Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-07548/USCOURTS-ca4-06-07548-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7548

ALLEN MCRAE; PATRICK LAHENS; DENNIS BLYDEN;

DAVID EVICK, JR.; RASHID QAWI AL-AMIN,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

CHARLES STEVENSON,

Plaintiff,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, in his official capacity;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (3:03-cv-00164-RLW)

Submitted: November 19, 2007 Decided: January 7, 2008

Before TRAXLER, Circuit Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and

John Preston BAILEY, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 06-7548 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/07/2008 Pg: 1 of 14
2

Steven Rosenfield, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF VIRGINIA,

Charlottesville, Virginia; Rebecca K. Glenberg, AMERICAN CIVIL

LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellants. Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General, William E.

Thro, State Solicitor General, Mark R. Davis, Senior Assistant

Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee Gene M. Johnson.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-7548 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/07/2008 Pg: 2 of 14
1

For ease of reference, we will refer to the defendant in this

action as “the VDOC.”

3

PER CURIAM:

Five male prison inmates (the Plaintiffs), in the custody of

the Virginia Department of Corrections (the VDOC), filed this civil

action against VDOC Director Gene Johnson (Director Johnson), in

his official capacity, challenging the VDOC’s inmate grooming

policy (the VDOC’s Grooming Policy) under the Religious Land Use

and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.

§§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5.1

 Two of the five inmates are practicing

Rastafarians, while three are practicing Muslims. Following the

partial grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and a

bench trial on the remaining dispositive issues, the district court

entered judgment in favor of the VDOC. We affirm.

I.

RLUIPA provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o government shall

impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person

residing in or confined to an institution . . . even if the burden

results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government

demonstrates that” the burden “is in furtherance of a compelling

governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of

furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. §

2000cc-1(a). Of relevance in the present appeal, the VDOC’s

Appeal: 06-7548 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/07/2008 Pg: 3 of 14
4

Grooming Policy requires that all beards be shaved, that male

inmates wear their hair no longer than their shirt collar, and that

mustaches extend no further than the corners of the mouth. The

VDOC formulated this policy in 1999, and the most current version

is dated July 1, 2003. The VDOC’s Grooming Policy applies to all

approximately 31,000 inmates in the VDOC system, regardless of

security level and regardless of religious beliefs. An inmate who

violates the VDOC’s Grooming Policy, for whatever reason, is

charged with an infraction. If he continues to violate the VDOC’s

Grooming Policy, he is assigned to administrative segregation where

he is supervised closely and is isolated from other inmates from

whom he may receive contraband or to whom he may pass it.

Continuous violation of the VDOC’s Grooming Policy also subjects an

inmate to possible reclassification to a higher security level and

a reduction in good conduct credit.

The Plaintiffs allege that the VDOC’s Grooming Policy places

a substantial burden on their religious exercise by prohibiting

them from wearing beards. The two Rastafarian Plaintiffs

additionally allege that the VDOC’s Grooming Policy places a

substantial burden on their religious exercise, because their

religion requires them to abstain from cutting their hair. One of

the three Muslim Plaintiffs also alleges that his religion requires

that he grow out his mustache.

Appeal: 06-7548 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/07/2008 Pg: 4 of 14
5

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. During

litigation on such motions, the VDOC conceded that it could not

disprove the sincerity of any individual Plaintiff’s belief that

his respective religion required him to wear his hair or beard in

a manner that violated the VDOC’s Grooming Policy. Based upon this

concession and on other analysis, the district court concluded that

the VDOC’s Grooming Policy substantially burdened the Plaintiffs’

exercise of religion and, therefore, granted them summary judgment

on that issue. Nonetheless, the district court held that genuine

issues of material fact still remained with respect to: (1)

whether the VDOC’s Grooming Policy furthers a compelling

governmental interest; and (2) whether the VDOC’s Grooming Policy

is the least restrictive means to further such interest.

On July 12, 2006, the district court held a bench trial on

these two issues, with each side presenting one expert witness.

The VDOC presented Director Johnson as its expert witness, while

the Plaintiffs presented James Aiken, a prison management

consultant.

Director Johnson has forty years of experience with the VDOC

at all levels of security. At trial, he testified that the VDOC’s

Grooming Policy furthers the compelling government interests of

prison security, health and safety of inmates and prison staff, and

easy identification of prisoners, especially in the case of

attempted escape or escape. Prison security is increased by an

Appeal: 06-7548 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/07/2008 Pg: 5 of 14
6

inmate’s lessened ability to conceal weapons and other contraband

on his person. The health and safety of inmates is increased by

allowing for better hygiene. Finally, inmates are more easily

identified because they are less able to quickly change their

appearance, for example, by shaving a beard. This is extremely

important in the case of attempted escape or escape. Director

Johnson also testified that the VDOC’s Grooming Policy is the least

restrictive means of addressing these interests.

James Aiken is a prison management consultant with a total of

fifteen years’ experience as a warden or assistant warden in South

Carolina and a total of eight years’ experience as the director or

deputy director of the prison systems of Indiana and the U.S.

Virgin Islands. James Aiken opined that two primary lesser

restrictive means than the VDOC’s Grooming Policy exist to further

the VDOC’s interests in prison security, the health and safety of

inmates and staff, and easy identification of inmates. The first

is that inmates who have sincere religious objections to the VDOC’s

Grooming Policy could be assigned to a separate, non-punitive,

living space or pod where they could wear their hair long as well

as wear beards. According to James Aiken, although these inmates

would have access to each other, such inmates could be closely

monitored to ensure that no issues relating to contraband or escape

arise. The second primary less restrictive means offered by James

Aiken is the transfer of inmates whose sincere religious beliefs

Appeal: 06-7548 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/07/2008 Pg: 6 of 14
7

conflict with the VDOC’s Grooming Policy to a different prison

system with no such conflicting policy.

The district court was ultimately persuaded by the VDOC’s

evidence that the VDOC’s Grooming Policy was the least restrictive

means to promote the compelling governmental interests of prison

security, the health and safety of inmates and prison staff, and

the easy identification of prisoners. Following the district

court’s entry of judgment in favor of the VDOC, the Plaintiffs

filed this timely appeal.

II.

On appeal, Plaintiffs seek reversal of the district court’s

judgment in favor of the VDOC based upon a sufficiency of the

evidence argument. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that although

the VDOC’s Grooming Policy had been in place for seven years at the

time of trial, the VDOC failed to present sufficient evidence that

the policy prevented the concealment of contraband, made the

identification of inmates within the prison and in the event of

escape easier, or contributed to the health of inmates and staff by

allowing for better hygiene. According to the Plaintiffs, the

VDOC’s only evidence that the VDOC’s Grooming Policy has actually

had an effect in any of these areas was the conclusory statements

of Director Johnson, which statements, the Plaintiffs argue, were

completely rebutted by its expert witness.

Appeal: 06-7548 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/07/2008 Pg: 7 of 14
2The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C.

§§ 2000bb et seq., is the precursor statute to RLUIPA, and

contained nearly identical language concerning the requirements of

a compelling interest and least restrictive means. RLUIPA was

enacted under the Spending Clause after RFRA was struck down as

applied to the states in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507

(1997), as an over exercise of Congressional authority under the

Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, case law under RFRA remains helpful in

analysis of claims under RLUIPA.

8

On appeal from a bench trial, we review findings of fact under

the clearly erroneous standard and conclusions of law de novo. 

Roanoke Cement Co., L.L.C. v. Falk Corp., 413 F.3d 431, 433 (4th

Cir. 2005). A factual finding is clearly erroneous when “the

reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United

States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).

“Whether something qualifies as a compelling interest is a

question of law,” United States v. Hardman, 297 F.3d 1116, 1127

(10th Cir. 2002), as well as whether the challenged policy

constitutes the least restrictive means of addressing a compelling

government interest, Hoevenaar v. Lazaroff, 422 F.3d 366, 368 (6th

Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 187 (2006).

Once “a plaintiff produces prima facie evidence to support a

claim alleging a violation” of RLUIPA, “the government shall bear

the burden of persuasion on any element of the claim, except that

the plaintiff shall bear the burden of persuasion on whether [the

challenged practice or law] substantially burdens the plaintiff’s

exercise of religion.”2 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(b). “In particular,

Appeal: 06-7548 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/07/2008 Pg: 8 of 14
9

the government must prove that the burden in question is the least

restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental

interest.” Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 186 (4th Cir. 2006).

With respect to both the compelling interest standard and the least

restrictive means standard, we owe “‘due deference to the

experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators in

establishing necessary regulations and procedures to maintain good

order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of

costs and limited resources.’” Id. at 190 (quoting Cutter v.

Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 723 (2005)). See also id. at 192

(instructing district court, in assessing a RLUIPA claim, to give

due deference to any explanation by prison officials as to why its

policy is the least restrictive means of addressing compelling

government intertest(s)).

Our careful review of the record in this case reveals no

reversible error. First, the testimony of Director Johnson, the

testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert witness James Aiken, and relevant

case law amply support the district court’s conclusions of law

that, in the prison setting, suppression of contraband, maintaining

discipline and security among the inmate population, maintaining

the health and safety of inmates and staff, and preventing

prisoners from quickly changing their appearance constitute

compelling governmental interests. See Cutter, 544 U.S. at 722

(“We do not read RLUIPA to elevate accommodation of religious

Appeal: 06-7548 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/07/2008 Pg: 9 of 14
10

observances over an institution’s need to maintain order and

safety.”); Longoria v. Dretke, 2007 WL 3308856, at *5 (5th Cir.

November 9, 2007) (maintaining security in prison setting is a

compelling state interest); Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272, 283

(3d Cir. 2007) (“Interests of safety and health play a particularly

important role in the institutional [prison] setting.”). See also

Hines v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corrections, 148 F.3d 353, 358

(4th Cir. 1998) (holding, pre-RLUIPA, that, in the prison setting,

suppression of contraband, limiting gang activity, maintaining

discipline and security, and preventing inmates from quickly

changing their appearance are legitimate governmental interests,

and additionally declaring in dicta that the same are compelling

governmental interests). The testimony of both experts and the

relevant case law establish far beyond any reasonable debate that

the business of running prisons is a dangerous and exceedingly

difficult task, one which cannot be successfully done without

suppressing contraband, maintaining discipline, maintaining

security, maintaining the health and safety of the inmates and

staff, and limiting inmates’ abilities to quickly change their

physical appearance.

Second, the testimony of Director Johnson and relevant case

law ably support the district court’s conclusion of law that the

VDOC’s Grooming Policy constitutes the least restrictive means of

addressing the compelling governmental interests just identified.

Appeal: 06-7548 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/07/2008 Pg: 10 of 14
11

Director Johnson, who has forty years’ experience in prison

management in the VDOC, testified that the VDOC’s Grooming Policy

promotes security and discipline and the health and safety of

inmates and staff by eliminating an inmate’s ability to hide

contraband or weapons in his beard and significantly limiting his

ability to hide contraband or weapons in his hair. Director

Johnson testified that, on a number of occasions prior to the

imposition of the VDOC’s Grooming Policy, inmates had hidden

contraband and/or weapons in their hair or beard, with one prison

officer being injured while “trying to shake down an inmate and

shake down his hair, and there was a razor blade or something in

the hair . . . .” (J.A. 59). Director Johnson also testified that

the VDOC’s Grooming Policy significantly cuts down on the number of

inmate shakedowns during which a prison officer must run his hands

all through an inmates hair and beard if he has one in order to

check for hidden contraband or weapons. According to Director

Johnson, prison officers are hesitant to perform shakedowns on long

haired and/or bearded inmates, “inmates don’t like you putting your

hands all through the[ir] hair to start with,” shakedowns are time

consuming, and the VDOC does “not have enough staff to continually

shake people down as they move from one area to another to prevent

transporting contraband.” Id. In sum, the less need for

shakedowns the better. This fact was illustrated by Director

Johnson’s testimony that approximately six months earlier, officers

Appeal: 06-7548 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/07/2008 Pg: 11 of 14
12

shaking down an inmate placed in administrative segregation for

refusing to cut his hair “found pieces of wire and rope and rocks

and tobacco, . . . that were hidden in his hair.” (J.A. 61).

Director Johnson’s testimony also supports that inmate hygiene

is improved by compliance with the VDOC’s Grooming Policy.

According to Director Johnson, the VDOC has had a number of fairly

serious medical problems that went undetected because of long hair,

for example, tumors and lesions. Director Johnson further

testified that he knew of numerous cases over the years where

inmates with long hair and/or beards developed lice or had spiders

in them.

Critically, in contrast to James Aiken’s testimony, the

testimony of Director Johnson explained the administrative burdens

that would result from the two main alternatives suggested by

Aiken. Specifically, Director Johnson explained that a special

housing unit for persons claiming religious exemption from the

VDOC’s Grooming Policy would not be feasible because the sheer

numbers of persons who would seek exemption would not allow it.

Additionally, the separate housing suggested by Aiken would not

alleviate the security concern associated with housing all inmates

claiming religious exemption in the same facility, as those

individuals, without being isolated from each other, would have

access to each other along with the ability to hide contraband in

their long hair and/or beards. James Aiken never addressed this

Appeal: 06-7548 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/07/2008 Pg: 12 of 14
13

security concern nor the extra time guards with limited amounts of

time would have to spend searching for contraband on an inmate with

long hair and/or a beard as opposed to searching for contraband on

a short haired, clean shaven inmate. We note that one of the key

features of the VDOC’s Grooming Policy that supports the district

court’s least restrictive means conclusion is that the VDOC’s

Grooming Policy does not mandate the forcible cutting of an

inmate’s long hair and/or beard. Rather, an inmate is allowed to

keep his long hair and/or beard. If he does so, however, he is

quite reasonably required to live in a segregated housing unit

(without access among inmates housed in such unit) where the

safety, security, and health risks created by long hair and beards

can be lessened by more restrictions on the inmate.

Finally, the record fully supports the district court’s

conclusion that the other proffered less restricted means of

serving the compelling governmental interests at issue, i.e.,

transferring inmates whose religious beliefs conflict with the

VDOC’s Grooming Policy to other prison systems without a grooming

policy, is not workable. As the district court explained, based

upon the testimony of Director Johnson:

Arranging for prisoners to be moved out-of-state to

jurisdictions with no grooming policy creates additional

concerns for the agency. Prisoners who are awaiting

transfers for other reasons will be delayed if prisoners

get moved first because the agency has to accommodate a

religious interest of another prisoner. The sheer

numbers of prisoners who may seek transfers for religious

accommodation reasons would threaten to overwhelm the

Appeal: 06-7548 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/07/2008 Pg: 13 of 14
14

system. Since the VDOC only conducts prisoner transfers

to other jurisdictions on a reciprocity basis, it would

be virtually impossible to arrange exchanges. There

would also be resentment from those prisoners who see

their own transfers delayed or made impossible because

others were moved ahead of them.

(J.A. 258).

In sum, given the record before us and the requirement that

courts give due deference to the expertise and experience of prison

officials, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See Hoevenaar

v. Lazaroff, 422 F.3d 366 (6th Cir. 2005) (upholding prison ban on

long hair against RLUIPA challenge), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 187

(2006); Ragland v. Angelone, 420 F. Supp. 2d 507 (W.D. Va. 2006)

(upholding challenge to VDOC’s Grooming Policy under RLUIPA by

Rastafarian who wanted to maintain long hair and beard within

regular prison population and without adverse consequences), aff’d,

193 Fed. Appx. 218 (Aug. 2, 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1877

(2007).

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 06-7548 Doc: 44 Filed: 01/07/2008 Pg: 14 of 14