2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
11-18-2004 

# B r o wn v . J ohnson P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4766

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" B r o wn v . J o hn s on " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 130. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/130NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-4766
WILL IAM BROWN,

Appellant v. SUPE RIN TENDENT P. JOHNS ON; REVERE ND KATHY HI GGINS ; MAJ OR HASSE TT; FATHE R GEORGE MONECK, all at SCI-Greene at

time of even ts ; FATHER FRANCIS T. MENEI
App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the We stern D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Civi l Action No. 99-cv-00915) District J udge: Honorable W illi am L. Standish
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

October 28, 2004 Be for e: N YG AA RD , AM BR O, a nd G AR TH , Circuit Judges (Opinion fi led November 18, 2004)

OPI NION
AM BR O, Circuit

Judge William Bro wn appe als the D istrict Co urt’s ord er gran ting su mm ary judgm ent in2

favor of theSuperintendent and other Department of Corrections (“ DOC ”) offic ials at the State C orrectio nal Ins titution at G reene , Penn sylvania (“ SC I-Gre ene” ). Bro wn allege s in this § 1983 claim that enforcing the DOC’s groom ing policy against him violated his First Amendment and equal prot ecti on right s under the United States Constitution and consti tuted i llega l ret aliation. As the District Court correctly granted s ummary judgment on Brown’s First

Amendment claim and he waived hi s equal pr otection and ret aliation claim s, w e af firm the D istrict Co urt’s ord er. 1. BACKGROUND Brown was an inmate at SCI-G reene from 1994 through 2 002. He w as also
reco mm itted to th at fa cility fro m 2 003 unt il 20 04 a nd h as n ow bee n re leas ed o n pa role
. He asse rts th at he pra ctice s R asta fari anis m a nd d id so dur ing his in carc erati on. The DOC ’s grooming pol icyrequires that , among other things , the length of

an inmate’ s hair

not fal l below the top of his shirt collar. Duri ng some of Brown’s ti me at SCI-Greene, hi s hair

length vi olate d this policy . Brown recei ved severalmisconduct report s and spent

two year s and seven months in a Restr icte d Housing Unit (“ RHU ”) for failing to com ply with d irect ord ers to c ut his h air. Inde ed, B row n w as ke pt in R HU until he so co mplied. B ecause R astafarianism p rohibits its followers fro m cutting the ir hair, Bro wn asse rts he wa s en titled to a r eligi ous exe mp tion to th e D OC gro om ing pol icy. Exemptions fr om the grooming pol icy ’s hai r lengt h requirements are granted f or legit imate r eligi ous reasons on a case-by -case bas is. In 1996 and September of 1997,3

Brown made requests for grooming exempti ons because of hi s rel igious belie fs. On each
occa sion, B row n m et with a Fac ility Chap lain w ho co nclud ed B row n dem onstra ted little knowledge of the bel iefs and pr acti ces of Rasta faria nism. Additionall y, Chaplaincy De partm ent rec ords s how that B row n had prev iously pra cticed the M uslim , Protes tant, and Native American reli gions, and also had attende d numerous servi ces with t he Moorish Science Temple of America. Based on t he Facil ity

Chaplain’ s recommendati on, the Superintendent thereafter denied Brow n’s requests. In D ecem ber 1 997 , the D OC ame nded its groo ming policy to re quire a n inm ate seeking a religi ous exemption to submit a wri tten doc ument, apparently from an outsi de
sourc e, indica ting tha t he ha d a his tory of ad hering to the te nets o f the p articular faith group. I n 1998, Brown submitted a letter fr om an acknowledged Rastafarian le ader stating that

Brown had written to join t he leader ’s churc h only one month earl ier. The Sup er in te nde ntag ai n de ni ed Bro wn’ s r eq ue st , f in di ng t ha t t he le tterdi d no t s how Bro wn had a su ffic ientl y long histo ry of a dhe ring to R asta fari anis m. Brow n filed a com plaint with the U nited States D istrict Court for the W estern Distri ct of Pennsy lvania alle ging vari ous consti tuti onal viol ations . Thereafter, t he defendants sought and obt ained summaryjudgement. Brown appeals, a sserting that the Distric t Cou rt did no t adeq uately an alyze his F irst Am endm ent cla im an d faile d to consider both his equal protecti on and retaliati on claims.4

2. AN AL YS IS
a. Bro wn ’s First A men dm ent C laim Prison regulations need onl y be r ationa lly related to le giti mate penologi cal inter ests t o su rviv e co nstitu tion al ch allen ge. Ov erton v. Ba zzetta , 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003) (c iti ng Turner v. Safley , 482 U .S. 78, 8 9 (19 87)). In additio n, our Co urt has held that a prisone r chall enging a pri son regul ation on t he ground that

it i nterfe res with the prisoner’s right to exe rcise religion freely must first establish that his alleged beliefs are bot h sin cere ly held and relig iou s in n atur e. DeH art v. Horn , 227 F.3d 47, 51-52 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Africa v. Pen nsylva nia , 662 F.2 d 10 25, 1 029 -30 (3d Cir . 198 1)). In Turner , the United States Supreme Court pr ovided four fa ctors to dete rmine whether a pri son regul ation r ationa lly relates to l egiti mate penologi cal obj ecti ves. 482 U.S. at 89- 91. Fir st, there must be a “vali d, rational c onnecti on” between the regulation and the le gitim ate g ove rnm enta l inte rest p ut fo rw ard to ju stify it. Id. at 89 (quoting Block v. Rutherford , 468 U.S. 576, 586 (1984)). Second, where i nmates have al ternat ive means of exerci sing the asserted ri ght, c ourts s hould be “particul arlyconscious ” of the deference
ow ed to cor recti ons off icials in es tabli shin g pr ison reg ulati ons . Id. at 90. T hird, if
accomm odation of the asserted ri ght will have a significant effect on other inmates, prison s taff, or the al location of pri son resources, cour ts shoul d be parti cularl y deferentia l to th e inf orm ed d ecis ion s of cor recti ons off icials
. Id. Last, an absence of r eady alter nativ es is e vid enc e of the r eas ona blen ess o f a re gul ation
. Id.5

The Distri ct Court, by adopting the Magist rate’ s Report and Recommendati on, fou nd ag ainst B row n on all fou r facto rs. Bro wn has n ot cha llenge d thes e find ings in his brief to us. Rathe r, he as sert s that our holdi ng in DeH artrequired the Distri ct Court first to determine whe ther Brow n’s beliefs w ere both since rely held and religious in na ture before conducting a Turner ana lysis. Brown is correct i nsofar as DeH artdid conclude that the mere asserti on of First Amendment rights does not aut omatical ly bestow constitutional protections — “if a prisoner’s request

for [a religious accommodation] is not the res ult of s incere ly held reli gious bel iefs, the Fir st Amendment imposes no obl igati on on the pri son to honor t hat request .” DeH art , 227 F.3d at 52. Therefore, the DeH artrequ ireme nts of both sincer ity and reli gious nat

ure must be s atis fied befor e a court need undert ake a Turner ana lysis. Id. In thi s case defendants expl icitly assumed in t heir s ummary judgment motion that Brown’s beli efs were si ncerel y hel d and reli gious i n nature. This effectively resol ved any DeH artissues in Brown’s favor. Furthermore, as De Ha rt makes clear , it is up t o the prisons them selves to assert cha llenges to the since rity or reli gious nature of a prison er’s belie fs, and where no s uch chall enges are made, the rel igious nature and sincerity of the belie fs are as sumed. 227 F.3d at 52. Here, as in DeH art , defendant s made no such challenge. B rown claims that def endan ts did not stipulate that Bro wn’s b eliefs were sincerelyheld and re ligi ous in nat ure. Even were t

his t rue, i t would be ir

relevant. I f, inst ead of assuming t

he vali dity

of Brown’s beli efs and undert aking the Turner analysi s,6

the Dist rict Court had addre ssed whether Brown’s beli efs were si ncerel y hel d and reli gious i n nature and concluded that the y were not , Brown would sti ll l ose. The Dist rict Court therefore di d not err by cons ideri ng the Turner factor s without

undertaki ng a DeH artanalysi s. Thus, we affirm summ ary j udgment against Brow n on his First Amend ment

cl ai m. b. Bro wn’s Equa l P ro te ct io n an d Ret al ia ti on Cl ai ms Brown also appeal s the Dist rict Court’s f

ailure to consi der his equal protecti on and retal iati on clai ms. Though he made these clai ms in his initial c omplaint , nei ther t he Order of the Dis tri ct Court gr anting s ummary judgment , nor t he Report and Re com me nda tion of th e M agis trate that i nfo rme d th at O rde r, co nsid ered them
. De fend ants re spon d that, th oug h B row n raise d equ al prote ction a nd re taliation in his complaint

and the Dist

rict Court fai led to a ddress t hese matt ers, his fai lure to rais e them at the sum ma ry judg me nt sta ge w as a wa iver . W e ag ree. In it s schedul ing order

of September 26, 2003, the Magistrate Judge order ed that Bro wn file a resp ons e to d efe nda nts’ m otio n fo r sum ma ry judg me nt b y Oc tob er 1 6, 20 03. In that order the Magistrate Judge warned that “fai lure to file a response to the motion will be c onstrue d as consent to the gr anting of

[it] .” Brown responded onl y byfili ng a motion t o extend time to fi le a re sponse (and t hen but two day s before t he response was due) . Tho ugh Bro wn ’s requ est w as de nied, h e still filed n othing . This w aives b oth clai ms. As the Fi rst Ci rcuit stated in Grenier v. Cyanamid Plasti cs, I nc. , 70 F.3d 667 (1st7

Cir. 1995) , “[e] ven an iss ue rais ed in the complaint but ignored at summaryjudgment may be deemed waived. ‘If a party fail s to ass ert a l egal re ason why summaryjudgment should not

be grante d, that ground i s waived and cannot be considered or rai sed on appeal. ’” Id . at

678 (quoti ng Vau ghn er v. P ulito , 804 F.2 d 87 3, 87 7 n.2 (5th Cir . 198 6)). Furthermore, “[i]t

is a well -settled r

ule that a part

y opposi ng a summary j udgment motion
mu st info rm the trial judg e of th e reaso ns, lega l or fac tual, w hy sum mary jud gm ent sh ould not be ent ered. I f it doe s not do so, and loses the moti on, it cannot raise suc h reasons on appeal. ” Liberl es v. Count y of Cook , 709 F .2d 11 22, 11 26 (7 th Cir. 1 983 ). Tha t is this
case. * * * * * For th ese rea sons , we a ffirm the D istrict Co urt’s gra nt of s um mary jud gm ent.