Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05142/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05142-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L . ofJAp..-.\f· United S~te6 Cot:•·1- ,.,.-

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 'Tenth Cit'euit 

JOSEPH MACASTLE JACKSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

RON CHAMPION, Warden; M. SIRMONS, 

Deputy Warden; S. BEARS, Captain; 

M. KEENAN, Chaplain; PETE IVERSON, 

Case Manager Coordinator, each 

individually and their successors, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FEB 2 2 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-5142 

{D.C. No. 90-C-1012-B) 

{N. D. Okla. ) 

Before TACHA and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,** Senior 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Wesley E . Brown, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not material ly 

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

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

n ot be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purpose s of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

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

36 . 3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-5142 Document: 010110175831 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff Joseph Macastle Jackson appeals from the entry of 

summary judgment in favor of the defendants on his claim for money 

damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jackson, a state prisoner 

in Oklahoma, brought this action following the correction 

department's denial of his application for a religious exemption 

to the prison grooming code. He sought injunctive and monetary 

relief. The district court granted injunctive relief but ruled 

the defendants were entitled to qualified inununity on the monetary 

damage claim. We affirm. 

The Oklahoma grooming code prohibits prisoners from wearing 

long beards unless they obtain a religious exemption. 1 Jackson is 

a practicing Muslim. In October 1990, he applied for an exemption 

to enable him to wear a beard in compliance with the tenets of his 

faith. His request was denied initially and on appeal to the 

prison warden. At his exemption hearing, Jackson stated that 

although some Islamic believers choose not to wear beards, his 

personal faith requires him to do so. 

1 Until 1986, the Oklahoma grooming code applied to all 

prisoners, regardless of religious beliefs. From 1986 to 

September 1991, prisoners were allowed to apply for a religious 

exemption to the code. In September of 1991, however, prison 

officials abolished the exemption provision. Following extensive 

litigation of the issue, the exemption provision was reinstated in 

January of 1992 . This case was abated in the district court 

pending resolution of the challenge to the no-exemption policy. 

The case was reinstated and concluded following the January 1992 

revision . See Longstreth v. Maynard, 961 F.2d 895, 900 n.5 (10th 

Cir. 1992). 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-5142 Document: 010110175831 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 2 
Jackson was not the first Muslim prisoner to request an 

exemption. In late 1989 or early 1990, department officials 

contacted the World Community of Islam and the Islamic Information 

Center in Chicago to inquire whether Muslim men were required to 

grow a beard. They made these inquiries in response to other 

exemption applications. Representatives from these organizations 

told the corrections department that there was no beard 

requirement. The Facility Classification Committee relied on this 

information to deny Jackson's application. 

The warden investigated the matter further when Jackson 

appealed the initial committee decision. Based on information 

Jackson provided to the warden, an assistant notified "The 

Original Tents of Kedar" in Brooklyn, New York, to verify the 

beard requirement. A representative from that organization told 

the assistant that although a beard was preferred, it was not a 

requirement. The representative stated it would be unfair to 

impose such a requirement because not all Muslim men can grow a 

beard. In reliance on this information, the warden denied the 

request for exemption. 

Jackson received several misconduct reports for refusing to 

shave his beard. Disciplinary action taken against him included 

segregation, fines, and loss of good time credits. As a result of 

the misconduct reports, he was transferred to the maximum s e curity 

facility at Oklahoma state . . 2 penitentiary. This civil rights 

action was filed in December of 1990. The defendants have not 

2 In April 1992, he applied f or and received 

that facility . 

3 

an exemption at 

Appellate Case: 92-5142 Document: 010110175831 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 3 
appealed the district court's decision granting Jackson injunctive 

relief. Consequently, the only issue on appeal is whether the 

grant of summary judgment on the damage claim was appropriate. 

Officials performing discretionary functions will have 

qualified immunity from suit as long as reasonable officers in the 

defendants' position would have believed the disputed conduct was 

lawful in light of the clearly established law and the 

circumstances and information they possessed at the time the 

decision was made. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638-39 

(1987). Here, the district court determined Jackson did not meet 

his burden of establishing that, at the time of the initial denial 

and appeal, a reasonable official would have known the 

investigation into the beard requirement was flawed. 

The summary judgment standard is altered slightly when 

government officials seek to invoke qualified immunity. Patrick 

v. Miller, 953 F.2d 1240, 1243 (10th Cir. 1992). Once the defense 

is raised, the plaintiff must "'come forward with facts or 

allegations sufficient to show both that the defendant's alleged 

conduct violated the law and that that law was clearly established 

when the alleged violation occurred . '" Id. at 1243 (quoting 

Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 

646 {10th Cir. 1988)); see also Siegert v. Gilley. 111 s. Ct. 

1789, 1793 (1991) (threshold inquiry is whether plaintiff has 

stated a constitutional violation). It is only after plaintiff 

satisfies both showings that the burden shifts to the defendant to 

show no material issues of fact remain which would preclude 

summary judgment. ~ Losavio, 847 F.2d at 646. 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-5142 Document: 010110175831 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 4 
The district court held that, although plaintiff stated a 

constitutional violation, he failed to show the law was clearly 

established at the time these events occurred. In this regard, it 

is incumbent upon plaintiff to make a particularized showing. 

Patrick, 953 F.2d at 1243; see also Sawyer v. County of Creek, 

908 F.2d 663, 665 (10th Cir. 1990) (swmnary judgment challenge is 

appropriate if plaintiff fails to set forth specific allegations 

regarding violation of clearly established law). "The contours of 

the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official 

would understand that what he is doing violates that right." 

Anderson, 483 U.S . at 640. 

Here, the alleged violation is the denial of First and 

Fourteenth Amendment rights based on the failure to investigate 

and review adequately Jackson's exemption request. In particular, 

although acknowledging the sincerity of Jackson's beliefs, 

defendants justified the denial with information garnered from 

investigations they conducted on exemption requests from other 

prisoners. Further, they never spoke with the Muslim chaplain at 

the prison. In an affidavit submitted to the district court, the 

chaplain testified to the sincerity of Jackson's beliefs and the 

b eard requirement. Jackson satisfied his burden of alleging a 

specific constitutional violation. 

At the time of these events in late 1990 , however, it was not 

at all clear that officials were obligated to conduct thorough 

investigations into the sincerity of a prisoner's beliefs in order 

to accommodate religious needs. 

upheld the constitutionality of 

5 

In fact, several circuits had 

grooming codes which did not 

---- ----------------

Appellate Case: 92-5142 Document: 010110175831 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 5 
allow, or severely restricted, religious exemptions. See, e.g., 

Fromer v. Scully, 874 F.2d 69, 73-76 (2d Cir. 1989); Pollock v. 

Marshall, 845 F.2d 656, 658-60 (6th Cir.), cert . denied, 488 U.S. 

987 (1988); Brightly v. Wainwright, 814 F.2d 612, 612-13 (11th 

Cir.), cert . denied, 484 U.S . 944 (1987); Hill v. Blackwell, 774 

F.2d 338, 347-48 (8th Cir. 1985). 

It was not until 1991 that this circuit addressed the role of 

the sincerity determination in the exemption process. Mosier v. 

Maynard, 937 F.2d 1521, 1525-26 (10th Cir. 1991) ; see also 

Longstreth, 961 F . 2d at 902 (factual issues precluded summary 

judgment where sincerity of religious beliefs was disputed) . 

Jackson has not sustained his burden of showing the law was 

clearly established in 1990 that he had a right to a more thorough 

investigation into the sincerity of his request to wear a long 

beard. Therefore, we need not reach the question whether factual 

disputes preclude summary judgment. Patrick, 953 F.2d at 1243 . 

The judgment of the Uni ted States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Wesley E. Brown 

Senior District Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-5142 Document: 010110175831 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 6