Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07107/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07107-0/pdf.json

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

---

\ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

HOWARD D. MILLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

PI LED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 2 0 1990 

:ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 89-7107 

GARY D. MAYNARD, Warden, 

JAMES A. SAFFLE, Deputy Warden, 

BOBBY BOONE, JACK HAWKINS, 

JAMES SORRELLS, DANNY NACE, 

JERRY JOHNSON, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) (D.C. No. 89-234-C) 

) (E.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Howard D. Miller filed this action in the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, 

alleging that he was wrongly denied an exemption from the grooming 

code of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and that, as a 

* 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: 89-7107 Document: 010110036841 Date Filed: 06/20/1990 Page: 1 
" \ 

result, he was improperly forced to have his hair cut and his 

beard shaved. Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was 

denied his rights under the Free Exercise clause of the First 

Amendment, the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 

Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986. Plaintiff 

appeals from the district court's December 12, 1989 order 

dismissing his complaint. In its December 12 order, the district 

court determined that dismissal was appropriate because 

plaintiff's complaint was "frivolous" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 

and because plaintiff did not raise a "substantial" question. 

On appeal, plaintiff appears to challenge only the district 

court's dismissal of his free exercise claim. In particular, 

plaintiff argues that the district court improperly relied on a 

report prepared by defendants pursuant to Martinez v. Aaron, 

570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978), to resolve a factual dispute about 

whether facial hair is a tenet of plaintiff's religion. 

Even if the district court did improperly rely on the 

Martinez report, we believe that the complaint is "frivolous" 

within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). In deciding whether 

plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated, we must determine 

whether the prison regulations at issue in this case were 

"reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.'' O'Lone 

v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349 (1987) (quoting Turner v. 

· safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). Whether or not facial hair is a 

tenet of plaintiff's religion, it is clear that the denial of an 

exemption from the grooming code was reasonably related to 

legitimate penological interests. Cf. Promer v. Scully, 874 F.2d 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-7107 Document: 010110036841 Date Filed: 06/20/1990 Page: 2 
• \ 

69, 73-76 (2d Cir. 1989) (regulation forbidding inmates from 

wearing beards in excess of one inch in length did not violate the 

Free Exercise clause); Pollock v. Marshall, 845 F.2d 656, 658-60 

(6th Cir.) (hair length regulation could be constitutionally 

applied to inmate adhering to the religion of the Lakota American 

Indians, who believed that hair was sacred and should not be cut), 

cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 239 (1988). Therefore, we AFFIRM the 

district court's December 12, 1989 order dismissing plaintiff's 

complaint. Mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-7107 Document: 010110036841 Date Filed: 06/20/1990 Page: 3