Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06172/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06172-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ben Curliss
Appellant
Steve Hargett
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FEB 5 1 91 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

BEN CORLISS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STEVE HARGETT, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

No. 90-6172 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-264-R} 

(W.D. Oklahoma} 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined un~nimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a}; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Curliss appeals, pro se, the dismissal of his civil 

rights complaint. 

Mr. Curliss requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis 

and we grant this request. 

* 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: 90-6172 Document: 010110098440 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Curliss is confined as an inmate in the Oklahoma State 

Reformatory. He filed a civil action, prose, against the Warden 

of the penitentiary in the Warden's official capacity. The action 

was grounded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged: (1) that he was 

being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in that he was 

denied the right to practice his Jewish faith by growing a beard; 

(2) that he was denied due process and equal protection as the 

Warden refused to provide Mr. Curliss with religious exemption 

forms; and (3) that he is being retaliated against for filing an 

unrelated civil rights suit under 42 u.s.c. § 1983. Mr. Curliss 

requested $500,000 damages and asked for injunctive relief by 

being given an ''exemption from shaving." The Warden answered 

raising several defenses including immunity, failure to state a 

claim, and that the grooming code was reasonably related to a 

legitimate penological objective. 

The district court, in a ten-page Opinion and Order entered 

April 25, 1990, dismissed the action after concluding: (1) that 

immunity from damages existed; (2) that the regulation prohibiting 

beards was a valid exercise of the prison official's authority; 

and (3) the retaliation claim was vague, unsupported by specific 

facts and contained only conclusions. 

Mr. Curliss appeals raising essentially the same issues. He 

cites no cases, let alone any cases that would conflict with the 

case authority cited by the district court. He argues that his 

prison ID card shows him in a beard, which picture was made upon 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6172 Document: 010110098440 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 2 
his arrival at the penitentiary, that his appearance has always 

been good, and generally argues the facts to us. 

In reviewing a case such as this, we must assume the facts 

well pleaded to be true. We must decide whether, assuming the 

facts to be true, Mr. Curliss would be entitled to recover damages 

from the Warden or whether he would he entitled .to injunctive 

relief against the Warden. It is clear that under the facts set 

forth by Mr. Curliss he would be entitled to neither. 

We have reviewed the record on appeal and carefully 

considered the brief and arguments of Mr. Curliss. We AFFIRM the 

judgment of the district court for substantially the same reasons 

set forth in the Opinion and Order dated April 25, 1990, a copy of 

which is attached. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6172 Document: 010110098440 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 3 
( ( 

-IN THE_UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR -

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

BEN CURLISS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STEVE HARGETT, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

CIV-90-264-R 

/; c o {) - . - - ,"11 I\,._ ._) I •J ' ., 

Plaintiff, an Oklahoma prisoner incarcerated at the Oklahoma State Reformatory, 

Granite, Oklahoma, has been permitted to proceed in Jonna pauperis in this 42 U.S.C. 

§1983 action. Plaintiff alleges in Count I of his .complaint that he is ''being subjected to 

cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th amendment of the United States 

constitution by being denied the right to practice my Jewish faith by growing facial hair." 

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that he is "being denied due process and equal protection of 

OP-0703G9-0l and the 14th amendi--ncnt of d1e United StQtes co:-.stitutior.. by tb.e refusal 

of Mr. Hargett to provide [religious] exemption forms." [n conjunction with these claims, 

Plaintiff alleges that he is the subject of retaliatory measures, including harassment and 

the filing of institutional disciplinary charges, as the result of his filing of another civil 

rights complaint in this Court in Curliss v . Leistner, CIV-90-180-W. 

Appellate Case: 90-6172 Document: 010110098440 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 4 
( ( 

-Respondent Warden has filed an answer to the complaint and -a rrieinoranauiri brief 

addressing the allegations in the complaint, and Plaintiff has filed pleadings denoted 

"Plaintiffs (sic) Response to Defendants (sic) Memorandum Brief' and "Plaintiffs Response 

to Defendant's Answer." 

Plaintiff sues Defendant Hargett in his official capacity as the Warden at Oklahoma 

State Reformatory. The Supreme Court has addressed §1983 suits against state officials 

and concluded in Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S._..) 57 U.S.L.W. 

4677 (U.S. June 15, 1989), that a state official acting in his official capacity is not a 

"person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1983. [d. at 4680. Further, a suit against 

such a state official is a suit against' the entity the official represents, and states are 

immune from suit under § 1983 by operation of the Eleventh Amendment, unless the state 

has effectively waived its immunity. [d. at 4679-4680; Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S . . 

159, 165-167, n. 14 (1985). Oklahoma has not waived its Eleventh Amendment 

immunity. 51 Q.S. Supp. 1985, §152.1. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot sue Defendant 

Hargett for monetary damages for Defendant's official capacity actions. 

Nevertheless, Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief "until this matter religious (sic) 

right to grow facial hair ... is adjudicated ... " requires that this Court review Plaintiffs 

claims on their merits to determine the constitutionality of the policy at issue. Kentucky 

v. Graham, supra at 167 n. 14; Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-160 (1908). See Will 

v. Michigan Department of State Police, supra at 4680 n. 10 ("Of course a state official 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6172 Document: 010110098440 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 5 
( ( 

.·in his or-her-official capacity,- when sued for injunctive reli_ef, _would .be a person .under 

§1983 ... "). 

Under the Oklahoma Department of Corrections' established policy, beards at 

maximum and medium security facilities are prohibited. Oklahoma Department of 

Corrections Policy and Operations Manual, Policy Statement No. OP-090126 (effective 

3/18/89)(hereinafter "Inmate Grooming Code"). However, the Inmate Grooming Code 

provides that "[e]ach facility shall establish procedures for recommending exemption to 

the hair length policy for religious reasons. Facilities shall verify that the inmate is a 

sincere adherent to a recognized religion in which the cutting of hair is prohibited." At 

the Oklahoma State Reformatory, the medium security facility where Plaintiff is 

in..:arcerated, inmates may request an exemption for religious reasons from the Inmate 

Grooming Code. The inmate requesting a religious exemption at this facility is required 

to show the following: 

(1) That your religion is a recognized religion. 

(2) That you are a sincere adherent of the religion, verified by a 

reputable non-family member who is not under the custody of the 

Oklahoma Department of Corrections. 

(3) That the practice inhibited by the institutions (sic) regulation is a 

funda.."11ental tenet of the religion. 

Oklahoma State Reformatory Policy Statement No. OSR-070309-01 (effective November 

1, 1988). 

The free exercise of religion is protected from governmental interference by the 

First Amendment, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6172 Document: 010110098440 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 6 
( ( 

. ---Cruz v. Betci~-405 U.S. -319, 322 (1972)(per--·curiain). Incarceration; however, "brings 

about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction 

justified by the considerations underlying our penal system." Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 

266, 285 (1948). Nevertheless, a prisoner "retains those First Amendment rights that are 

not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate objectives of the 

corrections system." Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974). Prisoners must be 

given "reasonable opportunities" to exercise the religious freedom guaranteed by the First 

and Fourteenth Amendments "without fear of penalty." Cruz v. Beto. supra at 322 n.2. 

When a prison restriction is challenged as inhibiting First Amendment guarantees, the 

regulation "must be analyzed in terms of the legitimate policies and goals of the 

corrections system" incarcerating the inmate. Pell v. Procunier. supra. If the regulation 

is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, ~ deterrence of crime, 

rehabilitation of prisoners, -and institutional security, it is valid. O'Lone v. Shabazz, 482 

U.S. 342, 348-349 (1987); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). 

The Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley, supra, identified four factors as relevant 

to the inquiry regarding the reasonableness of prison regulations that impinge on 

constitutional freedoms. Accord, O'Lone v. Shabazz, supra at 350-352. First, the Court 

in Turner recognized that "there must be a 'valid, rational connection' between the prison 

regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to identify it." Id. at 89, 

quoting Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 586 (1984). In the First Amendment 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6172 Document: 010110098440 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 7 
( ( 

-- context, the Court noted it was importanfto inquire-whether the regulation operare·s-"in 

a neutral fashion, without regard to the content of the expression." Turner v. Safley, 

supra at 90. A second factor recognized by the Court is "whether there are alternative 

means of exercising the rights that remain open to prison inmates." rd. A third factor 

is "the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards 

and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally." Id. Fourth, "the 

absence of ready alternatives is evidence of the reasonableness of a prison regulation." 

In the determination whether the prison regulation at issue is reasonable, this 

Court is mindful of the "measure of judicial deference owed to corrections officials. . . in 

gauging the validity of the regulation." Pell v. Procunier, supra at 827. Penological 

considerations, including the measures needed to assure institutional security, are 

"peculiarly within the province and professional expertise of corrections officials, and, 

in the absence of substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the officials have 

exaggerated their response to these considerations, courts should ordinarily defer to their 

expert judgment in these matters." rd. 

The Inmate Grooming Code applicable to all Oklahoma prisoners states that the 

regulation must be "maintained, as it affects the sanitary conditions of the living quarters 

and the safety, health, and welfare of the inmates." In Pollock v. Marshall, 845 F.2d 

656, 658-659 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 239 (1988), prison officials identified 14 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-6172 Document: 010110098440 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 8 
( ( 

- -reasons foYa -prisori-hair length policy in-the face of a free exercise of religion challenge, - --- -

including: The growing of hair hinders the ability to make quick identification, and 

quick identification is needed in a prison setting to identify inmates involved m 

institutional misconduct in order to ensure discipline and to facilitate recapture of 

escaped inmates; longer hair has a greater tendency to clog sinks and showers creating 

a sanitation problem; and longer hair is also more conducive to the carrying of lice 

creating a sanitation problem. The Sixth Circuit found the interests identified by prison 

officials to be both legitimate and reasonably related to the prison's regulation limiting 

inmate hair length. Id. at 659. In similar challenges on free exercise grounds, other 

courts have found prison regulations limiting hair length and limiting or prohibiting facial 

hair to be logically connected to legitimate institutional interests in security and order. 

See Reed v. Faulkner, 842 F.2d 960, 963 (7th Cir. 1988); Fromer v. Scully, 874 F.2d 69 

(2nd Cir. 1989); Brightly v. Wainwright, 814 F.2d 612 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub 

nom. Watts v. Dugger, 484 U.S. 944 (1987); Hill v. Blackwell, 774 F.2d 338 (8th Cir. 

1985); Wilson v. Schillinger, 761 F.2d 921 (3rd Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1096 

(1986). 

This Court also finds the Oklahoma Department of Corrections' policy prohibiting 

facial hair to be legitimate and reasonably related to the interests of the institution in 

promoting institutional security, including aiding in the quick identification of inmates 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-6172 Document: 010110098440 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 9 
( ( 

- -- -- - -- -rieces-saifiria varfety of exigerit circumstances, mafutairung-the -facility;-and safeguarding -

the health and welfare of the inmates. 

The regulation prohibiting facial hair is neutrally written, and the associate 

director or designated official at each facility . is given discretion to exempt an inmate 

from the policy only when the inmate shows he or she is a sincere believer in a 

recognized religion espousing a conflicting doctrine. 

Plaintiff alleges only that he is an Orthodox Jew and that he is being required to 

follow the policy prohibiting facial hair. Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that his 

particular faith requires him not to shave. Plaintiff also does not allege and the record 

fails to show that Plaintiff has requested a religious exemption from the policy, although 

the record shows Plaintiff has been instructed by the Warden concerning the 

requirements for obtaining an exemption. Thus, whether or not the Plaintiff meets the 

requirements for the exemption is as yet undetermined. Nevertheless, the policies of the 

1 Department of Corrections and the Oklahoma State Reformatory provide an alternative 

in the form of the religious exemption. The alternative is reasonable, and prison officials 

may rationally require the Plaintiff to obtain the approval of prison officials before 

Plaintiff is allowed an exemption from the policy. 

Moreover, Plaintiff has been provided other "reasonable opportunities" to exercise 

his religious beliefs. Inmates at Oklahoma State Reformatory may receive a visiting 

minister for religious instruction, and religious services and programs may be scheduled. 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-6172 Document: 010110098440 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 10 
.. ' ' -

( ( 

-Plaintiff may possess religious objects essential to his faith.-·-tnmate Grooming Code, No. 

OP-0901 i2; Oklahoma State Reformatory Policy Statement Nos. OSR-090301-01 and 

OSR-090302-01. Modified diets may be requested for religious reasons. Oklahoma 

Department of Corrections Policy and Operations Manual, No. OP-070202 (effective 

1/10/90). 

Given the opportunities available to Plaintiff to exercise his religious beliefs, and 

the existence of a reasonable religious exemption procedure open to all inmates, the 

Court finds the regulation at issue is a valid exercise of the prison officials' authority. 

Therefore, the Court will defer to the judgment of the Oklahoma correctional officials 

that the regulation is necessary to achieve the stated purposes, and Plaintiff has not 

shown that the officials' response to legitimate penological considerations is exaggerated. 

Battle v. Anderson, 564 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1977), which Plaintiff relies on, does not 

support his claim. In affirming the District Court's findings in prior proceedings that 

Oklahoma prisons violated the Eighth Amendment as a result of overcrowding, the Tenth 

Circuit held that an inmate "is entitled to be confined in an environment which does not 

result in his degeneration or which threatens his mental and physical well being." Id. at 

403. The Tenth Circuit has since found that the conditions in the Oklahoma prison 

system are constitutional. Battle v. Anderson, 708 F.2d 1533, 1537 (10th Cir. 1983)(per 

curiam), cert. denied 465 U.S. 1014 (1984); Battle v. Anderson, 788 F.2d 1421, 1427 

(10th Cir. 1986). 

8 

Appellate Case: 90-6172 Document: 010110098440 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 11 
( ( 

Plaincift's:clairn in Count ·tr of his complaint is that lie is being deriied due prcicess 

and equal protection due to Defendant Warden's "refusal ... to provide exemption forms." 

However, the record shows Plaintiff has received explicit directions from Warden Hargett 

regarding the procedure for obtaining a religious exemption to the Inmate Grooming 

Code, and there is no evidence of a discriminatory intent or suspect classification 

necessary to invoke review under equal protection standards. 

Finally, Plaintiff asserts that he is being retaliated against by prison officials for 

the filing of a federal civil rights suit. Plaintiff has attached as Exhibits 8 and 9 to 

"Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Answer'' two offense reports, dated February 8, 1990, 

both charging Plaintiff with Disobedience to Orders and Failure to Obey Verbal and/or 

Written Order of Staff Member. The charges are based on Plaintiffs alleged failure to 

comply with orders to shave his beard and get a hair cut. Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 

§1983 complaint, Curliss v. Leistner, CIV-90-180-W, on February 1, 1990. However, 

there is no relationship between the issues presented in the civil case and the disciplinary 

charges. Plaintiffs allegations of retaliation are unsupported by any specific evidence of 

retaliatory motives or actions, and the Court finds Plaintiffs conclusory allegations of 

retaliation are without merit. 

Accordingly, judgment will issue denying Plaintiffs demand for monetary and 

injunctive relief and dismissing the cause of action. Based on the foregoing reasons for 

9 

Appellate Case: 90-6172 Document: 010110098440 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 12 
( ( 

dismissal and because -an -appeal from -~ decision would not b~ well taken, lea~e to. 

proceed on appeal in f onna pauperis is denied. 

Entered this .:J 5ffiday of April, 1990. 

~~-~ DAVID L. RUS LL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

10 

Appellate Case: 90-6172 Document: 010110098440 Date Filed: 02/05/1991 Page: 13