Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40966 Su m m ar y Cal endar
FR E D R I C KG O O D E N , al so know n as M a’ M i n A l

- N aba P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. C. CRA I N; T EXAS BOARD OF CRI M I NAL J UST I CE; BI LLY P I ERCE; D. DRET KE D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 6: 04- c v- 00127
B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * F redri ck G ooden ( “ G ooden ” ) broug h tt h i s s u i tagainstt h e D efen da n t sA pp el l ees, asser t i n g t h at t h ey vi ol ated his ri gh t s un der t h e R el i gi ou s L an d U se and I nst i t ut i onal i ze d Pers ons A c t( “ R LU I PA ” ) , 42 U
. S. C
. § 2000c c - 1 etse q . A f t er United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

23, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40966

Goode n has move d for appointment of appellatec ou ns el. However, he h as not 1 demonstr ated the sort of exceptional circu mstance s that permit appointment of such coun sel. SeeC oo pe r v. Sher if

f, L u b b ockC

ou n t y, T ex., 9 2 9F .2 d 1 0 7 8 , 1 0 8 4( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 1 ). 2 tri a l , j u d gm en t w a s en tered f or A p p ell ee s. G oo d en the n bro u gh t t h i s ap p e a l. 1 W e A F F IR M
. I . F ACT S AND PROC EDURAL HI S TORY G ooden , a M u sl i m i n m ate c on f i n ed to a u n i tof

th e T exas D epa rt m en tof Cri m i nalJ us t i c e ( “ TD CJ” ) , b r o ugh tt hi s s ui ta l l e gi ng t hatTD CJ’ s g r o o m i ng pol i cy, w h i ch proh ibi t s al li n m ates f rom w eari n g beard s un l ess th e y h ave a m edi calexcepti on , vi ol ated his ri gh t s un der R L U IPA
. Sp eci f i cal l y, G ooden
a r g u e s th a t t h e g r o om i n g p olicys u b s ta n tia llyb u r d e n e dh is a b ilityto e x e r c is e h is fai th bypr ev en ti n g h i m f rom w ea ri n g a be a rd as h i s fa i th de m a n d s. In or d er to sa t i sf y t he dem ands o f

hi s fai t h, G oo den br oughtt hi s sui tand s oughti nj unct ive r e lie f to a llo w h im to w e a ra q u a r te r -in c h b e a r d
. G oo d en con sen t ed t o abe n ch tri a lof h i s R L U IP Acl a i m be fore a m a gistrate j u dg e. A f

t er t ri al , t h e j u dg e f ou n d that th e g ro o m i n g pol i cy “ i m poses a su b stan ti a lbu rd en on [ G oo d en ’ s] ex ercise of h i s reli giou s be l i efs. ” G oo den v. C ra in , N o. 6: 04-c v- 001 27, 200 8 W L 327 155 7, *13 ( E
. D
. T ex. A u g. 6, 200 8). H ow ever, she al so f

ou n d t h at A pp el l ees h ad n otvi ol ated R L U IPAan d en t ered j u dg m en ti n t h ei r favor becau se t h e pol i cy w as t h e l east rest ri ct ive m ean s of fu r th e r in ga co m p e llin gg o v e r n m e n ta l in te r e s t in s e c u r i t y o f p r is o n e r s . T h is ap pe alf o l l o w e d. I I . DI S CU S S I ON U n der R L U IPA , “ [ n ] o governm en tshalli m pose a sub sta n tia lbu rden on t h e rel i gi ou s exerc i se of [ an i n m ate]
. . . un l ess t h e governm ent d em on st rat es t hat i m po s i t i o n o f

t he b ur de n o n t hatpe r son - - ( 1) i s i n f ur t he r anc e o f

a c o m pe l l i ngN o. 08- 40966

Weh ave held that “security” i s a compelling governme ntal interest, and Goodendoe s 2 notconte stth at “s ecurity” isac om pellinggovern me ntal intere st . Diaz v. C ollins , 11 4 F .3d 6 9, 73 (5th Cir. 199 7) (“We agree with our colleagues in the Ei ghth and EleventhC ircuits th at a prison regulation on hair len gth is related to security and, as such, involves acompellingstate intere st .”). 3 gov er nm ent ali nt er es t ; and ( 2) i s t he l eas t r es t r i c t ive m eans of f urt her i ng t hat

. . . in te r e s t.” 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 c c -1 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T h e t ri alcourtentered j u dg m en tf or A pp el l ees, b ecau se i tf ou n d that t h ey hadpr o ve d t hatt he g r o o m i ng po l i c y w as t he l e as tr e s t r i c t ive m e ans o f a c hi e vi ng a com pel l i n g governm e nt ali nt e r e s t , na m el y T D C J’ s i n t eresti n sec u ri t y. G ooden cha l l en ges t h e t ri alcourt ’ s fact u alf i n di n gs an d l egal concl u si on s i n su pp ortof t hi s hol di ng. A
. S t an d ardof

R evi ew

“ T h e st an da rd of

revi ew f

or a bench t ri ali s w el les ta b li shed : f i n di n gs of fact a r e rev i ew ed f

or clearerro r an dl eg a li ssu es a re re view ed de n ov o.” K o na T e c h . Co r p . v . S
. Pac. Tran sp. Co. , 2 2 5 F .3 d5 9 5 , 6 0 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). B
. Compel l i ng G overnm entalI n t ere st G ooden chal l en ges t h e t ri alcourt ’ s f i n di n g t h at t h e groo m i n g pol i cy f urt her s TD C J’ s c om pel l i ng gov er nm ent ali nt er es ti n se c uri t y. A ppel l ee s had 2 t he b ur de n o f

pr o vi ng t hatt he g r o o m i ng pol i cy f ur t he r e d ac o m pe l l i ng go ver n m en ti nt e r e s t . 4 2 U
. S. C. § § 2 00 0c c - 1, 2 00 0c c - 2(b) ( s t at i ng t hatt he g o v e r n m e n t b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s io n o n e v e r y e le m e n t of a R L U IP Acla im
exc epts ubst ant i albur den)
. To m ee t t hei rbur den of pr oo f, A ppel l ee s onl y had

“ ‘to ta k e th e u n r e m a r k a b le s t e p o f p r o v id in ga n e x p la n a t io n fo rth e p o li c y ’s rest ri ct i on s t h at tak es i n t o accoun t[t h ei r] i n st i t u t i on alneed t o m ai n t ai n good
or der , s ec uri t y, and di sc i pl i ne o rt o c ont r olc os t s. ’ ” S m i t h v . O z m i nt , 578 F. 3dN o. 08- 40966

4 246, 252 ( 4t h C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng L ovelace v. L ee , 472 F .3d 1 7 4 , 190 ( 4th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ))
. C ou rts are req u i red to ap p l y t h e “co m p ell i n g in teres t” a n a l ys i s w i th “‘d u e d e fe r e n c e to th e e x p e r ie n c e a n de x p e r tis e o f p r is o n a n dja il
a d m i n i strato rs. ’” C u t t er v. Wi lki n son , 544 U
. S. 709, 723 ( 2005) ( qu ot i ng 146 C o n g . R e c . 1 6 6 9 9 (2 0 0 0 )). A ccor di n g t o the t ri alcou rt , the groom i n g pol i cy f u rt h ers T D C J’ s i n t erest in s e c u r ityb e c a u s e it a llo w s T D C J t o a c c u r a te lyid e n tifyin m a te s a n d it el i m i n ates t h e t h reattha t“contr aba n d an d w eap on s” cou l d be carri ed i n beards. G ood en , 2008 W L 3271557 at*1 3. G oo den c hal l enges bo t h t he c our t ’ s fac t ual f i ndi ngs a nd t he co ur t ’ s c o nc l us i o n, b as e d o n t ho s e f i ndi ngs , t hatt he g r o o m i ng p o lic yfu r th e r s T D C J ’ s co m p e llin gin te r e s t in s e c u r ity
. The t r i alc o ur t ’ s f

i ndi ngs o f

fac t s r e ga r di ng TD C J’ s i de nt i f i c at i o n a nd contraban d c on cerns are sup ported by t h e rec ord an d are n otcl earl y erroneou s. W i l l i am Steph en s, a regi on aldi rect or f or TD C J, t est i f

i ed th a t in m a t es are i de nt i f i e d b y t he i rc l e an- s hav e n ph o t o s o n t he i rpr i s o n i de nt i f i c at i o n c ar ds , a nd t h e g r o o mi n gp o l i c y , wh i c h r e q u i r e s i nm a t e s t o b e c l e a n - s h a v e n , a l l o ws corr ect i on alof

f i cer s t o easi l y i den t i f y i n m ates based on thei r photos. D i rect or St e phe ns t e s t i f

i e d t hati de nt i f

i ca t i o n f

ur t he r s t he g o alo f

s e c ur i t y bya l l o w i ng corr ect i on alof

f i ce rs to en sure t h at i n m ates do n otenter areas of t h e pri son w he r e t he y do no tb e l o ng, w hi c h pr even t s pr o bl e m s s uc h a s t he f ta nd t he
e x to r tio n o f o th e rin m a te s . H e a ls o t e s tifie dt h a t id e n tific a tio n fu r th e r s p u b lic
s af e t y c o nc e r ns , b e c aus e b e ar ds w o ul d m ak e i tdi f f i c ul tt o q ui c kl y i de nt i f y and
r ec apt ure i nm at es i f t hey e sc ape. I n addi t i on, D i r ec t orS t ephens te st i f i ed t hat
w eapo ns, l i ke r azo rbl ades , and c ont r aband, s uch as handcuf f keys , co ul d be
se c r et ed i n bear ds. Thi s t es t i m ony byD i r ec t orSt ephens s how s t hatt he t r i alN o. 08- 40966

5 c our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of

fac tare s ubst ant i al l y suppor t ed by the r ec or d, so i t s f i ndi ngs a r e n o t c le a r lye r r o n e o u s . W at e r Craf

t M gm t . LLC v . Me r c ur

y Mar i ne , 457 F. 3d 484 , 488 ( 5th C i r. 200 6) ( st ati n g “ [ c] l ear err or exi st s i f
. . . t h e f

i n di n gs are w ith o u t s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e m ”). T h e court’ s fact u alf

i n di n gs, based on t h e t est i m on y of D i rect or Steph en s, s h o w th a t t h e g r o o m in gp o lic yis re la te dto a n dfu r th e r s T D C J ’ s in te r e s t in
s e c u r ity ; t h e r e fo r e , t h e t r ia l c o u r t d idn o t e r rin fin d in gth a t A p p e lle e s m e t t h e ir burde n i n pro vi ng t hat t he gr oo m i ng pol i c y f urt her s a c om pel l i ng gov er nm ent al in te r e s t. S ee F

eg a n s v . No rr is , 53 7 F
. 3 d8 9 7 , 9 0 6 (8th C i r. 20 0 8 ) (f i n d i n g th a t a si m i l ar groom i n g pol i cy f u rt h ered t h e governm en t ’ s i n t eresti n sec u ri t y becau se it w a s r e la te d to id e n tific a tio n a n d c o n tr a b a n d c o n c e r n s ); see als o Baranow s ki
v. Hart , 4 86 F. 3d1 12 , 1 25 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7) (ho l di ng t hata po l i c y f ur t he r e d a
c o m p ell i n g in teres t w h en the go ve rn m en t pro ve dtha t i t w a s related to
m a in ta in in gg o o d o r d e ra n d co n tr o llin gco s ts ). C. Le as tRes t r i c t i v eMe ans G o o de n a l s o c hal l e nge s t he t r i alcou r t ’ s f i ndi ng t hatTD CJ’ s g r o o m i ng pol i cy i s t h e l east rest ri ct ive m ean s of achi evi n g i t s i n t eresti n securi t y. G ooden assert s t h at TD C J’ s i n t eresti n sec u ri t y coul d be f u rt h ered by a groom i n g pol i cy t hatpr o vi de s a r e l i gi o us e xc e pt i o n f o rq uar t e r - i nc h b e ar ds
. Appe l l e e s ha d t he burde n of

di spr ovi ng G oo den’ s as se r t i on by expl ai ni n g “w hy [hi s] al t er nat ive [ po l i c y] w o ul d b e unf e as ibl e , o rw hy [i t ] w o ul d b e l ess e f fe c t ive i n m ai nt ai ni ng in s tit u tio n a l s e c u r ity .” 4 2 U .S .C
. § § 2 0 0 0 c c -1 , 2 0 0 0 c c -2 ; S prattv. R
. I. D ep’

tof Corrs . , 4 8 2 F .3 d 3 3 , 4 1 (1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); s e eSo s s am o n v . Tex as , 560 F
. 3d 316, 335 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (“S o m e o f th e s e o p tio n s m ig h t n o t p r o v e fe a s ib le
. . . .”); Ham i l t on v. S chri ro , 7 4 F. 3d1 54 5, 1 55 6 ( 8t h Ci r . 1 99 6) (i nt erpr e t i ng t he Rel i gi o usN o. 08- 40966

6 Fr e e do m Res t o r at i o n Ac t , w hi c h us e d t he s am e t e s ta s RLU I PA , a s r e qui r i ng t he govern m en tt o ref

u t e al t erna t ives su ggested by a plai n t i f f )
. Th e t ri alcourt f ound t hatA ppel l ee s sa t i sf i ed t he “ l eas tr es t r i c t ive m eans ” p ron g by dem on st rat i n g t h at G ooden ’ s s u ggested al t erna t ive w as not adm i n i st rat ivel y or fin a n c ia llyfe a s ib le
. G ood en , 2008 W L 3271557 at*1 3. T h e tr ia l co u r t fo u n d t h a t a q u a r te r -in c h b e a r dre lig io u s e x c e p tio n w o u ld notbe feas ibl e, beca use i tw oul d requi r e t he pr i so n t o “have t o b ui l d addi t i onal ba rbe rs ho ps i n o r de rt o a l l o w M us l i m i nm at e s t o u se c l i ppe rs hav e r s . . . . The process of

i ssui n g cl i pp er s h ave p asses . . . w ou l d als o pl ace an add i t i on albu rden
on c hapl ai n s, w h o a r e a l r eady burde ned by t he s t r ai n of t hei radm i ni st r at ive d u ti es a t th e exp en se of the i r m i n i sterial d u ti es.” G ood en , 2008 W L 3271557 at
* 13
. Goo de n o f

fe r e d no c o nt r ar y t e s t i m o ny. Thus , s o m e e vi de nc e s upp o r t s t he t ri alcourt ’ s c on cl u si on t h at t h e excepti on w ou l d n otbe feasibl e. E v e n if w e fo u n d th a tth e e v id e n c e d id n o ts u p p o r tt h is fi n d in g , t h e c o u r t ’s f i n di n gs of

factshow t h at A pp el l ees p roved t h at such a n excepti on “ w ou l d be l ess effective in m a i n tain i n g in sti tu ti on a lsecu ri ty. ” S p ra tt , 482 F. 3d at 41. Th e t r i al j udge di d notex pre ss l y us e t hi s l anguage i n heropi ni on, butt hi s c onc l usi on c an b e fa ir lyin fe r r e d fr o m h e rfin d in g s a n dh e rd e c is io n to d e n yre lie f. Itis a fir m ly
e s t ab l i s he d r ul e t hatt hi s c o ur tm ay“ ‘ af f i r m t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s j udg m e nto n a ny groun ds sup ported by t h e rec ord, ’” even i f “ ou r af f i rm an ce i s up on groun ds n ot reli ed u p on bythe distri ct cou rt. ” S ecuri t i es & Excha nge Com m ’ n v. Ch enery Corp ., 3 1 8 U .S . 8 0 , 8 8 (1 9 4 3 ) (s ta tin gth a t a “ d e c i s i o n o f a [d is tr ic t] c o u r t . . . m ustbe af

f i r m ed i f t he r es ul ti s c or r ec t” and i f t her e a r e no addi t i onalf i ndi ngs o f fa ct to b e m a d e ); S obran es R ecove ry Pool I, L L Cv. T od d& Hugh es Co n str. Cor p. , 509 F. 3d 216, 221 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng Soj o ur ne rT v
. Edw ar ds , 974N o. 08- 40966

Thus, we make no broa d holding that the grooming policy, as it applie s to quarter- 3 inch beards, will always be uph eld. Our decision is base d solely upon the evidence p resented in this case. 7 F .2 d 2 7 , 3 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 )); F orem an v. B ab cock & Wi l cox Co. , 117 F. 3d 800, 804 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). A s s t a t e d e a r li e r , t h e r e is s u b s t a n t ia l e v id e n c e t o s u p p o r tt h e tr ia l c o u r t ’s f i n di n g t h at the accurate i den t i f i cat i on of i n m ates based on thei r c l ean - sha ven ph ot os f

u rt h ers T D C J’ s i n t eresti n sec u ri t y, becau se acc u rat e i den t i f i cat i on a llo w s co r r e c tio n a l o ffic e r s to e n s u r e th a t in m a te s a r e n o t o u t o f p la c e a n d it
a s s is ts in th e re c a p tu r e o f e s c a p e e s . Se es upr a P artI I. B
. I n add i t i on t o t h ese f i n di n gs, t h e court f

ou n d t h at gran t i n g M u sl i m i n m ates t h e ri gh tt o w ear “ on efou rth i n ch b ea rd s” w ou l d “m a k e[] ide n ti fi ca ti on m ore d i ff i cu l t. ” G ood en , 2008 W L 3 2 7 1 5 5 7 a t * 1 3
. A g a in , G o o d e n o ffe r s litt le in th e w a yo f r e s p o n s e to th is po i nt , o t he rt han t o no t e t hat s o m e i nm at e s ar e give n a m e di c al e xc e pt i o n t o t he po l i c y andt hatt he po l i c y i s no ta l w ay s uni f o r m l y e nf

o r c e d. 3 The t r i a lc o u r t ’ s f

i n d i n gt h a tq u a r t e r - i n c h b e a r d s wo u l di n c r e a s e t he di f f i cul t y of i den t i f yi n g i n m ates i s not cl earl y erroneou s because i ti s s u pp ort ed b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e in th e re c o r d
. W a t e rCr af

tM g m t . LLC , 457 F. 3d at488. D i rect or Steph en s t est i f i ed that i f

i n m ates w ere al l ow e d to g row qu art er- i n ch b ea rd s, the y co u l d rese m b l e oth er inm a tes a n d u se t h eir i d en ti fi ca ti on ca rd s to get i nt o a r e a s o f t he p r i s o n whe r e t he y d o no t b e l o ng . H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t hat q u a rte r-in ch b e a rd s w o u ldm a k e it h a rd e r fo r c o rr e ctio n a l offi ce rs to id e n tify i nm at e s w he n t r ans fe r r i ng t he m w i t hi n t he pr i s o n. Fi nal l y, D i r e c t o rSt e phe ns t est i f i ed that, i n hi s opi n i on , t h e “ securi t y concepts . . . outw ei gh t h e factof
a l l ow i n g e ve ry b od y [to w a l k ] a rou n dw i th a q u a rter i n ch be a rd
. ”N o. 08- 40966

Whilewe have observe d that “the i dentificationproble m” posed bybe ards generally 4 “would be significantlyreduced”inthe context of qu arter-inch beards, w e did not determine th at qu art er -inchb eard s mu stalw ay s b e permitte d. Green v. P olunsky , 22 9 F .3d 4 86, 490(5th Cir. 2 000)
. On the record here , we c annot hold that the trialcourt’s findings were “clearly erroneou s.” 8 T h e tr ia l co u r t’s fi n d i n g s o f fa c t s h o w th a t A p p e lle e s , b a s e do n th is
e v i den ce, proved tha tan excepti on f or qua rt er- i n ch bea rds w ou l d be l ess e f fe c t ive i n m ai nt ai ni ng pr i s o n s e c ur i t y, b e c aus e such beard s w o ul d m ak e i den t i f i cat i on m ore di f

f i cul t . S i n ce A pp el l ees m et t h ei r bu rden , t h e t ri alcourt

4 d id n o t e r rin d e n y in gG o o d e n re lie f in th is ca s e u p o n th is re c o r d
. I I I . C ONC L US I ON F or t h e f

oregoi n g reasons, w e A F F IR M t h e t ri alcourt ’ s j u dg m en ti n favor of A pp el l ees. A ccor di n gl y, G ooden ’ s m ot i on forinj u n ct ive an d decl arator y rel i ef i s DE NI ED
. G o o d e n ’ s mo t i o n t o a p p o i n ta p p e l l a t e c o u n s e li s a l s o DE NI ED
.