Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00500/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00500-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Keith Preston Nance, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Allen Miser, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-0500-PHX-SMM (DKD) 

 O R D E R 

 Plaintiff Keith Preston Nance, who is incarcerated in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Florence, brought this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). 

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 

Preliminary Injunction.” (Doc. 18.) On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for 

Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.” (Doc. 20.) 

Defendants Ryan, Linderman and Miser filed Responses to Plaintiff’s Motions. (Docs. 

19, 21.) Plaintiff did not file replies. 

 The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motions without prejudice. 

I. Background 

 A. Plaintiff’s Complaint 

 In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges one count for violation of his religious exercise 

rights and names as Defendants Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADC”) Director 

Charles Ryan, Pastoral Administrator Mike Linderman, and Florence Complex Senior 

Case 2:14-cv-00500-SMM-DKD Document 22 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 7
- 2 - 

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 

27 

28 

Chaplain Allen Miser. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive, compensatory, and punitive 

relief. 

 Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied halal religious oils and has been restricted 

from growing a beard more than a 1⁄4-inch long, even though at least one other inmate has 

been permitted to grow a beard several inches long. Plaintiff contends that policies 

concerning halal religious oils and beard restrictions substantially burden his religious 

exercise and the policies are not the least restrictive means to further any legitimate, 

compelling penological interest. He also alleges that the beard-length policy has not been 

equally enforced as to similarly situated inmates and thereby violates his equal protection 

rights. Plaintiff seeks damages and an order allowing him to grow a beard longer than 

1⁄4 -inch in length and to purchase halal religious oils. 

 On screening, the Court found that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a violation of his 

First Amendment religious exercise rights, his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection 

rights, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 

(“RLUIPA”) and ordered all three Defendants to respond to the Complaint. (Doc. 11.) 

 B. The Motions 

In his first Motion, Plaintiff seeks an order restraining Defendants and their 

subordinates “from further inmate disciplinary actions against” Plaintiff regarding 

enforcement of ADC Department Order (“DO”) 704, which prohibits Plaintiff from 

growing a beard longer than 1⁄4 inch. (Doc. 18 at 1-2.) 

 Plaintiff avers that in December 2014, he was questioned by Lieutenant Silvas 

about trimming his moustache and growing his beard. (Doc. 18 at 2.) Plaintiff explained 

to Silvas that he is a practicing Muslim and that growing a beard was his sincerely held 

religious belief. Plaintiff also told Silvas that he was in litigation challenging the ADC’s 

grooming policy and that in 2012 the ADC settled a similar case involving an inmate’s 

religious beard. 

 On January 7, 2015, Lieutenant Silvas again spoke to Plaintiff about ADC’s 

grooming policy and informed Plaintiff that he was on disciplinary report as this was the 

Case 2:14-cv-00500-SMM-DKD Document 22 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 7
- 3 - 

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 

27 

28 

second time addressing Plaintiff’s beard. (Doc. 18 at 3.) Plaintiff asserts that he faces 

irreparable harm because disciplinary action can lead to a loss of privileges and 

reclassification. Plaintiff cites to another case involving an inmate’s religious beard in 

which the court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting officials from further 

disciplining that inmate “where the disciplinary action had led to reclassification and a 

transfer from a security level III to a security level IV unit.” (Id. (citing Doc. 104 in 

Abdullah v. Ryan, CV 08-255-TUC-CKJ).) 

 In his second Motion, Plaintiff again seeks an order restraining Defendants and 

their subordinates “from further disciplinary actions, retaliation, and harassment” 

regarding DO 704. (Doc. 20 at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that on January 14, 2015, he appeared 

before Disciplinary Officer CO III Staab and was found guilty of violating DO 704.02 

regarding his beard. (Id. at 3 and Pl.’s Ex. 40.) On January 21, 2015, Plaintiff 

encountered Lieutenant Silves1

 and explained that the Supreme Court had issued a 

decision on January 20 allowing inmates “to grow beards in compliance with sincerely 

held religious beliefs.” (Doc. 20 at 3.) Silves told Plaintiff that she will enforce ADC 

policy until the chaplain informs her of the Supreme Court decision. Plaintiff states that 

he was placed on report a second time and faces irreparable harm because the disciplinary 

actions by Silves will lead to Plaintiff losing privileges and being reclassified to a higher 

custody unit. 

 In response to Plaintiff’s Motions, Defendants assert that in light of the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853, __ U.S. __ (Jan. 20, 2015), they “are 

prepared to maintain the status quo, allow [Plaintiff] a 1⁄2-inch religious shaving waiver, 

and refrain from disciplining, withdrawing privileges, or reclassifying him for keeping a 

beard up to that length.” (Doc. 21 at 1.) Defendants assert that the Disciplinary Report 

attached to Plaintiff’s second Motion does not specify the length of Plaintiff’s beard and 

 

1

 In his first Motion, Plaintiff wrote “Lieutenant Silvas” and in his second Motion 

wrote “Lieutenant Silves” and so it is not clear Plaintiff is speaking about the same 

person in the two Motions. 

Case 2:14-cv-00500-SMM-DKD Document 22 Filed 03/24/15 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

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 

27 

28 

only states that it “was grown past authorized lengths.” (Id. at 1-2.) Defendants aver that 

as long as Plaintiff “maintains facial hair no greater than 1⁄2 inch in length, Defendants do 

not anticipate any further disciplinary action.” (Id. at 2.) Defendants therefore contend 

that “no injunctive relief is necessary or appropriate.” (Id.) 

 Plaintiff did not file a Reply to Defendants’ Response. 

II. Legal Standard 

 “A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should 

not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” 

Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 

520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 

555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted) (“[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary 

remedy never awarded as of right”). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must 

show that (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable 

harm without an injunction, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an 

injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “But if a plaintiff can only 

show that there are ‘serious questions going to the merits’—a lesser showing than 

likelihood of success on the merits—then a preliminary injunction may still issue if the 

‘balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,’ and the other two Winter

factors are satisfied.” Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th 

Cir. 2011)). Under this serious questions variant of the Winter test, “[t]he elements . . . 

must be balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker 

showing of another.” Lopez, 680 F.3d at 1072. 

 Regardless of which standard applies, the movant “has the burden of proof on each 

element of the test.” See Envtl. Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 

1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). Further, there is a heightened burden where a plaintiff seeks a 

mandatory preliminary injunction, which should not be granted “unless the facts and law 

Case 2:14-cv-00500-SMM-DKD Document 22 Filed 03/24/15 Page 4 of 7
- 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 

27 

28 

clearly favor the plaintiff.” Comm. of Cent. Am. Refugees v. I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434, 1441 

(9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). 

 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on 

prisoner litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials and 

requires that any injunctive relief be narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means 

necessary to correct the harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see Gilmore v. People of the State 

of Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000). 

III. Discussion 

 In failing to file a reply, Plaintiff does not contest Defendants’ assertions that they 

will comply with the standard announced in Holt v. Hobbs. In Holt, the prisoner plaintiff 

used RLUIPA to challenge the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ grooming policy, 

which prohibited prisoners from growing beards at all, except for those with diagnosed 

skin conditions, who were allowed to grow 1⁄4-inch beards. 135 S. Ct. at 856-57. The 

plaintiff, a devout Muslim, sought an exemption from the policy to grow a beard based 

on his religious beliefs. Although he believed his faith required him not to trim his beard 

at all, the plaintiff proposed a compromise allowing him to maintain a 1⁄2-inch beard, but 

prison officials denied his request. The Supreme Court held that the Arkansas 

Department of Corrections’ grooming policy violated RLUIPA “insofar as it prevents 

petitioner from growing a 1⁄2-inch beard in accordance with this religious beliefs.” Id. at 

867. 

 In this case, because Defendants state that they are willing to comply with Holt

and will refrain from disciplining Plaintiff if he keeps his beard at no more than 1⁄2 inch, 

Plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. 

 As to the irreparable injury factor, Plaintiff argues in his Motions that “without an 

injunction he will continue to suffer disciplinary consequences arising from his failure to 

comply with ADOC’s grooming policy” and that disciplinary actions by Lieutenant 

Silves will lead to a loss of privileges and a higher custody level. ((Doc. 18 at 9; Doc. 20 

at 4.) Defendants respond that in light of Holt they will refrain from disciplining, 

Case 2:14-cv-00500-SMM-DKD Document 22 Filed 03/24/15 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

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 

27 

28 

withdrawing privileges, or reclassifying Plaintiff for keeping a beard up to 1⁄2-inch long. 

Because Plaintiff has not replied to Defendants’ assertion that they will comply with 

Holt, Plaintiff has failed to meet his heightened burden of showing irreparable injury. 

 Nor has Plaintiff shown what hardships he will suffer, if any, by Defendants 

allowing him to keep a 1⁄2-inch beard; therefore, he has failed to show that the balance of 

equities tips in his favor. 

 Finally, Plaintiff argues that the public interest “is best served when the state is 

required to comply with federal law.” (Doc. 18 at 9-10.) Defendants respond that they 

will comply with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Holt and allow Plaintiff a 1⁄2-

inch beard and will refrain from disciplining, withdrawing privileges, or reclassifying 

Plaintiff for keeping a beard up to 1⁄2-inch long. Because Plaintiff has not replied to 

Defendants’ assertion that they will comply with Holt, Plaintiff has failed to meet his 

heightened burden to show it is in the public interest to grant some other type of 

preliminary relief. 

In sum, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden on each element of the Winter test. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining 

order are denied. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s 

“Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction” (Doc. 18) and 

“Motion for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 

20). 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-00500-SMM-DKD Document 22 Filed 03/24/15 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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 

27 

28 

 (2) Plaintiff’s “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 

Injunction” (Doc. 18) and Plaintiff’s “Motion for Emergency Temporary Restraining 

Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 20) are denied without prejudice. 

 DATED this 24th day of March, 2015. 

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00500-SMM-DKD Document 22 Filed 03/24/15 Page 7 of 7