcast. They also argue that Level S inmates who also refuse to comply with the VDOC grooming standards have the potential for transfer to the VHU.
Greenhill states, however, that “[u]ntil [he] complies with the VDOC’s beard length limitation (which is something he has vowed to Allah never to do), he will not be permitted to attain institutional employment” to purchase a television. Compl. 3, ECF No. 1. He also asserts that his failure to comply with the beard grooming requirements will prevent him from progressing in the Step Down Program as he must do to become eligible for transfer to the VHU. See Greenhill Decl. 3, ECF No. 31. Greenhill also points out the absence of evidence in the
-13Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 53 Filed 12/15/17 Page 13 of 15 Pageid#: 471

record that even if he were transferred to the VHU, he would be able to participate in Jum’ah. The defendants have not addressed these facts and arguments, and I find them critical to any determination of Greenhill’s remaining RLUIPA claims. I also note that the Bayadi decision, issued after the defendants filed their motion, denied summary judgment for prison officials on these same claims, in contravention of the defendants’ reliance here on the Coleman decision. For these reasons, I will deny the defendants’ motion as to Greenhill’s RLUIPA claims regarding the beard length policy and the policies affecting his ability to participate in Jum’ah. I will, however, grant the defendants an opportunity to submit a supplemental motion for summary judgment.
III. In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED as to Greenhill’s claims under RLUIPA against the defendants in their official capacities for injunctive relief regarding beard length and Jum’ah participation and the motion is GRANTED as to all other claims. The defendants are granted leave to file a supplemental motion for summary judgment within 28 days of the date of entry of this Opinion and Order or the matter will be set for trial.
-14Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 53 Filed 12/15/17 Page 14 of 15 Pageid#: 472

ENTER: December 15, 2017 /s/ James P. Jones United States District Judge
-15Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 53 Filed 12/15/17 Page 15 of 15 Pageid#: 473

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

ALFONZA HARDY GREENHILL, Plaintiff,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, ET AL.,
Defendants.

) ) ) Case No. 7:16CV00068 ) ) OPINION AND ORDER ) ) By: James P. Jones ) United States District Judge )

Alfonza Hardy Greenhill, Pro Se Plaintiff; Laura H. Cahill, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Defendants.

The plaintiff, Alfonza Hardy Greenhill, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se,

filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use

and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5.

By Opinion and Order entered in this case on December 15, 2017, ECF No. 53, I

granted summary judgment for the defendant prison officials as to certain of

Greenhill’s claims. The matter is now before me on the defendants’ Supplemental

Motion for Summary Judgment on Greenhill’s remaining claims for injunctive

relief under RLUIPA regarding his Muslim religious practices of participating in weekly group Jum’ah services and wearing a four-inch beard.1 After review of the

1 The defendants are Harold Clarke, Director, A. David Robinson, Chief of Operations, and Earl Barksdale, former warden. In support of their motion, they offer
Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 1 of 19 Pageid#: 791

record, I conclude that the defendants’ are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
I. BACKGROUND. Greenhill is in the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections (“VDOC”), serving a prison term of fifteen years and forty days.2 He states that he has been a Muslim since 2000. He asserts that his Muslim faith requires him to participate in a weekly Jum’ah group religious service with at least three other Muslims. Greenhill also states that his religious beliefs require him to grow and keep his beard trimmed to the length of his fist, or about four inches long. He has claimed that he is confined in an administrative segregation unit where policies prevent him from participating in Jum’ah services, in person or via television. He also alleges that wearing a four-inch beard, in violation of prison grooming policies, will prevent him from moving to less restrictive conditions and from obtaining a job so he could purchase a television for Jum’ah participation. He claims that the defendants’ policies and actions under those policies have substantially burdened his religious practices, and he seeks injunctive relief under RLUIPA.
affidavits from Unit Manager Larry Collins and former Unit Manager A. Duncan, with supporting documentation.
2 This summary of facts is taken from the parties’ submissions as a whole and is undisputed, except where otherwise noted.
-2Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 2 of 19 Pageid#: 792

A. Participation in Group Religious Services. VDOC policies have established “protocols to provide reasonable opportunities for offenders incarcerated in [VDOC] facilities to voluntarily pursue religious beliefs and practices subject to concerns regarding facility security, safety, order, space, and resources.” Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 2, Operating Procedure (“OP”) 841.3(I), ECF No. 26-2. Inmates in Security Levels 1 through 5 (with Level 1 depicting the lowest measure of security) may attend group religious worship services with other inmates, subject to varying degrees of staff monitoring based on inmates’ security levels; time, space, and staffing constraints; and other needs of orderly prison operations. OP 841.3(IV)(A)(7). After Greenhill entered VDOC custody in 2007, he was assigned to Deep Meadows Correctional Center, a Security Level 2 facility, and then to Sussex II State Prison, a Level 4 facility. Because Greenhill was found guilty of a series of institutional disciplinary infractions in 2008, however, he was transferred to Red Onion State Prison (“Red Onion”) and was reclassified as a Security Level S. Level S is a security status reserved for inmates who must be managed in a segregation setting, apart from other inmates, for reasons of security and order.3 To earn eligibility for less
3 According to the VDOC operating procedure for security level classification, inmates are classified to Level S based on “segregation qualifiers,” including gang activity or leadership, manipulating staff or displaying predatory behavior, or acts posing a “threat level too great for the safety and security of a lower level institution.” See OP
-3Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 3 of 19 Pageid#: 793

restrictive classifications, a Level S inmate must complete the various requirements of the Segregation Reduction Step-Down Program (“Step-Down Program”) set out in VDOC Operating Procedure (“OP”) 830.A.4
In February 2013, when the current Step-Down Program policy took effect, the Institutional Classification Authority (“ICA”) at Red Onion recommended Greenhill for assignment to the Structured Living Phase 1 pod, a general population setting rather than segregation. In this status under OP 830.A, inmates can have jobs and use a television in their cells, among other privileges. Greenhill refused this general population assignment and remained in segregation, awaiting reclassification. In March 2013, the ICA again reviewed his housing status and noted that he had “advised staff that he would prefer to remain in segregation rather than go into a Phase 1 housing assignment.” Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 1, Duncan Aff. ¶ 10, ECF No. 26-1.
Ultimately, Greenhill was assigned to SM-0 status, the most restrictive step of the program’s Special Management pathway of the program. SM status is reserved for inmates with a history of disruptive behavior, fighting, and/or violence toward staff or other inmates for whom reasonable interventions at lower security
830.2(IV)(G)(2), VDOC Procedures (Apr. 1, 2018) https://vadoc.virginia.gov/about/ procedures/ documents/ 800/830-2.pdf.
4 My previous Opinion described Level S and the Step-Down procedures in detail and need not be repeated.
-4Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 4 of 19 Pageid#: 794

level facilities have not been successful in eliminating such disruptive and dangerous behaviors. An SM-0 inmate cannot participate in group activities with other inmates, possess a personal television in his cell, or hold a job. In May 2014, Greenhill was assigned to the Secure Integration Pod Phase 1, where the privileges again included job possibilities and possessing a television in one’s cell. In September 2015, after Greenhill had incurred ten institutional disciplinary charges in two years, officials reassigned him SM-0 status.
The Step-Down Program requires inmates to learn and display new thought patterns and social skills. As they do so, they earn advancement to lower, less restrictive housing assignments and greater privileges, in a manner that maintains public, staff, and inmate safety. To progress in the program and attain SM-1 status, Greenhill must complete designated portions of the seven workbooks in the Challenge Series, which teach positive thinking patterns. He must also remain free of disciplinary charges and earn good weekly behavior ratings in cell maintenance, personal hygiene, standing for count, and respect. When an inmate incurs new disciplinary charges or continually fails to meet positive behavior goals, evaluators may find that he has not learned the intended lessons and require him to remain in his current step or start the program anew.
Since his assignment to SM-0 in September 2015, Greenhill has incurred nine additional institutional disciplinary charges. He has, at times, participated in
-5Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 5 of 19 Pageid#: 795

the Step-Down Program, and he completed the Orientation Book of the Challenge Series on November 15, 2017. A month later, however, Greenhill incurred another disciplinary charge for tampering with a security device. At the time the parties filed the pleadings currently before me for review, in January and February 2018, Greenhill remained at SM-0 status.
Like all segregation status inmates, Level S inmates cannot congregate with other inmates, even for religious services. A Level S inmate who has progressed beyond SM-0 status to SM-1 or SM-2, however, can participate in the weekly Jum’ah group religious service via a closed circuit television broadcast. Greenhill does not own a personal television, and the Step-Down Program pods are not equipped with closed circuit televisions for inmates’ use. Greenhill has asked prison officials to provide him with a television for Jum’ah purposes only — in his cell, in the pod, or in a nearby classroom. Although the defendants admit that officials could physically provide any of these accommodations to Greenhill, they have denied his requests because of his security level and housing assignment to SM-0.
Instead, officials have advised Greenhill to remain infraction free and participate consistently in the Step-Down Program requirements to earn eligibility for advancement past SM-0. When he achieves SM-1 or SM-2, he can be considered for a paid job and save money toward purchasing a personal television
-6Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 6 of 19 Pageid#: 796

set from the commissary for $212. According to the unit managers, the Step-Down Program procedures use television access as a motivational tool. Only inmates in SM-0 or IM-0 (the lowest step in the Intensive Management pathway of the StepDown Program) are denied television access. “There are incentives built into the Step-Down Program which we hope will motivate the offenders to participate and work toward long-term behavioral changes, new thought patterns and social skills.” Duncan Aff. ¶ 13, ECF No. 26-1. “An offender’s ability to possess a television inside his cell is a privilege that most inmates covet, and it is one of the biggest motivators for encouraging offenders to participate in the Step-Down program.” Collins Aff. ¶ 10, ECF No. 55-1.
B. Beard Length Policies. The VDOC grooming policy, OP 864.1(I), establishes uniform personal grooming standards for inmates “to facilitate the identification of offenders and to promote safety, security, and sanitation.” Id. at Enclosure D. “Hair styles and beards that could conceal contraband, promote identification with gangs, create a health, hygiene, or sanitation hazard, or that could significantly compromise the ability to identify an offender are not allowed.” Id. at ¶ 13. The policy now requires inmates to keep their beards trimmed to no longer than half an inch. When an inmate becomes noncompliant with the OP 864.1 grooming requirements, he will be ordered to comply. If he refuses, he will be charged with
-7Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 7 of 19 Pageid#: 797

a policy offense, and receive disciplinary procedural protections required by the VDOC’s disciplinary policy. No inmate will receive more than one grooming charge for each separate violation incident, and all inmates who remain noncompliant with grooming standards will stay in segregated housing until they do comply. As of November 6, 2017, a Level S inmate participating in the StepDown Program who refuses to comply with VDOC grooming standards on the basis of religious principles will receive only one charge and “will not receive a ‘poor’ in the personal hygiene category” of the weekly behavior ratings. Id. at ¶ 16.
As OP 864.1 now stands, an inmate “is not prevented from progressing through the Step-Down Program for refusing to comply with the grooming policy due to his religious beliefs.” Id. If he participates in that program and earns assignment to a less restrictive step, he can be considered for a pod job without shaving his beard. He “is not required to shave his beard in order to obtain a pod job.” Id. at ¶ 12.
Furthermore, inmates who are noncompliant with OP 864.1 hair and beard restrictions for religious reasons may qualify for assignment to the Grooming Policy Violators Housing Unit (“VHU”).5 The VHU is a special management housing unit, but allows its inmates privileges that Level S inmates do not have.
5 The VHU is actually located at the nearby Wallens Ridge State Prison, a similar high security prison.
-8Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 8 of 19 Pageid#: 798

Among other benefits, the VHU housing areas are equipped with communal televisions with in-cell volume controls to allow for inmates’ visual participation in weekly Jum’ah services via a closed circuit television broadcast.
To be found eligible for the VHU, Greenhill must meet the following criteria: (a) be convicted of a grooming policy violation and (b) have “[n]o past history of disruptive or assaultive behavior as determined by review team.” Id. at Enclosure D, OP 864.1(V)(C)(1). A recommendation for assignment to the VHU must be reviewed by the ICA at Red Onion and the VDOC Central Classification Services (“CCS”), with final decisions or exceptions approved by Facility Unit Head and the Regional Operations Chief.
C. Greenhill’s Allegations and Claims. Greenhill claims that “since the defendants have made [his] visual access to Jum’ah contingent upon ownership of a personal television [he does] not own and cannot afford to purchase, they have substantially burdened [his] religious exercise of Jum’ah” in SM-0. Greenhill Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 57. He states that even if he can move to a status allowing employment, this burden on his religious practice will continue. According to Greenhill, the pay rate for pod jobs is 20 to 35 cents per hour. With other necessary expenses including hygiene and stationery items and medical expenses, it may be years before he could save $212 to buy a television. He states that “Jum’ah is a central tenet of Islam; any adult Muslim
-9Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 9 of 19 Pageid#: 799

male who is absent therefore incurs a terrible sin and is deprived of the opportunity
to acquire many blessings.” Compl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 1.
Greenhill also claims that because his religion requires him to maintain a
beard that exceeds the length requirements of OP 864.1, he will be maintained
indefinitely in segregated confinement. This housing status deprives him of many
activities available to VDOC inmates in a general population setting, including:
Jum’ah participation, institutional employment, recreational activities like soccer
and basketball, and earning good conduct time to shorten his term of confinement.
Greenhill contends that factors beyond his control prevent his qualification
to enter the VHU, where he could wear his beard and participate in the televised
Jum’ah. First, his assaultive disciplinary history precludes him from VHU
eligibility unless three levels of administrative reviewers make an exception and
approve him for VHU admittance. Second, he has not yet received a grooming charge, another prerequisite for VHU consideration.6
To address these alleged violation of his rights under RLUIPA, Greenhill
asserts that I should order prison officials to “accommodate [him] with the means
6 In his responsive pleadings, Greenhill complains that Unit Manager Collins, who is not a defendant in this case, has refused to charge him with a disciplinary offense for failing to comply with grooming policy requirement for religious reasons. Collins allegedly believes that the VHU is reserved for Rastafarian inmates and, on that basis, such charges are reserved for Rastafarian inmates. Greenhill also claims that his religion forbids charging a fee for Jum’ah participation, but that VDOC regulations essentially require a fee (the cost of a personal television set) for Greenhill to participate in Jum’ah. I find these allegations to be new claims, not properly presented in the Complaint or by timely amendment. Therefore, I do not consider these issues to be part of this case.
-10Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 10 of 19 Pageid#: 800

to visually access Jum’ah or allow him bodily access thereto.” Id. at ¶ 46. He also asks for an order allowing him to maintain a four-inch beard “without incurring disciplinary measures as a result.” Id.
II. DISCUSSION. A. Summary Judgment Standard of Review. A court should grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “As to materiality, . . . [o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. I must draw all reasonable inferences from the facts in favor of Greenhill, the nonmoving party. Williams v. Staples, Inc., 372 F.3d 662, 667 (4th Cir. 2004). To survive the defendants’ motion, however, Greenhill must present sufficient evidence that could carry the burden of proof of his claims at trial. Id. He “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but must set
-11Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 11 of 19 Pageid#: 801

forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.7
B. RLUIPA.
RLUIPA provides that
No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution, . . . 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.”
§ 2000cc-1(a). Congress enacted RLUIPA with the express intention to provide
greater protections for inmates’ religious exercise than does the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853, 860 (2015).
Nevertheless, context matters. An inmate’s right to religious exercise under
RLUIPA must be balanced against the VDOC’s institutional needs of security, discipline, and general administration. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 722
(2005). RLUIPA cannot be applied so as “to elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution’s need to maintain order and safety.” Id. Thus,
any religious “accommodation must be measured so that it does not override other
7 I have omitted internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations here and throughout this Opinion, unless otherwise noted.
-12Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 12 of 19 Pageid#: 802

significant interests,” with “particular sensitivity to security concerns.” Id. at 722; Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 190 (4th Cir. 2006).
1. Substantial Burden. Under the first facet of the RLUIPA analysis, the inmate “bears the initial burden to demonstrate that the prison’s policy exacts a substantial burden on [his] religious exercise.” Incumaa v. Stirling, 791 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2015). For purposes of a RLUIPA claim, “a substantial burden on religious exercise occurs when a state or local government, through act or omission, puts substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.” Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 187. The defendants argue that Greenhill has not met his initial burden to show that his inability to attend or view group religious services in SM-0 status has substantially burdened his religious practice, since that status is temporary. I find otherwise. Greenhill contends that even a temporary inability to participate in group Jum’ah services, in person or via the broadcast, deprives him of a central practice of his Muslim beliefs and, thereby, causes him to sin and deprives him of blessings. He presents evidence that it will take him many months to advance past SM-0, secure a prison job, and save enough from his meager wages to purchase a personal television to permit his Jum’ah participation while in Level S status. He also points out that his disciplinary history includes assaultive behavior, making
-13Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 13 of 19 Pageid#: 803

him ineligible for transfer to the VHU (with access to a communal television for Jum’ah) unless prison administrators grant him an exception. Nothing in the record suggests that such exceptions are common or that Greenhill has any chance of quickly obtaining one. Taking all of this evidence in the light most favorable to Greenhill, I find that he has presented material disputes of fact by which he could show that SM-0 regulations place a substantial burden on his Jum’ah practice. See Obataiye-Allah v. Va. Dep’t of Corr., No. 7:15CV00230, 2016 WL 5415906, at *14 (W.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2016) (finding denial of televised Jum’ah at lowest OP 830.A step placed substantial burden on Nation of Islam inmate’s practice), aff’d, 688 F. App’x 211 (4th Cir. 2017) (unpublished).8
I cannot find, however, that Greenhill has met his threshold showing that the VDOC grooming policy is placing a substantial burden on his religious practice to wear a four-inch beard. It is undisputed that Greenhill is currently in segregated confinement because of his many disciplinary infractions and his failure to meet the goals of the Step-Down Program for advancement to less restrictive housing statuses. His beard now exceeds the half-inch beard length limit in OP 864.1, and he can grow and maintain it at a four-inch length, consistent with his beliefs. It is undisputed, however, that his noncompliance with the beard length provision will
8 The plaintiff in the Obataiye-Allah case withdrew this RLUIPA claim before appealing the disposition of his unrelated due process claims.
-14Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 14 of 19 Pageid#: 804

not prevent his progress to less restrictive steps in the Step-Down Program and will not result in more restrictive living conditions than those to which he is already subjected because of his SM-0 status. Thus, Greenhill has presented no disputed fact on which he could show that OP 864.1 is placing “substantial pressure” on him to violate his belief of wearing a four-inch beard. Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 187. Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, and I will grant their motion, as to Greenhill’s RLUIPA challenge to the VDOC beard grooming requirements.
2. Compelling Interest and Least Restrictive Means. Only if the inmate proves that there is a substantial burden on his religious practice does “the burden shift[ ] to the government to prove its policy furthers a compelling governmental interest by the least restrictive means.” Incumaa, 791 F.3d at 525. RLUIPA . . . contemplates a more focused inquiry and requires the Government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law to the person — the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened. Holt, 135 S. Ct. at 863. The defendants argue that the VDOC has a compelling interest in the success of the Step-Down Program to motivate inmates to improve attitudes and behaviors — thereby, to maintain order, reduce disruptive and dangerous
-15Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 15 of 19 Pageid#: 805

behaviors, and to promote inmates’ successful re-entry of society after incarceration. I agree that the VDOC has a compelling interest in rehabilitating its prisoners — to further internal safety and security, but particularly to prepare an inmate like Greenhill, who is nearing the end of his prison term, for life outside segregated confinement.9 Now, I must determine whether the defendants have demonstrated that the Step-Down Program television restriction in SM-0 is the least restrictive means by which they could further the policy’s motivational goals.
RLUIPA’s “least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally demanding.” Id. at 864. “The least-restrictive-means standard . . . requires the government to show that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting party.” Jehovah v. Clarke, 798 F.3d 169, 177 (4th Cir. 2015).
Courts should not “mechanically accept” prison administrators’ rationale for restricting religious exercise.” Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 190. However, courts must apply RLUIPA standards with “due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures to maintain good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of
9 According to the VDOC website, Greenhill’s projected release date is January 25, 2022. Offender Locator Search Results, https://vadoc.virginia.gov/offenders/ locator/results.aspx (last visited Sept. 18, 2018).
-16Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 16 of 19 Pageid#: 806

costs and limited resources.” Wright v. Lassiter, 633 F. App’x 150, 151 (4th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (quoting Cutter, 544 U.S. at 723).
In this context, I find it appropriate to view VDOC religious accommodation policies as a whole, as Greenhill has encountered them throughout his term of confinement. He started his VDOC prison term in institutional settings where VDOC policies allowed him to gather with fellow believers for group religious services. Greenhill squandered that opportunity and committed numerous rule violations and threatening actions that caused officials to reclassify him as a greater security risk. Eventually, his actions resulted in his placement in Level S, where policies bar him from group gatherings with other inmates for security reasons.
Even since moving to Level S, Greenhill has had opportunities (in the Structured Living Phase 1 pod and in the Secure Integration Pod Phase 1) to take actions toward reclaiming the opportunity for group Jum’ah participation. By avoiding disciplinary infractions and participating fully in the Step-Down Program requirements, he might have earned reclassification to a lower security classification where group religious services were available to him. In both circumstances, however, Greenhill’s choices (to refuse the Step-Down Program participation and to commit multiple, serious disciplinary infractions) led to his demotion to SM-0. In that status, too, his own actions or inactions have blocked
-17Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 17 of 19 Pageid#: 807

his progress toward a less restrictive housing situation, including the possibility for a job and other privileges, such as transfer to the VHU.
The defendants have demonstrated that the Step-Down Program procedures in OP 830.A use incentive-based pathways specifically designed for inmates with particular issues that may derail their successful transition after release from prison. The SM pathway is focused to assist those inmates, like Greenhill, with a history of disruptive behavior, fighting, or violence, and a past demonstration of unwillingness or inability to improve their behavior under less restrictive conditions. Such inmates need strong motivational factors to convince them to change, for the improvement of prison order and safety and for their own future success after prison. The defendants argue that since television access is one of the best motivations for inmates to work toward advancement in the Step-Down Program, its restrictions, including the television ban in SM-0, “are the least restrictive means of furthering” the state’s compelling interest in the Step-Down Program’s success in maintaining order, reducing inmates’ disruptive and dangerous actions, and promoting successful re-entry to society. Mem. Supp. Suppl. Mot. Summ. J. 14, ECF No. 55. They also contend that “[r]emoving the escalating privilege levels would render the entire incentive-based Step-Down Program ineffective.” Id. at 15.
-18Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 18 of 19 Pageid#: 808

Greenhill does not offer evidence in contradiction of the defendants’ contention that the television ban is the least restrictive means of furthering the state’s compelling interest in motivating him to make positive changes in his thinking and conduct. The Supreme Court has instructed courts to defer to the professional judgment and experience of prison administrators in developing and enforcing effective procedures for inmate management. Cutter, 544 U.S. at 723. I am also instructed not to measure any religious accommodation under the RLUIPA standard in such a way as to “override other significant interests.” Cutter, 544 U.S. at 722. Inmates’ rehabilitation and successful re-entry must be counted as such an interest. I conclude that although the television restriction for SM-0 inmates may substantially burden Greenhill’s Jum’ah practice, that restriction furthers compelling penological interests by the least restrictive means. Accordingly, I will grant the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Greenhill’s RLUIPA claim concerning his Jum’ah participation.
III. CONCLUSION. For the stated reasons, it is ORDERED that the defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 54, is GRANTED. A separate Judgment will be entered herewith.
ENTER: September 19, 2018 /s/ James P. Jones United States District
-19Case 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB Document 60 Filed 09/19/18 Page 19 of 19 Pageid#: 809

 
 USCA4 ACpapseea7l::1168--c7v3-0000068D-JoPcJ: -8P1M-1S DocuFmileendt: 6182/0F6i/l2e0d1192/06P/1g9: 1Poaf g3e 1 of 5 PaTgoetiadl#P: a8g4e0s:(1 of 5)
FILED: December 6, 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7300, Alfonza Greenhill v. Harold Clarke 7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB
________________________
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
________________________
Judgment was entered on this date in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 36. Please be advised of the following time periods:
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI: To be timely, a petition for certiorari must be filed in the United States Supreme Court within 90 days of this court's entry of judgment. The time does not run from issuance of the mandate. If a petition for panel or en banc rehearing is timely filed, the time runs from denial of that petition. Review on writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion, and will be granted only for compelling reasons. (www.supremecourt.gov)
VOUCHERS FOR PAYMENT OF APPOINTED OR ASSIGNED COUNSEL: Vouchers must be submitted within 60 days of entry of judgment or denial of rehearing, whichever is later. If counsel files a petition for certiorari, the 60-day period runs from filing the certiorari petition. (Loc. R. 46(d)). If payment is being made from CJA funds, counsel should submit the CJA 20 or CJA 30 Voucher through the CJA eVoucher system. In cases not covered by the Criminal Justice Act, counsel should submit the Assigned Counsel Voucher to the clerk's office for payment from the Attorney Admission Fund. An Assigned Counsel Voucher will be sent to counsel shortly after entry of judgment. Forms and instructions are also available on the court's web site, www.ca4.uscourts.gov, or from the clerk's office.
BILL OF COSTS: A party to whom costs are allowable, who desires taxation of costs, shall file a Bill of Costs within 14 calendar days of entry of judgment. (FRAP 39, Loc. R. 39(b)).

USCA4 ACpapseea7l::1168--c7v3-0000068D-JoPcJ: -8P1M-1S DocuFmileendt: 6182/0F6i/l2e0d1192/06P/1g9: 2Poaf g3e 2 of 5 PaTgoetiadl#P: a8g4e1s:(2 of 5)
PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC: A petition for rehearing must be filed within 14 calendar days after entry of judgment, except that in civil cases in which the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the petition must be filed within 45 days after entry of judgment. A petition for rehearing en banc must be filed within the same time limits and in the same document as the petition for rehearing and must be clearly identified in the title. The only grounds for an extension of time to file a petition for rehearing are the death or serious illness of counsel or a family member (or of a party or family member in pro se cases) or an extraordinary circumstance wholly beyond the control of counsel or a party proceeding without counsel.
Each case number to which the petition applies must be listed on the petition and included in the docket entry to identify the cases to which the petition applies. A timely filed petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc stays the mandate and tolls the running of time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari. In consolidated criminal appeals, the filing of a petition for rehearing does not stay the mandate as to co-defendants not joining in the petition for rehearing. In consolidated civil appeals arising from the same civil action, the court's mandate will issue at the same time in all appeals.
A petition for rehearing must contain an introduction stating that, in counsel's judgment, one or more of the following situations exist: (1) a material factual or legal matter was overlooked; (2) a change in the law occurred after submission of the case and was overlooked; (3) the opinion conflicts with a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, this court, or another court of appeals, and the conflict was not addressed; or (4) the case involves one or more questions of exceptional importance. A petition for rehearing, with or without a petition for rehearing en banc, may not exceed 3900 words if prepared by computer and may not exceed 15 pages if handwritten or prepared on a typewriter. Copies are not required unless requested by the court. (FRAP 35 & 40, Loc. R. 40(c)).
MANDATE: In original proceedings before this court, there is no mandate. Unless the court shortens or extends the time, in all other cases, the mandate issues 7 days after the expiration of the time for filing a petition for rehearing. A timely petition for rehearing, petition for rehearing en banc, or motion to stay the mandate will stay issuance of the mandate. If the petition or motion is denied, the mandate will issue 7 days later. A motion to stay the mandate will ordinarily be denied, unless the motion presents a substantial question or otherwise sets forth good or probable cause for a stay. (FRAP 41, Loc. R. 41).

USCA4 ACpapseea7l::1168--c7v3-0000068D-JoPcJ: -8P1M-1S DocuFmileendt: 6182/0F6i/l2e0d1192/06P/1g9: 3Poaf g3e 3 of 5 PaTgoetiadl#P: a8g4e2s:(3 of 5)

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BILL OF COSTS FORM (Civil Cases)

Directions: Under FRAP 39(a), the costs of appeal in a civil action are generally taxed against appellant if a judgment is affirmed or the appeal is dismissed. Costs are generally taxed against appellee if a judgment is reversed. If a judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, modified, or vacated, costs are taxed as the court orders. A party who wants costs taxed must, within 14 days after entry of judgment, file an itemized and verified bill of costs, as follows: • Itemize any fee paid for docketing the appeal. The fee for docketing a case in the court of appeals is $500 (effective 12/1/2013). The $5 fee for filing a notice of appeal is recoverable as a cost in the district court. • Itemize the costs (not to exceed $.15 per page) for copying the necessary number of formal briefs and appendices. (Effective 10/1/2015, the court requires 1 copy when filed; 3 more copies when tentatively calendared; 0 copies for service unless brief/appendix is sealed.). The court bases the cost award on the page count of the electronic brief/appendix. Costs for briefs filed under an informal briefing order are not recoverable. • Cite the statutory authority for an award of costs if costs are sought for or against the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (limiting costs to civil actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(1) (prohibiting award of costs against the United States in cases proceeding without prepayment of fees). Any objections to the bill of costs must be filed within 14 days of service of the bill of costs. Costs are paid directly to the prevailing party or counsel, not to the clerk's office.

Case Number & Caption: _____________________________________________________ Prevailing Party Requesting Taxation of Costs: ____________________________________

Appellate Docketing Fee (prevailing appellants):

Amount Requested: ______

Document

No. of Pages

No. of Copies

Page Cost (<$.15)

Requested Allowed Requested Allowed

(court use only)

(court use only)

Amount Allowed: _____ Total Cost
Requested Allowed
(court use only)

TOTAL BILL OF COSTS:

$0.00

$0.00

1. If copying was done commercially, I have attached itemized bills. If copying was done in-house, I certify that my standard billing amount is not less than $.15 per copy or, if less, I have reduced the amount charged to the lesser rate. 2. If costs are sought for or against the United States, I further certify that 28 U.S.C. § 2412 permits an award of costs. 3. I declare under penalty of perjury that these costs are true and correct and were necessarily incurred in this action.
Signature: __________________________________ Date: _____________________________
Certificate of Service
I certify that on this date I served this document as follows:
Signature: _______________________________ Date: _________________________________

USCA4 ACpapseea7l::1168--c7v3-0000068D-JoPcJ: -8P1M-2S DocuFmileendt: 6182/0F6i/l2e0d1192/06P/1g9: 1Poaf g2e 4 of 5 PaTgoetiadl#P: a8g4e3s:(4 of 5)
FILED: December 6, 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 18-7300 (7:16-cv-00068-JPJ-RSB) ___________________
ALFONZA HARDY GREENHILL
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the State of Virginia Department of Corrections; A. DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Corrections Operations of the State of Virginia Department of Corrections; EARL BARKSDALE, Warden of Red Onion State Prison
Defendants - Appellees
------------------------------
DAN PACHOLKE, former corrections official; JEANNE WOODFORD, former corrections official; PHIL STANLEY, former corrections official; DICK MORGAN, former corrections official; ELDON VAIL, former corrections official; PROFESSORS AND PRACTITIONERS OF PSYCHIATRY, PSYCHOLOGY, AND MEDICINE; MUSLIM ADVOCATES; RECONSTRUCTIONIST RABBINICAL ASSOCIATION; INTERFAITH ALLIANCE FOUNDATION
Amici Supporting Appellant

USCA4 ACpapseea7l::1168--c7v3-0000068D-JoPcJ: -8P1M-2S DocuFmileendt: 6182/0F6i/l2e0d1192/06P/1g9: 2Poaf g2e 5 of 5 PaTgoetiadl#P: a8g4e4s:(5 of 5)
___________________ J U D G M E N T
___________________ In accordance with the decision of this court, the judgment of the district court is vacated. This case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision. This judgment shall take effect upon issuance of this court's mandate in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 41.
/s/ PATRICIA S. CONNOR, CLERK