FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 10, 2005 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 04- 1515 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00403 -CV -4-RH -W CS LESLIE ALFRED BRUNSKILL, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us TYRONE BOYD, JAM ES CROSB Y, Se cr et ar y of the F lor ida

D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns, D ef

en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 10, 200 5) Be fo re BA RKE T T , H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

L es lie A lf

re d B runski ll, aF lor ida

pr iso ne r pr oc ee din g pr o se , ini tiate d th is sui t, pur suant t o 42 U . S. C. § 19 83, a ga ins t Jam es Cr osby , S ec re tary of the F lor ida D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns ( FD O C) , and T yro ne Bo y d, he ad c ha pla in o f the FD O C. H e ap pe al s th e fo llo w ing : I. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t onhis c la im s a lle gin g vio latio ns o f the F ir st Am en dm en t F re e E xe rc ise and E sta bli shm en t Cl au se s, the Re lig iou s F re ed om Re sto ratio n A ct

( “ RF RA ”) , Re lig iou s L an d U se and I nst itutio na liz ed P er sons A ct

( “ RL U IP A ”) , and the Establishm ent Clause as a r esult of FDO C policies that require inm ates m ai nta in n o lo nge r than m ed ium le ngth ha ir , that de ny

him the abil ity to p oss es s m at er ia ls n ee de d to pr ac tic e his r el igi on, and tha t e sta bli sh a N a t i v e A me r i c anr e l i g i o u s p r o g r a m; II T he dis m iss al , f

or f ai lur e to e xhaust

a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s, of his E qua l P ro te ct ionc la im

that C hr ist ians and i nm at es of oth er r el igi ous fa ith s r ec ei ve m or e favor ab le tr eatm en t; II I. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n no t t o e xe rc ise sup ple m en ta l j ur isd ic tio n ove r his state lawc la im s; and IV . The denial of his re quest for appoin tm ent of counsel F o r th e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e db e l o w , w e a f f i rm. I. Bru ns ki ll is a Nati ve Am eri can th atpra ct ic es th e Tob acco Ind ia n re li gi on . It is ag ai nst

his r el igi ous be lie f to c ut o r al lowanothe r to c ut o r tou chhis ha ir e x c e p ti nth e c a s e o f

th e l o s s o f

al o v e do n e . Th e F D O C ’s g r o o mi n g p o l i c y, how ev er , r equir es inm at es to m ai nta in m ed ium le ngth ha ir . A s ar es ult

of thi s ha ir3

po li cy , Bru ns ki ll is requi redto cu t h is ha ir, d es pi te hi s re li gi ou s b el ie fs . A ddi tio na lly , Br

unsk ill r eque ste d pe rm iss ionto poss es s m at er ia ls s uc h a s to ba cc o, sa ge , c ed ar , sw ee tgr as s, be ad s, le athe r, thr ea d, ne ed le s, and f eathe rs ( co lle ct ive ly refe rred to as “ religious m aterials”) . He indicated that these m aterials w ere ne ce ssary f or the pr ac tic e of

his r el igi on. T he F D O C, how ev er , de nie d hi s r eque st for security , hea lth, and safety rea sons . In an eff

ort to accom

m odate inm ates that practice a N ative Am erican religion, the FD OC form ed a N ative Am erican re lig iou s pr ogr am

to pr ovi de it s st af

f an d in m at es w ithgui de lin es to be tte r en ab le inm at es to pr ac tic e the ir

f ai th. O n a ppe al , Br unsk ill a sse rt s th at

the F D O C’ s po lic ie s, w hic h r equir e him to cu t h is ha ir a ndde ny him th e ab il it y

to po ss es s t he reque st edrel ig io us m at eri al s, ar e unc onst itutio na l pr ior r es tr ai nts on the e xe rc ise of his r el igi on. H e co nte nds that no n- In dians “ w ho are not sim ilarl y sit ua te d to ‘ na tiv es ’ ” ar e al low ed to ex er ci se and o bta in r el igi ous m at er ia ls f or the N at ive A m er ic anr el igi on, but he is not. He asserts that the FD OC’ s Native A m erican religion prog ram is an uncons titutio nal establishm ent of religion. H e contends that th e district court failed to address his RLU IPAclaim s and his allegatio n that the FDO C re taliated ag ai ns t h im

forfil in g g rie va nc es an d alaws ui t.4

As a prelim inary

m atter, althoug h Brunskill asserts that the district court failed to address his allegations that he wa s retaliated against because he f iled gr ie va nc es an d t hi s l aws ui t, Brun sk il l d idno t as se rt t hi s cl ai m in hi s co m

pl ai nt . T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r ad dr es se s a ll of the c la im s pr es en te d by

Br unsk ill in his co m pl ai nt . W e re view a district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgem ent de novo . United St at es v. G ilb er

t, 920 F . 2d 8 78, 882 ( 11th C ir . 199 1) . S um m ar y j udgm en t i s appropriate only

if the pleadings and evid ence in the rec ord dem onstrate that there is no genu ine issue of m aterial f act and the m ovin g party

is entitled to judgm ent as a m atte r of

law . F ed . R. Ci v. P. 56( c) . O n sum m ar y j udgm en t, the r ea sona

ble inf er en ce s to be dr awn f

ro m the f ac ts m ust be vie w ed

in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to th e p art y op po si ng th e m ot io n. Ma ts us hi taElec . Indus . Co. v . Zeni th Rad io Co rp ., 475 U . S. 574 , 587 -5 88, 106 S . Ct . 134 8, 135 6- 1357 , 89 L . E d. 2d 5 38 ( 1986 ). “ T he nonm ovi ng p ar

ty , how ev er , m

ust pr es en t a ff

irm at ive e vid en ce in or de r to d ef eat a pr ope rl y sup porte d m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t. ” G ilb er

t, 920 F . 2d at 88 2 (i nte rn al quo tatio ns o m itt ed ). “ Inthe sum m ar y -j udgm en t c ont ex t, w e co nstru e pr o se ple ad ing s m or e lib er al ly than th ose of

ar ep re se nte d party . ” L or env. Sa sse r, 309 F . 3d 1 296, 130 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . T o pr ev ai l i n ac ivi l r igh ts a ct ion unde r § 19 83, apla int if

f m ust sho whe w as de pr ive d of af ed er al r igh t by

ape rs on5

ac tin g un de r co lor

of state law . G ri ff

in v . O pa -L oc ka , 261 F . 3d 1 295, 130 3 ( 11th Cir. 2001 ). A . F ir stA m en dm en t F re e Ex er ci se C lau se T he F ir st Am en dm en t, m ad e ap pli ca ble to the state s th ro ugh the F ourte en th Am endm ent, provides in pertinent part that Cong ress shall m ake no law pr ohi bit ing the f

re e ex er ci se of

r el igi on. U . S. C. A . Co nst . A m en d. 1; E lk G ro ve U nif ie d S ch ool D istri ct

v. N ew dow , 542 U . S. 1, __ n . 4, 124 S . Ct . 230 1, 230 7 n. 4, 159 L . E d. 2d 9 8 ( 2004 ). P ri sone rs r et ai n th ei r Fi rs t A m en dm en t r igh ts, inc lud ing ri ght s un de r the f

re e ex er ci se of

r el igi on c lause ; ho w ev er , “ law 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 any pr ivi le ge s and r igh ts, a re tr ac tio n j ust if

ie d by the c onsi de ratio ns unde rl y ing our pe na l sy ste m . ” O lon e v. E state of S haba zz , 482 U . S. 342 , 348 , 107 S . Ct . 240 0, 240 4, 96 L . E d. 2d 2 82 ( 1 9 8 7 ) . De f

e r e n c e i s g i v e nt o p r i s o no f f i c i a l s , an d , a s ar e s u l t , c o u rt s e mp l o y a

“ reasonableness” test to determ ine whether a re gulatio n infringes const itutio nal rig ht s. Id . at 3 49 . T he S upr em e Co urt i n T ur ne r v. S af le y , 482 U . S. 78, 89- 91, 107 S . Ct . 225 4, 2262 , 96 L . E d. 2d 6 4 ( 1987 ), e sta bli she d f our f ac tor s to be c onsi de re d in de te rm ini ng the r ea sona

ble ne ss o f a re gul at ion : ( 1) “ w he the r the r eg ulatio n ha s a valid, rational connection to a legitim ate governm ental interest;” (2) “ whether6

alternative m eans are open to in m ates to exercise the a sserted right;” (3) what im pa ct an a cc om

m odatio n of

the r igh t w oul d have on g uard s and i nm at es and prison resources;” and (4) “ whether there ar e re ady alternatives to the regulation.” T he f ourth f ac tor c onsi de rs w he the r “ a 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 odate s th e as se rt ed

r igh t whil 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 v . Bazz etta, 539 U.S . 126, 136, 123 S. Ct. 2162 , 2169, 156 L. Ed. 2d 16 2 (2003). Ru le 33- 602. 101( 4) of

the F lor ida

A dm ini str at ive Co de pr ovi de s in pe rt ine nt p ar

t tha t: “ Ma le inm at es sha ll have the ir ha ir c ut s hort t o m ed ium un ifo rm len gt h a t al l t im es wit h n o p artof t he ear o r co ll ar co ve red .” InH ar ri s v. Ch ap m an , 97 F . 3d 4 99, 503 -5 04 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) , appl y ing a str ic t sc rutiny

standard pur suant t o th e RF RA , w e de te rm ine d th at ane ar ly identical FDO C hair length policy did no t violate the First Am endm ent and RFRA sin ce it f urthe re d ac om

pe lli ng g ove rn m enta l i nte re st i n se curi ty and o rd er

in the pr iso ns, and the pol ic y

w as the le as t r es tr ic tiv e m eans o f sa tis fy ing the gove rn m en ta l i nte re st. T he pr ovi sio n at i ssu e in H ar ri s, state d, in pe rt ine nt p ar t, that: “ [m ] ale inm ates shall have their hair cut short to m edium length at all tim es with no part of the ear

or collar c overed.” Id. at 501-502 . In Harris, we em ploy ed7

a hig he r standard

than th e m or e de fe re nti al “ re as ona ble ne ss” te st d isc uss ed

in Olone. Bec au se we ha ve de te rm in ed , un de r a m or e st rin ge ntst an da rdof r ev ie w, that an alm ost ident ical FD OC policy did no t violate consti tutio nally protected religious freedom s, the district court, in this case, did not err in determ ining that Bo y d a ndCro sb y

were en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. A ddi tio na lly , 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 onBr

unsk ill ’ s F ir st Am endm ent religious m aterials cla im since Brunskill failed to offer e vidence that w oul d r eb ut the de fe ndants ’ arg um en t tha t: (1 ) the de nia l of Br unsk ill ’ s r eque st f

or m at er ia ls w as r at ion al ly

r el at ed to the F D O C’ s le git im at e he al th, sa fe ty , and se curi ty int er es ts; ( 2) de spi te the de nia l of his r eque st, he is al low ed to pr ac tic e his religion throu gh alternative m eans; (3) ac com m odating his request would have a negative im

pact on guards, inm ates and prison resources; and (4) he offe red re gul at or y a lte rn at ive s th at

are not a lr ea dy ava ila ble that w oul d a cc om

m odate his right while not im

posin g m ore than a de m inim is cost to th e FD OC. B. E st ab lis hm en t C lau se T he E sta bli shm en t C lause of

the F ir st Am en dm en t st at es , ‘ ”C ongr es s sh al l m ak e no l awr es pe ct ing an e sta bli shm en t of

r el igi on. ” U . S. C. A . Co nst . A m en d. 1.

“ This restric tion h as been m ade applicable to states, a s well a s state-cre ated8

en tit ie s and the ir

e m plo y ee s, thr oughthe D ue P ro ce ss C la use of the F ourte en th A m en dm en t. H oll om ane x r el . H oll om anv. H ar land, 370 F . 3d 1 252, 128 4 ( 11th Ci r. 200 4) . “ T he E sta

bli shm en t C lause appl ie s no t on ly to state statut es , but

a ct s an d de ci sio ns o f ind ivi dua l go ve rn m en t a ct or s . . . ” I d. L em on v . K

urtz m an , 403 U . S. 602 , 612 -6 13, 91 S . Ct . 210 5, 211 1, 29 L . E d. 2d. 745 ( 1971 ), se ts f orth thr ee f

ac tor s f or use in de te rm ini ng whe the r the FD OC’ s Native A m erican program is perm issib le under the Establishm ent Clause: (1 ) w he the r the pr ogr am

ha s ase cu lar non- le gis lativ e pur pose ; ( 2) w he the r the pr inc ipa l or

pr im ar y e ff ec t i s on e that ne ith er

a dvanc es nor

inh ibi ts r el igi on; and (3 ) w he the r the statut e fo ste rs an e xc es siv e gove rn m en t e ntangl em en t w ith re lig ion . “ T he c le ar es t c om m an d of the E sta bli shm en t C lause is that on e re lig iou s denom ination cannot be officially prefe rred over another.” Gla ssroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 128 2, 1299 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation s om itted). Th e d i s tri ctco u rtd i dn o terr i ng ra n t i n g s u m m ary ju d g m en to nBru n s k i l l ’s Est ab li sh m en t Cl au se cla im si nc e Bru ns ki ll off

eredno ev id en ce t ha t t he FDOC de m onstrate d pr ef

er en ce f or one r el igi ous de nom inatio n ov er anothe r an d di d no t re but Bo y d and C ro sby ’ s a sse rt ionthat the F D O C’ s pr ogr am satis fi es the L em on t es t. C. RFR A and RLUIPA9

InCi ty of Bo er ne v. F lor es , 521 U . S. 507 , 536 , 117 S . Ct . 215 7, 217 2, 138 L. Ed. 2d 62 4 (1997), the Suprem e Court held that the RFRAwa s uncons titutio nal as appl ie d to the state s be ca use it e xc ee de d C ongr es s’ s po w er und er § 5 of the Fo urte en th A m en dm en t. T hus, the RF RAdoe s no t a ppl y to state r eg ulatio ns o r st at e act or s. T he RL U IP A , on the oth er hand, is co nst itutio na l and d oe s a ppl y to the state s. B ennin g v. G eo rg ia , 391 F . 3d 1 299, 130 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . “ Se ct ion3 of the RL UI PAapplies strict scrutiny to gov ernm ent actions that substantiallyburden the r el igi ous ex er ci se of

ins tit uti ona liz ed

pe rs ons. ” I d. a t 13 03. T he gov er nm en t m ust sh ow that the im

posit ion of the burden furthers a com pelling governm ental interest and is the least restrictive m eans of furthering that interest. 42 U. S. C. § 2 00 0c c-1 . The district court did not err in determ ining that Boy d and Crosby we re entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law on Br unsk ill’ s claim s under the RFRA since the RFRAis no lon ger applicable to the states. A dditi onally , the district c o u rtd i dn o te rr

i ng r an t i n g s u mmary j u d g me n to nB r u n s k i l l ’s R L U I P Ac l a i ms sin ce the ha ir

le ngth po lic y

and d en ia l of

his r eque st f

or r el igi ous m at er ia ls are the le as t r es tr ic tiv e m eans i n f urthe ri ng c om

pe lli ng g ove rn m en ta l i nte re sts in the se curi ty , he al th, and s af

ety of inm at es and s ta ff

. F urthe rm or e, Br

unsk ill f ai le d to10

showthat the de nia l of

his r eque ste d r el igi ous m at er ia ls s ubst an tia lly bur de ne d th e ex erci se of h is rel ig io n. D . E q u a l Pr o t e c t i o n Cl a i ms

“ T o e sta bli sh an e qua l pr ote ct ionc la im , apr iso ne r m ust e sta bli sh tha t ( 1) he is s im ilarl y

sit ua te d w ithoth er

pr iso ne rs w ho r ec ei ve d m or e favor ab le tr eatm en t; and (2) his discrim inatory treatm ent was based on som e constituti onally protected interest such as race .” Jones v. Ray , 279 F. 3d 94 4, 946-947 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). Th e d i s tri ctco u rtd i dn o terr i ng ra n t i n g s u m m ary ju d g m en to nBru n s k i l l ’s E qua l P ro te ct ionc la im s r eg ar din g th e ha ir le ngth po lic y

and d en ia l of

the re que ste d r el igi ous m at er ia ls. B runski ll fa ile d to e sta bli sh an e qua l pr ote ct ion claim as he offe red no evidence that other sim ilarly situated prison ers w ere treated m or e fav or ab ly. II. N ex t, Br unsk ill appe al s th e de nia l of his e qua l pr ote ct ionc la im a sse rt ing th atth e FDOC was m or e acc omm od at in g t o C hr is ti an s an d o th er re li gi ou s fa it hs . H e as se rt s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in de te rm ini ng tha t he f

ai le d to e xhaust adm ini str at ive r em ed ie s and d id n ot a ddr es s hi s c ont en tio n th at e xhaust ionof adm ini str at ive r em ed ie s w oul d have be enine ff ec tiv e or f uti le , and unava ila

ble a s a res ul t o f st at e an d fe de ral rul in gs in pri orcas es .11

W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al f or f ai lur e to e xhaust

a dm ini str at ive re m ed ie s un de r the P ri son L iti ga tio n R ef orm A ct ( PL RA ) de nov o. A le xande r v. H awk, 159 F . 3d 1 321, 132 3 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) . P ur suant t o se ct ion199 7( e) of the PL RA, a prisoner cannot bring a suit un der any feder al lawuntil th e prisoner has ex haust ed

a ll av ai la ble a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s. I d. T he P L RAa ppl ie s to both state and federa l prisoners. Id. at 1324. Bec ause Congress specifically m andated ad m in is tra ti ve ex ha us ti on , th ere i s n o fu ti li ty excep ti on . Id. at13 25 -1 32 6. A ddi tio na lly , “ av ai la

ble a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s” doe s no t m ean th at the adm ini str at ive r em ed ie s m ust be a de quate . I d. at 13 26. Be ca use Br unsk ill did

not f ile gr ie vanc es w iththe F D O C r eg ar din g th e pr ef er en tia l tre atm en t of

Ch ri sti an s and i nm at es of oth er r el igi ons, he f

ai le d to adm ini str at ive ly

e xhaust thi s c la im

and the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in dis m iss ing it. III . Br unsk ill a lso dis put es the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n de cl ini ng t o e xe rc ise fed eral juri sd ic ti on ov er h is st at e la w cla im s. W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to e xe rc ise sup ple m en ta l j ur isd ic tio n over state lawclaim s for an abuse of discretion. See Raney v. A llstate Insurance Co., 370 F.3d 1086 , 1088-1089 (11th Cir. 2004). “ W e have encouraged district12

co urts t o di sm iss any

r em ai nin g st at e cl ai m s whe n, a s he re , the f ed er al c la im s have be en di sm is se d p rio r to tri al .” Id . at 1 08 9. Si nc e no f

ed er al c la im s r em ai ne d inthe sui t, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse i t s d i s cr et i o ni nd ec l i n i n g t o ex er ci s e s up p l emen t al ju ri s d i ct i o no v erBru n s k i l l ’s st at e la w cla im s. IV. During the course of the procee ding s below, Brunskill requested ap poi ntm en t of

c ouns el . T he c ourt de nie d hi s r eque st w ith out pr ej udi ce , statin g that i t w oul d de te rm ine the c om ple xity of the iss ue s in vol ve d inthe c as e an d would, on its own m otion , a ppoi nt couns el at a later tim e if nec essary . The c ourt ag ai n de nie d B runski ll’ s r eque st u pon his m oti on t o r ec onsi de r. O n a ppe al , Br unsk ill a sse rt s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ai le d to a ddr es s or

m ak e a re as ona

ble ru li ng reg ard in g h is m ot io n t o app oi ntco un se l. W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s m oti on t o a ppoi nt c ouns el f

or an a buse of di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Berg er, 3 75 F.3d12 23 , 12 26 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). A pla int if f in a c ivi l c as e doe s no t have ac onst itutio na l r igh t t o c ouns el , and the co urt sh oul d on ly

appoi nt c ouns el in ex ce pti ona l c ir cum stanc es . B as s v. P er ri n, 17 0 F .3d13 12 , 13 20 (11 htCir . 19 99 ).13

Beca use exceptional circum stances did no t exist in th is case since the core fa ct s of the c as e w er e not

in dis put e an d th e le ga l c la im s w er e str ai ght fo rw ar d, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a

buse it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing Br unsk ill ’ s m oti on f

or ap po in tm en t o f co un se l. Upon re vie wof

the r ec or d onappe al and c onsi de ratio n of the part ie s’ br ie fs , we fi n dn o re v er s i b l e e rr o r. Fo r t h e ab o v e r ea s o n s , we af fi rm th e d i s tri ctco u rt ’s de ci sio n. AFFIRMED.