Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01555/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01555-0/pdf.json

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

---

f 

. FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FEB 13 1990 

ROY GENE 

v. 

DAVID c. 

EASTERWOOD, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

) 

) 

MILLER, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

1l0BERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-1555 

(D.C. No. 87-318-A) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court 

granting defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff commenced this 

action pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983 in which he alleged that his 

first, ninth, and fourteenth amendment rights were violated 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 87-1555 Document: 01019963057 Date Filed: 02/13/1990 Page: 1 
because defendant, warden of the Oklahoma State Reformatory, 

Granite, Oklahoma, instituted regulations requiring him to cut his 

hair in violation of his religious beliefs. The regulations 

provided that "[p]articipating members of a recognized religion 

which states in its established doctrine that members hair be a 

certain length may submit a request to the Warden for 

consideration of exception to this policy." Plaintiff submitted 

such a request stating that ''I am a member of the Christian 

religion know [sic] as NAZARITE which forbids my cutting of hair 

among other vows that I have taken for life." Plaintiff's request 

was denied without explanation and he commenced this suit. 

The district court held that plaintiff had failed to allege a 

first amendment claim because he had made no showing that the 

Nazarite religion was a bona fide religion or that hair length was 

a tenet of that religion. The court held that plaintiff's belief, 

even though sincerely held, "without more, is not sufficient to 

make prison regulations unconstitutional." Further, the fact that 

plaintiff cut his hair without pursuing the grievance procedure 

"indicates the insubstantiality of his First Amendment claim." 

Legitimate limitations on the exercise of an inmate's first 

amendment right to freedom of religion arise both from the fact of 

incarceration and from valid penological objectives. See Pell v. 

Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974). Therefore, "when a prison 

regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the 

regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate 

penological interests." Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1555 Document: 01019963057 Date Filed: 02/13/1990 Page: 2 
Defendant has made 

interests served by this 

indication why defendant 

no showing regarding the penological 

regulat i n . Further, we have no 

exempted only inmates belonging to a 

recognized religion with an established doctrine regarding hair 

length. While we express no opinion regarding the propriety of 

th i s decision, we note that plaintiff's religious beliefs need not 

be based on the tenets of an established religious sect in order 

to be entitled to the protections of the first amendment. See, 

~, Frazee v. Illinois Dep't of Employment Sec., 109 S. Ct. 

1 51 4, 1517 (1989). However, the "mere assertion of generic 

re l igious objections is not sufficient to invoke first amendmen t 

protections." Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir.), 

cert. denied, S. Ct. 1989 WL 115783 (Jan. 22, 1990). 

Here, plaintiff specifically cited to Numbers 6:1-8 as the basis 

of his belief. See id. at 1198. 

Dismissal of plaintiff's case is premature at this time. 

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of his first 

amendment right to withstand defendant's motion to dismiss. The 

record must be further developed in order to determine whether the 

regulations are "reasonably related to legitimate penological 

interests," Turner, 482 U.S. at 89, and, if so, why plaintiff was 

denied an exemption. 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1555 Document: 01019963057 Date Filed: 02/13/1990 Page: 3 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is REVERSED and the case REMANDED for 

further proceedings in accordance with this order and judgment. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 87-1555 Document: 01019963057 Date Filed: 02/13/1990 Page: 4