Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06409/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06409-2/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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

CARLTON K. HILLMON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

EDWARDS S. ALAMEIDA, et.al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 03-6409 REC DLB P 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[Doc. No. 3]

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights

action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. This action involves allegations

that the California Department of Corrections’ grooming policy violates plaintiff’s religious beliefs.

On November 13, 2003, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint and a motion for preliminary

injunction. In his motion for preliminary injunctive relief, plaintiff seeks exemption from the

grooming regulations. 

On October 7, 2004, the Magistrate Judge recommended that plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunction be denied on the ground that the Ninth Circuit has determined that the

Case 1:03-cv-06409-AWI -DLB Document 32 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

California Department of Corrections’ grooming standards on hair length serve legitimate

penological interests and do not infringe on inmates’ First Amendment rights, citing Henderson v.

Terhune, 379 F.3d 709, 713 (2004). 

On October 23, 2004, plaintiff filed timely objections to the recommendation.

The recommendation is NOT ADOPTED. The Amended Complaint and the motion for

preliminary injunction allege a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

of 2000 (“RLUIPA”). The Ninth Circuit expressed no opinion whether the CDC’s hair length

regulations violate RLUIPA. 379 F.3d at 715 n.1. The Supreme Court recently upheld RLUIPA

against a challenge under the Establishment Clause. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 125 S.Ct. 2113 (2005). 

Following Cutter v. Wilkinson, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Central District Court’s denial of a

preliminary injunction in a suit challenging the same CDC hair grooming policy at issue in the

present case. See Warsoldier v. Woodford, - F.3d. - 2005 WL 1792117 (9 Cir. 2005). th

However, plaintiff filed the present motion for preliminary injunction prior to the named

defendants being served with the summons and complaint. The defendants were therefore not served

with the motion for preliminary injunction and have not had an opportunity to respond.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to serve a copy of the plaintiff’s

motion for preliminary injunction filed on November 13, 2003 on defendants. Defendants are

granted 30 days from service of the motion in which to file a response to plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunction. Plaintiff shall file any reply to defendants’ response within 15 days of

service of the response. Thereafter, the motion shall be remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further

consideration of the merits of the motion under RLUIPA.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06409-AWI -DLB Document 32 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2