Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00796/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00796-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEROY A. ANDREOZZI

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-0796 GEB CMK P

vs.

GRAY DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, who is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma

pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that the California

Department of Corrections’ grooming policy unduly burdens his religious beliefs. This matter

was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-

302(b)(21).

On February 9, 2006, the court filed findings and recommendations

recommending that plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief be denied as moot. Plaintiff filed

objections to the findings and recommendations on February 17, 2006, directing the court’s

attention to his February 8, 2006 reply to defendants’ opposition to his motion for a preliminary

injunction. 

///

Case 2:02-cv-00796-GEB-CMK Document 114 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

On February 11, 2005, this court entered findings and recommendations on defendants’ 1

motion for summary judgment recommending that plaintiff’s equal protection and Fourth

Amendment claims be dismissed without prejudice, that plaintiff’s First Amendment claim be

dismissed and that this action proceed on plaintiff’s Religious Land Use and Institutional

Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) claim. The District Court adopted the findings and

recommendations in full on March 9, 2005. 

2

“[S]trict time limits...ought not to be insisted upon where restraints resulting from

a pro se prisoner’s incarceration prevent timely compliance with court deadlines.” Eldridge v.

Block, 832 F.2nd 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the court vacates its February 9,

2006 (doc. 110) findings and recommendations and issues the following findings and

recommendations, which take plaintiff’s February 8, 2006 reply into consideration. 

I. Background to Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff, a Te-Moak of the Western Shoshone Tribe, brings this suit challenging

the Department of Corrections’ (CDC) enforcement of the 1997 grooming standards, which

require inmates to maintain short hair. Plaintiff is devoted to his Tribe’s traditional religious

practices and is a practicing Shonshone Ghost Dancer. One tenant of plaintiff’s religious faith

teaches that hair may only be cut upon specific conditions or during religious rituals. Plaintiff

contends that being made to cut his hair burdens his religious beliefs. The sole claim in this

action is plaintiff’s injunctive relief claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc-2000cc-5 (2002). 

1

A reading of plaintiff’s amended complaint suggests that when plaintiff is

disciplined for a violation of the grooming regulations, he is placed on “C status.” (Am. Compl.

at 11, 16.) This status prevents plaintiff from, among other things, making telephone calls home.

(Id.) It appears that plaintiff’s C status classification is a limited duration punishment, and not an

ongoing permanent classification. On September 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for a

temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, which he indicated was supplemental to

his August 17, 2005 filing. (Doc. 102.) In his motion, plaintiff alleged that defendants had

violated his constitutional rights by denying plaintiff a religious exemption to the CDC’s

Case 2:02-cv-00796-GEB-CMK Document 114 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

grooming policy. For relief, plaintiff sought “all relief filed August 17, 2005,” which

presumably was an order directing the CDC to stop disciplining plaintiff for grooming

violations. 

On January 12, 2006, the court notified defendants that a response to plaintiff’s

motions for injunctive relief was due within twenty-one days. On January 27, 2006, defendants

filed their opposition to plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s response was due

seven days after defendants’ response. Plaintiff filed a response on February 8, 2006. In his

reply to defendants’ opposition to his motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff states that “the

classification committee will ‘not’ take the plaintiff off of C-Status ‘now’ unless this court orders

[a] preliminary injunction and orders the removal of all grooming standards.” (Pl.’s February 8,

2006 Reply at 3:4-9.) 

II. Standard of Review

The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a

temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the

moving party must show either a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of

irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in

the movant’s favor. See Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir.

1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). The

two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of

irreparable injury shown. See Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. Under any formulation of the

test, however, the moving party must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of

irreparable injury. See id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm,

the court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. See id. A claim for

injunctive relief is moot if “it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not

reasonably be expected to occur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services,

528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000).

Case 2:02-cv-00796-GEB-CMK Document 114 Filed 03/01/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

III. Discussion

Defendants oppose plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief on the grounds that

plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is moot because of changes to the California Code of

Regulations concerning inmate hair length. Plaintiff’s complaint is based on allegations that

defendants are burdening his religious beliefs by enforcing grooming standards requiring all

inmates to have short hair. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief seeks to prevent prison

officials from disciplining him for violating these grooming standards. Effective January 17,

2006, the Office of Administrative Law filed emergency changes to the grooming standards with

the Secretary of State. See Cal. Code Regs tit. 15, § 3000-3210. The modified regulations permit

inmates to wear their hair any length and to wear beards as specified. See id.; Defs.’ Mot. to

Dismiss and Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot for Prelim. Inj., Ex. A. If hair is long, it must be worn in a neat,

plain style, such as braids or cornrows. See Cal. Code Regs tit. 15, §§ 3062(e) and 3062(g). 

As emergency provision, the new regulations are subject to a 160 day waiting

period of public comment before they are considered final. See Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss and

Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot for Prelim. Inj., Ex. A. However, the regulations, as now constituted by law

and the California Code of Regulations, are those being applied at state prisons. Id. Former

restrictions with respect to hair and beards are no longer in effect. Id. 

The court notes that in his February 8, 2006 reply, plaintiff states that he will not

be taken off C-Status unless this court orders injunctive relief removing the grooming standards.

However, under the modified grooming regulations, which are in effect at all state prisons, it is

clear that plaintiff’s cannot be disciplined for maintaining long hair in accordance with his

religious beliefs. The court finds that the injury alleged in plaintiff’s motions for injunctive

relief cannot reasonably be expected to occur, and plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is moot. 

See Friends of the Earth, Inc., 528 U.S. at 190. 

///

Case 2:02-cv-00796-GEB-CMK Document 114 Filed 03/01/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

IV. Conclusion 

IT IS ORDERED that the findings and recommendations filed February 9, 2006

(doc. 110) are vacated. 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (doc. 101

and 102) be denied as moot. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 28, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00796-GEB-CMK Document 114 Filed 03/01/06 Page 5 of 5