Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANDY SYLVIAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv55-MP/WCS

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a civil

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. As Plaintiff has now paid the

assessed initial partial filing fee, docs. 14 and 15, the complaint has been reviewed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Plaintiff's complaint is against the Department of Corrections, and challenges

Rule 33-602.101(4) which requires inmates to be clean shaven. Doc. 1, p. 5. Plaintiff

contends that the Rule violates his First Amendment right to the free exercise of his

religion (Islam) and the Federal Religious Land Use Act (RLUIPA), as well as Florida

law. Id. 
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 4:10cv55-MP/WCS

This complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is wellsettled that prison rules or requirements that prisoners be clean shaven, without a

beard, do not violate the federal constitution or federal law. Muhammad v. Crosby,

2007 WL 604937 (N.D. Fla. Feb 22, 2007) (No. 4:05CV193 WS); Shabazz v.

Barnauskas, 790 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1986); Martinelli v. Dugger, 817 F.2d 1499 (11th

Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1012 (1988) (prison hair length rule and shaving

regulations upheld as constitutional under First Amendment and were "rationally related

to substantial government interests"); Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499 (11th Cir. 1996)

(holding that prison hair length rule is constitutional and meets the least restrictive

means test of RFRA); see also Brooks v. Wainwright, 428 F.2d 652 (5th Cir. 1970)

(prison rule requiring inmates to shave twice a week and have periodic haircuts did not

violate free exercise of religion rights); Brightly v. Wainwright, 814 F.2d 612 (11th Cir.

1987) (prison rule requiring all male inmates to be clean shaven and have their hair cut

short was "rationally related to a substantial government interest and that restriction is

no greater than necessary to accomplish its purpose), cert. denied Watts v. Dugger, 484

U.S. 944 (19887) (holding that Florida's grooming regulations requiring all inmates to

shave and cut their hair is rationally related to a substantial government interest and

that restriction is no greater than necessary to accomplish its purpose” and noting the

issue was controlled by prior circuit precedent), citing to Shabazz, supra, and Maimon v.

Wainwright, 792 F.2d 133 (11th Cir. 1986) (upholding Florida prison grooming rules).

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint, doc. 1, be

DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and that the order adopting this report and recommendation direct
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 4:10cv55-MP/WCS

the Clerk of Court to note on the docket that this cause was dismissed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on September 28, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.