FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ULY 23, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1359 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 60 01 9- CV-AJ HERBERT LEE HAT HCOCK, JR ., Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us JEFF RE Y S . C OH EN , D etective of Br owar d Sheriff Dep art m en t, SGT. MICHAEL CLARK, JOSEP H AIMEE RUSSO, Det ect iv e, BENYA A. KO OS, Dete ct iv e, SHERIFF KENNET H JENNE, She rif f of Bro wardCo un ty, etal.,
Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 23 , 200 8)2

Be fo re CA RN E S, BA RKE T T and H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: H er be rt H athc oc k, apr o se state pr iso ne r ap pe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of
sum m ar y j udgm en t onhis 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 a ct iona lle gin g de fe ndants vio la te d hi s r i g h tt o th e f

r e e e x e r c i s e o f

h i s I s l a mi c r e l i g i o n . A f

t e r r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I. BACKG ROUND Betw een July

21, 2004 and Ju ly

12, 2005, Hathcock was a pretrial detainee in j ai ls o pe rate d by

the Br ow ar d C ounty

S he ri ff ’ s O ff ic e (“ BS O ”)
. D ef

en dant Rick Bra swell is the BS O’ s Jail Chaplain. D efendant E m ilio Ponz is a Sergeant at th e Jo se ph Co nt e Fac il it y (“ Co nt e”), a jai l t ha t h ou se d Hat hc oc k. Hat hc oc k, a practicing Muslim , c laim s that, w hile in Browar d Countyj ails, he w as prevented from (1) w earing a headcovering called a Kufi c ap, ( 2) attending weekly Friday p r a ye r s e rv i c e s , kn o w n a s J u mu ’a h , an d( 3 ) e a t i n g k o s h e r mea l s o n s o me d a ys dur ing Ram ad an . A. Brow ard C ounty Jail Policy The B SO ’ s religious s ervices policy is Standard O perating Procedure P olicy N um be r 7. 14 ( “ SO P 7. 14” ). T he pol ic y a llo w s in m at es to pr ac tic e the ir r el igi on unl es s th er e is “ doc um en ta tio n in dic at ing adir ec t thr eat t o th e se curi ty or or de rl y op erat io n” of t he jail or “ th e act iv it y . . . wou ldpo se a da ng er t o s ta ff.” SOP 7 .14
.3

The C haplain coordin ates religious services and uses vo lunteers or volun teer cl er gy . S O P 7. 14( A ). T he pol ic y r equir es vol unt ee rs w ho c ondu ct r el igi ous se rv ic es to co nta ct

the Ch ap la in f

or c le ar an ce , tr ai nin g, and s ch ed uli ng o f program s. S OP 7.14(B). A cc or din g to Ch ap la in B ra sw el l, S O P 7. 14 d oe s no t pr ohi bit any r el igi on fr om hol din g c er em oni es a t the j ai l “pr ovi de d th at the re is anout sid e re lig iou s le ad er or vol unt ee r w ho c anbe loc at ed and who a gr ee s to c ondu ct and p re sid e ove r the se rv ic es . ” T he BS O r equir es out sid e vol unt ee rs , r athe r than in m at es , to pe rf orm r el igi ous ce re m oni es to m ai nta in s ec ur ity and d isc ipl ine in the j ai l by
av oid ing “ the r isk s a sso ci at ed w ithle av ing inm at es uns upe rv ise d and t o avoi d
cr eatin g an e nvi ro nm en t w he re inm at es w oul d have too m uc h po w er . ” Ch ap la in Bras well m

us t ap pr ov e an y

vo lu nt eer wh o p erfo rm s re li gi ou s s erv ic es at t he jail
. The B SO uses volu nteer Im am s, Muslim religious leaders, to conduct Jum u’ ahse rv ic es . C onse que ntl y , the f re que nc y of Jum u’ ahse rv ic es tur

ns o n th e av ai la bil ity of vol unt ee r Im am s and i s no t se t by Ch ap la in B ra sw el l. Whil e Hath co ckwas i n B SO jail s, J um u’ah ser vi ces us ua ll y

were h el d t wice a m on th
. Any inm ate could attend scheduled s ervices if he requested to do so
. Inm ates m ay also m eet privately

with their ow n clergy , discuss their religion with other inm ates
an d pr ay in the ir c el ls.4

W ithr eg ar d to r el igi ous ap pare l and i te m s, S O P 7. 14( D ) state s: Author iz ed

r el igi ous ite m s and l iturg ic al appare l are tho se e sse nti al to the practice of one’ s faith. .
. . A ny religious item s or liturgical apparel not ap pr ove d by the ch ap la in’ s off ic e w ill be c onsi de re d c ontra band and confiscated. . . . Inm ate requests for re ligio us item s and liturgi cal appare l will be sent to t h e ch ap lain’ s office f or approval. .
. . T he Brow ard Sh er if f’ s O ff ic e D O D CC or the c ha

pla in w ill not

sup ply inm at es w ith lit ur gic al appare l or

r el igi ous ite m s. E ac h in m at e is r es pons ibl e fo r obt aini ng appr ove d li tur gic al appare l or r el igi ous ite m s th ro ugh a represe ntative of his .
. . faith, a friend, or a fam ily m em ber.
. . . Inm ates w ill be a llo w ed to wear a ppr ove d li tur gic al appare l i n th ei r ce ll, dayro om , and t o and f

ro m r el igi ous se rv ic es . SO P 7.14(D ). A ccording to Chaplain Braswell, under SO P 7.14, inm ates at BS O j ai ls m ay pos se ss r el igi ous ap pare l “ es se nti al to the ir ind ivi dua l f

ai th, ” suc h a s a K uf i c ap f or aMu sli m

inm at e. T he Ch ap la in and the BS O do n ot s uppl y r el igi ous apparel, but will give inm ates donated religious item s if available. Inm ates m ay subm it the ir

ow n r el igi ous ite m s or

appare l, or

tho se pr ovi de d by

out sid e part ie s, to the Ch ap la in’ s O ff

ic e fo r ap pr ova l. A s to “ spe ci al die ts” r equir ed by ar el igi on, S O P 7. 14( E ) state s: Sp ec ia l di et s c or

re spon din g to r el igi ous h o l i d ay s o r r e q u i r e d by r el igi ous doc tr ine are a va ila

ble upon the inm at e’ s w ri tte n r eque st t o th e ch ap la in. C o n f i rm a t i o n w i l l b e g i v e n a s s o o n a s p o s s i b l e t h e r e a f t e r . . . I f the chaplain approves the request, it will be forw arded to the food services supe rv iso r w ho w ill , in co or din at ionw ith th e cha pla in, plan and im ple m en t the spe ci al die t. SO P 71.4(E ). Chaplain Brasw ell approves requests for special diets after5

co nf irm ing the sin ce ri ty

of the inm at e’ s be lie fs thr oughthe inm at e’ s r el igi ous leader. B. Hathcock ’s R eligious Requ ests O n Augus t 16 , 200 4, sho rt ly a ft er tr an sf er to Co nte , H athc oc k su

bm itt ed a re que st a ski ng whe the r the f ac ili ty pr ovi de d M usl im

inm at es w ithaQ ur anand Jum u’ ah services. T he Chaplain’ s Of fice r espond ed the next day that a Q uran wa s forthcom ing, Jum

u’ ah services w ere held the first and third Friday s of every
m onth, and H at

hc oc k’ s nam e ha d be ena dde d to the Mu sli m S er vic e L ist
. On Augus t 16, 2004, Hathcock sub m itted anoth er r equest asking for a Kufi
ca p, a s f oll ow s: D o y ou have a ny K of

i C aps [ ?] I f y ou do c a n y oup l e a se s e nd m e o ne [ ?] If not c an I ha ve on e se nt i n f

ro m hom e or is it som e w ay

/othe r that a Muslim inm ate can obtain one? Hath co ckask edwhen Ju m u’ah ser vi ces were p erfo rm edan d i f he co ul d a tt en d. O n Augus t 27 , the Ch ap la in’ s O ff ic e re spon de d th at

H athc oc k c oul d “br ing in [his] religious m aterials to [the Chaplain’ s Of fice] betwee n 9am

– 4 pm Monday thr u F ri day , ” Jum

u’ ahse rv ic es w er e he ld e ve ry F ri day a t 12 :30 p. m . , and H athc oc k’ s nam e w oul d be a dde d to the li st t o a tte nd s er vic es . O n Augus t 23 , 200 4, ade puty a t the j ai l a

ppr oa ch ed

S er ge an t P onz regarding Hathcock’ s Kufi c ap request. Ponz told th e deputy that HathcockHathcoc k filed a se cond inmate r equest on August 30, complaining that he had not 1 re c e ive d a

re sp on se to h is Augus t 23 inm ate re qu e st a nd a sk ingif he c ou ld w e ar h is K

uf i c a p to court. On Septe mber 16, Hathcock f iled a third inmate re quest stating that he had a lrea dy submitt ed an inmate reque st for per mission t o wea

r a K ufi ca p and askingfor he lp ge tting the a pp ro va l he ne e de d. Th e re c or d is sil e nt a s to the re sp on se to t he se tw o inmate re qu e sts . B e tw e e n Se pte mbe r 2 0 a

nd Oc tob e r 2 2, 20 04 , H athc oc k w a s in an is olatio n c e ll b e c a

us e 2 of possible MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococc us aure us) exposure. 6 needed to sub m it a request to the Chaplain’ s office, but did not forbid Hathcock fr om w eari ng a

K uf i c ap or or de r an y

sub or din at e to p re ve nt H athc oc k f ro m doi ng so. P onz ne ve r ha d any

dir ec t c ont ac t w ithH athc oc k. O n th e sa m e day , the deputytold Hathcock that Sergeant Ponz said Hathcock could not we ar his K ufi cap in th e jail
. T he de puty , a t P onz ’ s be he st, gave H athc oc k an in m at e re que st f orm and to ldhi m to su bm it itto th e Ch ap la in forpe rm is si on to wear t he Kufi cap . H athc oc k pr ep ar ed

and s ubm itt ed

to the de puty

his A ugus t 23 inm at e re que st form , but did not rec eive a r espons e because the C haplain’s O ffice never re ceived it. 1 H athc oc k m ai nta ins that hi s Augus t 23 , 200 4 in m at e re que st w as not to obt ai n aK

uf i c ap , but f or pe rm iss ionto w ear one a lr ea dy in his pos se ssi on. I n any ev en t, H athc oc k a

ppe ar s to have be gun w eari ng a K uf i c ap a t so m e poi nt. S hortly after being transferre d to the North Brow ard Bure au j ail, Hathcock lost the cap 2
w he n he le ft

it in his uni fo rm , w hic h w as se nt t o th e laundr y . O n S ep te m

be r 30,7

2004 , H athc oc k c om

ple te d an in m at e re que st a ski ng the Ch ap la in’ s O ff ic e to provide him

with a r eplacem ent Kufi c ap and asking when Jum u’ ah services w ere held. T he Chaplain’ s Of fice r espond ed the next day that their religious apparel
wa s donated, they

did no t have any

Kufi c aps available, and Jum u’ ah services
w er e he ld the se co nd and f ourth F ri day s of

e ac h m onth. The C haplain’s O ffice has no record of w hether any religious m aterials w ere ev er sub m itt ed

to it fo r ap pr ova l f

or H athc oc k’ s us e. H ow ev er , Ch ap la in B ra sw el l ind ic at ed that, ha d H athc oc k su

bm itt ed aK uf i c ap , apr ay er

r ug o r a Q ur anf

or i n s p ec t i o n , t h ey wo u l dh av e b ee n ap p ro v ed as i t ems e s s en t i al t o Ha t h co ck ’s Mus lim f ai th, and H athc oc k w oul d have be en pe rm itt ed

to w ear the K

uf i c ap in his
ce ll, in the dayro om

and t o and f

ro m r el igi ous se rv ic es . O n O ct obe r 6, 200 4, H athc oc k su bm itt ed anothe r inm at e re que st a ski ng f or perm issio n to have a Kufi c ap, a pray er r ug and a Quran sent to him “ from the outsi de” for R am adan. T he Chaplain’ s Of fice r espond ed the next day that Hathcock couldhave som eone bring the item s to the Chaplain’s O ffice betwee n 9 : 0 0 a . m. an d4 : 0 0 p . m., M o n d a y th r o u g h F r i d ay. While hou sed in BSO j ails, H athcock was on the list to attend Ju m u’ ah
se rv ic es and c oul d a tte nd whe ne ve r the y w er e he ld, e xc ep t w he n he w as in iso la tio n. B etw ee n Ju ly

22, 200 4 and Apr il 25, 200 5, w he n H athc oc k f ile d th is8

action, H athcock attended Jum u’ ah services thirteen tim es, m issin g onlythree that
w er e he ld whil e he w as not in iso la tio n. On Se ptem

ber 11, 2004, H athcock asked about receiving ko sher (pork-fr ee)
m ea ls d ur ing Ram ad an , w hic h be gan onO ct obe r 16, 200 4. H athc oc k w as tol d to
su bm it th e req ui redfor m

to th e Ch ap la in ’s Offic e, whi ch he di d o n S ep te m be r 15
. H athc oc k li ste d hi s pl ac e of w or shi p a s “ thi s j ai l” and s ta te d th at he did not
rem em ber the nam e of his Im am , but did kno w that he w as in the ja il “ on Friday s.” Af ter re viewing the form , on Se ptem ber 22, the C haplain’s O ffice asked Hathcock to provid e them

with his place of w orship andhis Im am ’ s nam e and contact
num be r. O n O ct obe r 7, H athc oc k su bm itt ed anothe r re que st f

or kos he r m ea ls, but the Ch ap la in’ s O ff

ic e advis ed

H athc oc k th at

it c oul d no t c onf

irm the sin ce ri ty

of his be lie f ba se d onthe inf orm at ionH athc oc k ha d pr ovi de d and tha t hi s r eque st
w a s b e i n g f

o rw a r d e dt o an I ma m. O n O ct obe r 20, I m am

U na l C oban in te rv ie w ed H athc oc k and c om

ple te d a fo rm ind ic at ing that H athc oc k’ s be lie f w as sin ce re ly he ld. O n O ct obe r 21, Ch ap la in B ra sw el l a

ppr ove d H athc oc k’ s sp ec ia l di et r eque st and f

or w ar de d it to Food Services. H owever , prison logs in dicate that Hathcock had already rec eivedOn Octobe r 20, Hathcock submitted a grieva nce f orm complainingthat his Ramadan 3 meals we re be ing se rved c old. Hathcoc k filed an inter locutory appea l of the district court’ s order dismiss ing some , but 4 not all, claims. This Court dism issed Hathcoc k’s appe al sua sponte f or lac k of jurisdiction. 9 his first kosh er m eal on Oc tober 17. But, on October 26, 27 and 28 the kitchen 3 de puty tol d H athc oc k he w as not on the Ram ad anli st and r ef use d to giv e him kosh er m ea ls. O n O ct obe r 28, H athc oc k f ile d agr ie vanc e statin g th at he ha d no t
rece ived his Ram adan dinner since being transferred to N orth Broward Burea u j ai l. T he j ai l O m

buds m an ’ s sam e- day

r es pons e ind ic at ed

“ Fo od S er

vic es is ch ec kin g in to this
. I t w ill be c or re ct ed
. ” Ch ap la in B ra sw el l i s no t i nvol ve d w ith fo od p re paratio n and i ndi cate d th at any kos he r m ea ls H athc oc k di d no t r ec ei ve
w as due to ove rs igh t by

kit ch enpe rs onne l. C . D ist ri ctC ou rtP ro ce ed in gs H athc oc k f

ile d th is § 198 3 a ct iona ga ins t num er ous de fe ndants , r ai sin g m an y c la im s f or r el ie f. Mo st o f H athc oc k’ s c la im s w er e dis m iss ed pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. § 191 5, rulings Hathcock does not challenge in th is appeal. T he district 4
co urt pe rm itt ed

H athc oc k’ s c la im s r eg ar din g th e K uf i c ap , Jum

u’ ahse rv ic es and Ram ad anm ea ls a ga ins t de fe ndants S er ge an t P onz and C ha pla in B ra sw el l t o pr oc ee d. The de fen da nt s m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t b as edon qu al ifi edimm un it y .We r e vie w d e no vo a dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra

nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt, a

pp lyingthe same 5 leg al standar ds as the district cour t. Whatley

v. CNA Ins. Cos., 189 F.3d 1310, 1313 (11th Cir. 19 99 ). Summary

jud g me nt i s a

pp ro pr iate “ if

the ple a din g s, de po sit ion s, ans we rs to interrog atories, a

nd admissions on file, toge ther with the a ffidavits, if any , show that there is no g e nu ine iss ue a s to any

mate ri a l f

a c t and that th e mov ingpa

rt y is e nti tle d to a

jud g me nt a s a matter of la

w.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (2007). A ll evidence and re asonable fac tual infere nces a re viewed in a

light most favor able to the non- moving pa rty . Rojas v. Florida, 285 F .3d 1339, 1341-42 (11th Cir. 2002). 10 The m agistrate j udge’s r eport (“ R&R”) construed Hathcock’ s com plaint to assert cl ai m s un de r both th e Fi rs t A m en dm en t and the Re lig iou s L an d U se and In sti tut ion al iz ed

P er sons A ct

( “ RL U IP A ”) , 42 U
. S. C. § 20 00c c et se q. , and
re co m m en de d gr an tin g th e de fe ndants ’ m oti on. O ve r H athc oc k’ s ob j ec tio ns, the di st ric t co ur t ad op te d t he R&R a nd gra nt edsu m m ary jud gm en t t o t he de fen da nt s. H athc oc k f

ile d th is a ppe al
. 5 II. D ISCU SSION A . RL U I PA Cl a i ms T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that H athc oc k’ s R L U IP A c la im s f ai le d onthe
m erits. Af

ter the district court’ s order, this Court conclud ed that RL UI PAdoes not c re at e a pr ivate a ct ionf

or m one tary

dam ag es a ga ins t pr iso n of fi ci al s su ed

in th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ty. Sm it h v . All en , 50 2 F .3d12 55 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). T hus, H athc oc k m ay

not br ing ac la im

f or m one tary

dam ag es a ga ins t P onz andInmates may bringRLUI PA claims for nominal dama g es (but not compensatory or 6 punitive damag es) a g ainst defe ndants in their offic ial capa cities. Smit h, 502 F.3d at 1270-71, 12 75 -7 6. Ho we ve r, the dis tr ic t c ourt c on c lud e d th at H athc oc k’ s RLUI PA c la ims we re a g a ins t Ponz and B raswe ll indivi dually . Hathcoc k does not cha lleng e this conclusion on appe al and, thus, we do not addre ss it further. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen, 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (e x plaining that issues not raised by an appe llant in the appea l brief a re de emed a ba nd on e d) . F ur

the rm or e , b e c a

us e we c on c lud e tha

t H athc oc k’ s in div idu a l c a pa c ity RLUI PA claims are not cog nizable, we do not addr ess whethe r the district cour t corre ctly

conclude d that the se c la ims fa ile d o n th e me ri ts. 11 Br as w el l i n th ei r ind ivi dua l c ap ac iti es . T o th e ex te nt H athc oc k se ek s in j unc tiv e 6
or de cl ar at or

y r el ie f, his RL U IP A c la im s are m oot be ca use he w as tr an sf

er re d f ro m th e cu st od y

of t he BSO to th e Fl or id a Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s o n M ay 5, 2 00 5. See Spears v. Thigpen, 846 F. 2d 13 27, 1328 (11t h Cir. 1988 ) (e xplaini ng an inm at e’ s § 1 983 cl ai m

f or inj unc tiv e or

de cl ar at or

y r el ie f ar e m oot

onc e the inm at e ha s be entr an sf

er re d)
. A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in gr an tin g sum m ar y j udgm en t t o th e de fe ndants on H athc oc k’ s R L U IP A c la im s. B . Fi r s t Ame n d me n t Cl a i ms As to defendants’ qualified im m unitydefense, we em

ploythe two-step in qu iry in S au ci er v . Katz, 5 33 U.S. 19 4, 1 21 S. Ct. 2 15 1 (2 00 1) . Firs t, we determ ine whether the defendants’ conduct vio lated the plaintiff’ s constit ution al ri ght s. I d. a t 20 1, 121 S
. Ct
. a t 21 56. I f no c onst itu tio na l r igh t ha s be envio la te d,
our inquir y e nds an d th e de fe ndants are e nti tle d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty . I d. I f the fa ct s sh owac onst itu tio na l vi olatio n, w e de te rm ine w he the r the c onst itu tio na l r igh tThe Tur ner f actor s are : “(1) whether

there is a ‘valid, rational connec tion’ betwee n the 7 regulation and a leg itimate gove rnmental intere st put forwar d to justi fy it; (2) whether

there are a lte rn ativ e me ans of

e xer c isi ngthe a sse rt e d c on sti tut ion a l r ig ht t hat r e ma in o pe n to the inm ate s; 12 w as c le ar ly

e sta bli she d a t the ti m e the vio la tio n oc curr ed
. I d. 1. Kufi C ap W e fi rs t co nc lu de th atth e act io ns of P on z an d B ras well in en fo rci ng SOP 7.14(D) and requiring Hathcock to obtain app roval before w earing his Kufi ca p did not vio la te H athc oc k’ s F ir st A m en dm en t r igh t t o pr ac tic e his Mu sli m f ai th. It is undi sput ed

that ( 1) S O P 7. 14( D ) pe rm its inm at es to w ear ap pr ove d r el igi ous apparel in their ce ll, day

room and to and from

religious services; and (2) a K ufi
ca p w oul d be appr ove d a

ppare l. T hus, be fo re H athc oc k c oul d w ear his K uf i c ap , he ne ed ed

to subm it the c ap f

or ins pe ct ionand o bta in a

ppr ova l f ro m the Chaplain’ s Of

fice. Although “prisoners do n ot shed all cons titutio nal rights at the prison gate,

. . . [ l] aw fu l i nc ar ce ratio n br ing s a bout the ne ce ssary

w ith dr aw al or

li m itatio n of
m an y pr ivi le ge s and r igh ts. ” S an dinv. Co nne r, 515 U
. S. 472 , 485 , 115 S
. Ct
. 2293 , 230 1 ( 1995 ) (c itatio n and quot at ionm ar ks o m itt ed ). Apr iso n r eg ulatio n, even thoug h it infringes the inm ate’ s constit ution al rights to so m e degree, is an
ac tio nable c onst itu tio na l vi olatio n on ly if the r eg ulatio n is unr ea sona ble
. H ak im
v. H ic ks, 223 F
. 3d 1 244, 124 7 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0)
. W e ev al ua te w he the r the pr iso n 7(3) whe ther a nd the extent to which acc ommodation of the asser ted rig ht will have an impac t on prison staff, inmate s, and the a llocation of prison re source s g ener ally ; and (4) whether the regulation repre sents an ‘e x ag g erated re sponse’ to prison conc erns.” Pope v. Hig htower, 101 F.3d 1382, 1384 ( 11th Cir. 1996) (quoting T urner , 482 U.S. at 89-91, 107 S. Ct. at 2261-62). Hathcoc k’s appe llate brief makes pa ssing r efe renc e to the violation of his equal 8 protec tion and due proc ess rig hts under the United States a nd Florida

Constit utions, but offers no substantive argument or leg al ana ly sis of these cla ims. S uch passingref ere nces a re insuff icient to raise these claims on appe al. See Gr eenbr iar, Ltd v. Cit y of Alaba ster, 881 F .2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989) (findingan issue wa ived wher e only a passingref

ere nce a nd no substantive argument was made in the appea l brief)
. Notably , other c ircuits have uphe ld policies imposing more one rous re strictions and 9 outrig ht bans on relig ious headwe ar a s rea sonably related to secur ity , disciplinary and sanitar

y considerations. S ee Y oungv. L ane, 922 F .2d 370, 375-77 (7th Cir. 1991); B enjamin v. Coughlin, 905 F .2d 571, 578-79 (2d Cir. 1990); StandingDee r v. Carlson, 831 F .2d 1525, 1528 (9th Cir. 1987); Roge rs v. Scurr, 676 F .2d 1211, 1215-16 (8th Cir. 1982). 13 re gul at ionis re as ona

ble usi ng the f

our f ac tor s inT ur

ne r v. S af le y , 482 U
. S. 78, 107 S. Ct
. 225 4 ( 1987 ). I d. T hus, inm at es r et ai n th e ri ght to fr ee e xe rc ise of
re lig ionsub

j ec t t o pr iso n r eg ulatio n c onsi ste nt w iththe T ur ne r re as ona

ble ne ss standard
. S ee id. a t 12 48. 8 T he BS O ’ s pr oc ed

ur es in SO P 7. 14( D ) ar e cl earl y r ea sona ble
. T hose procedures requiring insp ection and approval of apparel have a valid rational connection to a legitim ate interest in ensuring that inm ate appare l does not pose a threat to safety

or security

in the prison
. Furtherm ore, the BSO ’ s policyleaves open alternative m eans of exerc ising the asserted right. Indeed, B SO ’ s policy strikes a balance generously in favor of the inm ate’ s religious exercise given that
aninm at e’ s us e of

r el igi ous ap pare l i s vi rt

ua lly unr es tr ic te d f

oll ow ing appr ova l. 914

T his ins pe ct ionand a

ppr ova l po lic y

is not an e xa gge rate d r es pons e to p ri son co nc er ns. T hus, und er

the T ur ne r standard , S O P 7. 14( D ) is r ea sona bly r el at ed to legitim ate penological purpo ses and its enforcem ent by Ponz and Brasw ell does
no t v io la te Hath co ck ’s con st it ut io na l ri gh ts . 2. Jum

u’ ah Ser vices The B SO em

ploy s one full-tim e chaplain, B rasw ell, who coordin ates
re lig iou s se rv ic es . T he c ha pla in r el ie s up on v olunte er c le rg y to pe rf orm m an y re lig iou s se rv ic es a t the j ai l. T he f re que nc y of r el igi ous se rv ic es de pe nds uponthe
av ai la bil ity of vol unt ee rs . T he BS O doe s no t pe rm it inm at es to co nduc t r el igi ous se rv ic es be ca

use of se curi ty c onc er ns r el at ed to inm at e supe rv isi on and a ff or din g in m at es who m ig ht co nd uc t t he ser vi ces “ to o m uc h p owe r.” Ch ap la in B ra sw el l’ s r el ianc e on v olunte er c le rg y to co nduc t so m e re lig iou s services is rea sonably

relate d to the BSO’ s security and budg etary

concerns. See L aw son v. S ing le tary , 85 F
. 3d 5 02, 510 ( 11th C ir
. 199 6) ; se e al so O ve rt on v . Ba zz etta , 539 U
. S. 126 , 135 , 123 S
. Ct
. 216 2, 216 9 ( 2003 ) (e xpl ai nin g th at c ourts
ar e “ part ic ularl y

de fe re nti al ” to p ri son adm ini str at or ’ s r eg ulator y j udgm en ts
re gard ing se curi ty

and a llo catio n of

f inanc ia l r es our ce s)
. F urthe rm or e, a lte rn at ive
m eans r em ai ne d op engiv enthat Jum u’ ahse rv ic es w er e he ld at l ea st tw ic e a m onth and Hathcock could pray or w orship in his cell on the Friday s when an Im am wa s15

unava ila ble , spe ak

w ithoth er

Mu sli m inm at es about

his r el igi on and arr an ge pr ivate m ee tin gs w ithout sid e spi ri tua l a dvi sor s. S ee Mc Co rk le v. Joh nson , 881 F. 2d 9 93, 996 ( 11th C ir
. 198 9) ( expla ini ng tha t the inquir y int o a lte rn at ive m eans as ks “ w he the r, und er

the r es tr ic tio ns i m

pose d, the pla int if

f is d ep ri ve d of

a ll m eans of practicing his religion” (quo tation m arks om itted)). H athc oc k arg ue s th at

guard s c oul d su

pe rv ise inm at e- co nduc te d r el igi ous services. H owever , the T urner standard “ does not im pose a least-re strictiveal te rn at ive te st, but

a sks ins te ad

w he the r the pr iso ne r ha s po int ed to som e obvi ous re gul at or y a lte rn at ive that f

ull y a cc om m oda te s th e as se rt ed

r igh t w hil e not im posi ng m or e than ade m ini m is c ost to the va lid

pe nol ogi ca l go al
. ” O ve rt on, 539 U
. S. a t 13 6, 123 S
. Ct
. a t 21 69. P ro vid ing a ddi tio na l gu ar ds t o su pe rv ise inm at e- co nduc te d r el igi ous se rv ic es r ep re se nts m or e than ade m ini m is c ost . G ive n th e BS O ’ s le git im at e se curi ty , bud ge tary and p er sonn el c onc er

ns and the alternatives offer ed inm ates for private practice of their fa ith, w e conclude that it is reasonable for Chaplain Bra swell to re ly on vol unteer Im am s to condu ct Ju m u’ah ser vi ces , eve n t ho ug h i t re su lt edin ser vi ces be in g h el d e ve ry two week s. A cc or din gly , H athc oc k’ s F ir st A m en dm en t r igh ts w er e not vio la te d. 3. Ram ad anMe al s A j ail shoul d accom

m odate an inm ate’ s religious d ietary restrictions, subje ct16

to bu dg et ary an d l og is ti cal li m it at io ns , bu t o nl y when th e b el ie f is “ tru ly hel d.” Mar ti ne ll i v . Dug ge r, 81 7 F .2d14 99 , 15 04 -0 6, 1 50 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 7) . There fo re, BS O ’ s a ppr ova l pr oc es s f

or spe ci al r el igi ous die ts c or re spon din g to r el igi ous holid ay s is reasonable. H athc oc k r ec ei ve d ko she r m ea ls f or Ram ad anbe gin nin g onO ct obe r 17, 2004
. H is f

ai lur e to r ec ei ve akos he r m ea l onO ct obe r 16, the f ir st d ay of Ram ad an , w as due , a t l ea st i n part , to his own f ai lur e to p ro vid e suf

fi ci en t in fo rm at io n fo r th e Ch ap la in ’s Offic e to co nf irm th e si nc eri ty of hi s b el ie f. Chaplain Brasw ell approved Hathcock’ s request for kosher m eals one day after an Im am interviewe d Hathcock and confirm ed the sincerity of H athcock’ s belief. A lth oughH athc oc k di d no t r ec ei ve kos he r m ea ls o n O ct obe r 26, 27 and 2 8, H athc oc k ha s no t sh ow n th at Ch ap la in B ra sw el l w as inv olv ed w iththi s in ci de nt o r that the m eals w ere intentio nally withheld. R ather, the rec ord dem onstrates that this occurred due to an oversigh t by kitchen personn el. Moreover, when H athcock
co m pla ine d onO ct obe r 28 tha t he ha d no t r ec ei ve d ko she r m ea ls, the
om buds m an’ s response ind icated that the err or would be corre cted. Given that H athc oc k do es not

c ont en d th at

he f ai le d to r ec ei ve akos he r m ea l onO ct obe r 29, it ap pe ar s th e er

ro r w as c or

re ct ed
. T he se f

ac ts d o no t de m onstrate aF ir st A m en dm en t vi olatio n.To the extent Hathcoc k argues that the district cour t erre d in denying his post-judg ment 10 motion to amend his complaint (which he now c hara cter izes as a motion to alter or ame nd the jud g me nt p ur su ant t o Ru le 59 (e )) , w e la c k ju ri sd ic tio n to re vie w the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of thi s motion because Hanc ock did not amend his alre ady -filed notice of appe al or file a second notice of appe al af

ter the district c ourt denied this motion. See Fe d. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) (B )(ii). 17 III. C ONC LUS ION For the forgoing reasons, the district court properly granted summ ary j udgm ent to the defendants on Hathcock’ s First A m endm ent and RLU IPA cl ai m s. 10 AFFIRMED.