Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and 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

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 41015 Su m m ar y Cal endar
W ILL IE L E E G A R N E R , al so kn ow n as W i l l iF ree IG ar’ n er Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. PA U L M O RA LE S, I ndivi dua l l y and i n hi s o f f i c i alc ap ac i t y; RO BE RT CR I TE S, In d iv id u a llya n dinh is o ffic ia l ca p a c ity ; B R YA N G O R D Y , In d ivid u a lly a n dinh is o f f i c i a lc a p a c i t y ; E I L EE N K EN N ED Y; MART HA WEAR ; E T A L
. ; J UAN M
. GA RCI A; LOU I S ROCH A; GI N A K. CU RRI E; S Y LV I A VI LLARREA L; RA CHE L L E RAM ON D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 06- C V

- 218
B e fo r e J O L LY , B E N AV ID E S , a n dH AY N E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * W il li e L e e G a r n e r , T e x a s p r is o n e r#6 0 6 6 3 5 , a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s ad verse s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t on h is fre e ex e rc ise , e q u alprot ecti on , an d ret ali ation c l ai m s und e r4 2 U
. S. C. § 1 98 3 as w e l la s hi s c l ai m s und e rt he Rel i gi o us Land U se and I n st it u t i on al i zed P ersons A ct (R L U IPAor A ct) , 42 U
. S
. C
. §§ 2000 ccUnited States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 41015

The grooming

policypermits inmate s with an obj ectivelyverifiable medical condition 1 to obtain a clipper-shave pa ss, whichallows them tomaintain a quarter-inch beard. 2 200 0cc- 5. H e al so ap pea l s t h e di st ri ct court’ s den i alof hi s r equ estf

or app oi n t ed c o unsel
. F o rt he f

o l l o w i ng r e as o ns , w e a f f i r m i n pa r ta nd v ac at e i n pa r ta nd
r e m and
. I . FACTS G ar ner , a pr i so ne ri ncar c er at ed i n t he Texas D epar t m entof C r i m i nal J u s tic e (T D C J ), a d h e r e s to Is la m . H e co n te n d s th a t t h e te n a n ts o f h is Is la m ic fa i t h r e q u i r e h i m t o we a ra ta l lt i me s a b e a r da n da wh i t e h e a dc o v e r i n gk n o wn as a K u f

i
. I m ped i n g G arn er’ s ab i l i t y t o a dh ere to these tena n t s of h i s fai t h are th e T D C J ’ s n o-fa ci a l -ha i r gro om i n g p oli cy , w h i ch req u i res a l li n m a tes to m ai nt ai n a c l e an s hav e ab s e nt an o bj e c t ive l y ve r i f i ab l e m e di c alc o ndit i o n, a nd 1 th e T D C J ’ s h e a d -co v e rin gp o li cy , w h ich re str icts G a rn e r fro m w e a rin gh is K u fi to an df rom reli giou s serv i ces. In 20 0 4 , G a rn er beg a n refu singto com p l y w i th t he TD C J’ s gr oo m i ng poli c y by nots havi ng; h e w as di sc i pl i ned s eve r alt i m es as a resul t . G a rn e r a d m i t t ed that he w as not exem pt f rom t h e pol i cy du e t o a m edi calcondit i on ; inst ead , h e a rgued tha tthe T D C J’ s i n f l exibl e groom i n g pol i cy shou l d yi el d to h i s r el i gi ou s bel i efs. G a r n e rb r o u g h t t h is s u it a g a in s t L ie u te n a n t J u a n G a r c ia , S e r g e a n t L o u is Roc ha, O f

f i c e rRac he l l e Ram o n, Com m i s s ar y M ana ge rG i n a C u rr i e , a nd C om m i ssa r y Coor di nat orSylvi a V i l l ar r eali n t hei ri ndivi dualand of f i c i al ca p a ci ti es. H i s su i t a l l eg es th a t th e d efen d a n ts v i olatedh i s con sti tu ti on a lri gh ts b y re fusin g to a l l ow h i m to m a i n taina q u a rter-i n ch be a rdan dw ea r a K u fito and f r om r eli gi ous s ervi ces. Spec i f i c al l y, G ar nerbr oughts ui tunder § 1 983, a lle g in gv io la tio n o f h is F ir s tA m e n d m e n t r ig h t t o fr e e e x e r c is e o f r e lig io n , h is F ou rt een t h A m en dm en t r ight t o equ alprot ect i on of t h e l aw , an d ret al i ati on u n d e r t h e E i gh t h A m en dm en t . G arn er al so c l ai m s t h at th e T D C J’ s pol i ci es vi ol ate th e R L U IPA , w h i ch protects th e reli gi ou s pract i ces of i n st i t u t i on al i zed persons.N o. 07- 41015

3 T h e d i stri ct cou rt gra n tedsu m m a ryj u d gm en t i n fa vo r of th e d efen d a n ts on allof G a rn er’ s cl a i m s. T h e cou rt pro vid ed a n u m b er of gro u n d s f or it s j u dg m e n t. F i rst , t h e courtconcl u ded t h at s overei gn i m m u n i t y barred G arn er f rom sui n g t h e defen da n t s i n t h ei r of f i ci alcapaci t i es f

or m on ey da m ages. S econd , t h e courthel d that t h e defen da n t s w ere en t i t l ed to j u dg m en tas a m att er o f l aw be c aus e G arn erha d no ts uf f i c i e nt l y s ho w n av i o l at i o n o f e i t he rt he R L U IPAor t h e F i rst , E i gh t h , or F ou rt een t h A m en dm en t s. Fina l l y, t h e court c o nc l ude d thatt he de fe ndants w ere ent i t l e d t o q uali f i e d i m m uni t y. I n a s e p a r a te o r d e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie dG a r n e r ’ s re q u e s t fo ra p p o in te dco u n s e l. G a rn er’ s cl a i m s ar e n ow be fore th i s C ou rt. I I . DI S CU S S I ON W e r evi ew t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s gr antof s um m ar y jud gm entde novo a p p ly in gth e s a m e s ta n d a r da s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee B aran ow skiv. Hart , 486 F. 3d1 12 , 1 19 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7)
. Sum m ar y j udg m e nti s a ppr o pr i at e “i f t he pl e ad i ngs , de po s i t i o ns , t he di s c o ve r y an d di s c l o s ur e m at e r i al s o n f i l e , a nd a ny af f i d a v i t s s ho w t ha t t he r e i s no g e nu i ne i s s ue a s t o a ny m a t e r i a l fa c t a nd t hat th e m ov a n t i s en titl ed to j u d gm en t a s a m a tter of l a w . ” F ED . C IV . P. 56 (c )
. The
m ovan tbears t h e bu rden of dem on st rat i n g t h e a b se n ce of a gen u i n e i ssue of
m a te r ia l fa c t. L ittle v . L iq u id Ai rCor p. , 37 F
. 3d106 9, 1 075 (5t h C i r. 1 994 ) ( en b a n c ) (p e rcu r iu m ). In m a k in go u rd e te r m in a tio n , a ll d o u b ts a n dre a s o n a b le in fe r e n c e s m u s t b e re s o lv e dinfa v o ro f th e n o n -m o v a n t, h e r e G a r n e r . Id
. A . S o v e re ig n im m u n ity G ar ner c ont ends t hat t he di st r i c t c our t i m pro per l y hel d t hatsov ere i gn i m m u n i t y barred h i m f rom sui n g t h e d e fen d a n t s i n t h eir of f i ci alcapaci t i es f

or m on ey da m ages. W e di sagree. Asui t aga i n st a govern m en t of f i ci al i n hi s orher of f i ci alcapaci t y i s a sui tagainstt h e en t i t y t h at th e i n divi du alrepresents , here th e T D C J
. K

e nt uc kyv . G r aha m , 4 7 3 U .S . 1 5 8 , 1 6 6 (1 9 8 5 ). W e h a v e p r e v io u s ly recogni zed that t h e T D C J i s an agen cy of t h e st ate, an d i s t h u s “ shi el ded f rom s u its b y in d ivid u a l s ab sen t its con sen t. ” Mayf i e l dv . Tex . De

p ’ tof Cr i m i n alN o. 07- 41015

4 Ju st i ce , 5 29 F. 3d5 99 , 6 04 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8) (c i t at i o n a nd i nt e r nalq uo t at i o ns m arks om i t t ed). M oreov e r, w e rec en t l y h el d that t h e R L U IPAdoes not
c o n s tit u t e a w a i v e ro f as ta te ’ s s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity
. Sos s am o n v . Lo neSt ar St at eof Texas , N o. 07- 50632, 2009 U
. S. A pp. L E X I S 3701, at*2 8 ( 5t h C i r . Feb. 17 , 2 0 0 9 )
. T h u s , t h e o n l yp o t e n t i a l l yv i a b l e c l a i m s t h a tGa r n e rh a s b r o u ght agai nst t he TD C J (t hro ugh it s of f i c i al s) ar e t hos e f

ordec l ar at or y and i nj unct ive r e lie f. Se eMc Car t hyexre l
. Tr av i s v . Hawki ns , 381 F. 3d 407, 417 ( 5t h C i r . 2004) (r e c o gni z i ng t hatde c l ar at o r y andi nj unc t ive re l i e f ar e ex c e pt i o ns t o t he do c t r i ne o f s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity); seealso Sossam on , 2009 U
. S. A pp. LE X I S 3701 at*1 9 ( “ [Th e] R LU I PA unam bi guously c r eat es a privat e r i ght of ac t i on f

ori nj unct ive andde c l ar at o r y r e l i e f
. ” )
. Ac c o r di ngly, w e a f f i r m t he po r t i o n o f

t he j udg m e nt c o nc l udi ng t hatG ar ne ri s b ar r e d f r o m s e e ki ng m o ne y da m ag e s f r o m t he defenda n t s i n t h ei r of f i ci alcapaci t i es. B . F r e e e x e r c i s e c l a i ms G arn er al so c h al l en ges t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof hi s f re e exerci se c l ai m s. H e c ont ends t hatt he TD C J p oli ci es t hatf orbi d hi m f

r om w ear i ng a qu art er- i n ch b e a rd a n d a K u f it o an d f

rom reli gi ou s s ervi ces vi ol ate hi s Fir st A m en d m en t ri gh ts. G a rn er’ s cl a i m s ar e foreclose d b yth i s ci rcu i t’ s p rece d en t. I n G r e e n v. Pol unsky , 22 9 F
. 3 d 4 8 6 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ), a n i n m a te con ten d ed tha t a T D C J p o li cyt h at f

orbi d h i m f

rom w eari n g a qu art er- i n ch bea rd i n accor da n ce w i th h i s M u sli m faith, yet all ow ed pr i son ers w i th certa i n m ed i ca lcon d i ti on s to w ear t h ree- qu art er- i n ch bea rds, vi ol ated t h e F ree E xerci se C l au se of t h e F i rst A m e n d m e n t. Id
. at488. W e di sa gr ee d and hel d t hatt he gr oo m i ng poli c y w as r e a s o n a b lyre la te dto th e T D C J ’ s le g itim a te p e n o lo g i c a lin te r e s ts . Id
. at490. Si m i l ar l y, i n Muha m m ad v. Lynaugh , 966 F
. 2d901 ( 5th C i r. 199 2) , w e rej ect ed a f ree exerc i se c h al l en ge t o a T D C J poli cyr e str i ct i n g t h e use of K u f icaps, con cl u d i n g th a t th e po l i cybo re a rea son a b l e relation sh i p to t h e legit i m a te p e n o lo g ic a l in te r e s ts o f p r is o n s e c u r ity
. Id
. a t9 02-03. G iven t h ese precedents,N o. 07- 41015

5 t h e d is t r ic tc o u r td idn o te r ri n c o n c lu d in gt h a tn o fa c ti s s u e e x is t s o n G a r n e r ’s f ree exerc i se c l ai m s. C . E q u a l p r o te c tio n c la im G ar ne rf

ur t he rc o nt e nds t hatt he TD CJ’ s g r o o m i ng an d he ad

- c o ve r i ng po l i c i e s v i o l at e t he E qu alP r o t e c t i o n Cl aus e o f t he Fo ur t e e nt h Am e ndm e nt b e c a u s e th e p o lic yfo rb id s M u s lim s fr o m w e a r in gaq u a r te r -in c h b e a r din accordan ce w i t h t h ei r r el i gi on , yetdoes not i m pose a si m i l ar res t ri ct i on on i n m ates w i t h cert ai n m edi cal cond i t i on s. H e al so notes t h at adh erents of ot h er rel i gi on s are perm i t t ed t o w ear m eda l l i on s, crosses , am u l et s, an d m edi calbags, andal s o per m i t t e d t o per f o r m c e r e m o ni alr i t e s l i ke s m o ki ng a t o ba c c o pi pe a nd pa rt i ci pa t i n g i n sw eat l odg es. T o m ai n t ai n hi s equa lprot ect i on cl ai m i n dep en den tof h i s f ree exerc i se cl ai m , G arn er “m u sta l l ege an d prove t h at h e receivedt reat m en tdi f ferent f rom t hatr e c e ive d b y s i m i l ar l y s i t uat e d i ndivi dua l s a nd thatt he une qua lt r e at m e nt stem m edf

rom a d i scrim i n a toryi n ten t. ” T aylorv. Joh n son , 257 F. 3d 470, 473 ( 5th C i r. 200 1)
. D i scr i m i n ator y i n t en t“i m pl i es t h at th e deci si on m ak er s i n gl ed ou ta parti cul ar group f or di sparate t reat m en tan d sel ect ed h i s c ou rse of act i on at l east i n part f

or t h e purp ose o f c a u s i n git s a d v e r s e e ffe c t o n a n id e n tifia b le gr oup. ” La ve r ni a v. Lynaugh , 845 F. 2d 493, 496 ( 5t h C i r . 1988) (i nt er nal q u o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ). T h e di st ri ct court corr ect l y concl u ded t h at G arn er has fai l ed to rai se a fact i s s u e o n h i s e q u a lp r o t e c t i o n c l a i m . Ga r n e rh a s n o te s t a b l i s h e dt h a tt h e T DCJ e n a c te dits g r o o m in go rh e a d -c o v e r in gp o lic yfo rth e p u r p o s e o f a d v e r s e ly i m p a c t i n gt h e a b i l i t yo f M u s l i m i n m a t e s t o p r a c t i c e t h e i r fa i t h ; r a t h e r , t h e T DCJ en act e d the po l i c i e s t o f o r w ar d it s l e git i m at e pe no l o gi c ali nt e r e s t s i n pr i son se c urit y. N orhas G ar ners how n t hatt he TD C J appl i es i t s fac i al l y- neut r al groom i n g an dh e a d -co v e rin gp o li cie s d iff e re n tlya m o n gM u slim s o r th o se of oth er fai t hs. I ndivi dual s r ec eivi ng an exe m pt i on f r om the gr oo m i ng pol i c y du e t o a n obj ect ivel y veri f

i able m edi calcondit i on are, b y defi n i t i on , n otsi m i l arl y si t u atedN o. 07- 41015

6 t o G ar ne r . Fi nall y, G ar ne rha s no to f fe r e d a ny fac t s dem ons t r at i ng t hatt he T D C J in te n d e dto d i s c r im in a te a g a in s t h im a s am e m b e ro f a n id e n tifia b le g r o u p . B e c a u s e G a r n e rh a s fa i l e dto ra is e afa c t is s u e o n a n yp o te n tia lly ac t i o nab l e t he o r y o f e qua lpr o t e c t i o n, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tpr o pe r l y gr ant ed
su m m a ryj u d gm en t on this cl a i m . M ore ov er, b eca u se G a rn er h a s fa i l edto e s ta b lis h th a t t h e T D C J ’ s g r o o m in ga n dh e a d

- c o v e r in gp o lic ie s v io la te h is constit u t i on alri gh t s, he can n otest abli sh an E i gh t h A m en dm e n tret al i ati on c l ai m bas ed o n penal t i es i ncur r ed as a r es ul tof hi s r ef usal t o c om pl y w i t h t hat p o lic y . S ee McD on ald v. S t ew ard , 132 F. 3d 225, 231 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) (not i ng t hat an E i gh t h A m en dm en t ret al i ati on cl ai m m u st be pred i cat ed on t h e vi ol ati on of asp e cific co n stitu tion a l righ t). D. Ap p o i n t m e n to f c o u n s e la n d t h e RL UI PA G arn er r equ est ed ap poi n t m en t of coun sel i n t h e di st ri ctcourt ; hi s r equ est w a s d e n ie d
. T h e r e is n o a u to m a tic rig h t t o a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l in aciv il
c a s e . Ja c k s o n v . D a lla s Po li c eD e p ’t , 811 F. 2d 260, 261 ( 5t h C i r . 1986)
. A fede r al court m ay, how ever, app oi n tcoun selfora n i n di gen tif doi n g so w ou l d ad van ce th e p r o p e ra d m in is tr a tio n o f ju s tic e . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e ); Ul m er v. Ch an cel lor , 691 F
. 2d209 , 213 ( 5th C i r. 198 2)
. A pp oi n t m en t of coun sel i n a civi lri gh t s c ase i s ge n era l l y re serv edf or ca ses pr ese n ti n g “ex ce p tio n a l ci rcu m stan ces.” I d. W h i l e n o p recise form u l a ti on of su ch ci rcu m stan ces ca n be stated , cou rts gener al l y l oo k att he f oll ow i ng: [i] th e typ e a n dcom p l ex i ty o f th e ca se; [ii] th e p eti ti on er’ s ab i l i ty ad equ ately t o present and investi gate h i s case; [ii i] t h e presence of ev i d en ce w h i ch l a rg ely con s ists of con fli cti n g testim on y so as to r e quir e s kil li n pr e s e nt at i o n o f e vi de nc e a nd i n c r o s s - e xa m i nat i o n; an d [iv] t h e l i kelih ood that app oi n t m en tw i l lben ef i tt h e petit i on er, t he c o ur t , a nd the de fe nda nt s b y s ho r t e ni ng t he t r i ala nd a s s i s t i ng i n j us tde t e r m i nat i o n. Mu r p hyv . Ke l lar , 950 F
. 2d 290, 293 ( 5t h C i r . 1992) (c i t at i on and i nt er nal q u o ta tion s o m itted ).N o. 07- 41015

We recentlyapp ointed appell ate coun sel in anotherRLUIPA ca se pre sentingissues 2 of f ir sti mp re ssion . See Sossamon , 20 09 U.S. App. L EXI S 3 701 , at*1 1. 7 The di s t r i c t c o ur t c o nc l ude d t hat t hi s w as no t a no ve lo rc o m pl e x c as e a nd th a t G a rn er co u l dad eq u a tel y p rese n t t h e issu es to th e cou rt. W ith r e s p e c t t o t he m at t e r s a l r e ad y di s c us s e d, w e f i nd no ab us e o f di s c r e t i o n i n t hi s c o nc l us i o n. H ow ever, our revi ew of t h e rel evan t case l aw an d st atutor y dev el opm en t s c au ses us t o c o nc l ude t hatt hi s i s a c as e o f f i r s t i m pr e s s i o n unde r t he RL U I PA
. As s uc h, i tm ay be a case i n w h i ch ap poi n t m en tof coun seli s app ropri ate. 2 G arn er c l ai m s t h at th e T D C J’ s groom in ga n d h ead

- coveri n gs pol i ci es vi ol at e the R LU I PA
. The R LU I PAm andat es t hat [ n] o g o ve r nm e nts halli m po s e as ubs t ant i al bur de n o n t he r e l i gi o us exerci se of a person r esi di n g i n or confi n ed t o an i n st i t u t i on . . . even i f t he bur de n r e s ul t s f

r o m ar ul e o f

g e ne r ala ppli c ab i l i t y, unl e s s t he gov er nm entdem ons t r at es t hati m pos i t i on o f t he bur den on t hat p e rs o n -- ( 1) i s i n f

ur t he r anc e o f

ac o m pe l l i ng go ve r nm e nt ali nt e r e s t ; a nd ( 2) i s t he l e as tr e s t r i c t ive m e ans o f f ur t he r i ng t hatc o m pe l l i ng go ve rn m en tal i n teres t. 42 U
. S. C. § 200 0c c - 1( a)
. “ [The] R LU I PAt hus pr o t e c t s i ns t i t ut i o nali z e d p e r s o ns w h o are un able f

reely t o att en d to t h ei r r el i gi ou s need s and are t h eref ore dep en den ton the govern m en t ’ s perm i ssi on an d accom m o d ati on f or exerc i se of th eir rel i gio n . ” C u t t er v. Wi lki n son , 544 U
. S. 709, 721 ( 2005)
. W e have recogni zed that “t h e R L U IPAst an da rd poses a far great er c h al l en ge t h an does [t radi t i on alf

ree exerc i se ana lys i s ] t opri s o n r e gul ati o ns th at i m pi n ge on i n m ates’ fr e e ex ercise of rel i gion
. ” Free m an v. T ex. D ep’ tof C ri m i n al Ju st i ce , 369 F. 3d 8 5 4 , 85 8 n . 1 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 4 ). M ore ov er, C on gr ess h a s m a n d a te d t h a t cou rts c o ns t r ue t he Ac t“i n fav o ro f ab r o adpr o t e c t i o n o f r e l i gi ou s exer c i s e , ” t o t he
m a x im u m ex te n t p e rm itted b ylaw
. 4 2 U .S .C
. § 2 0 0 0 cc -3 (g). I ni t i al l y, t he bur den r es t s on the reli gi ous adher entt o de m ons t r at e that t h e c h a ll e n g e dg o v e r n m e n t a l p o li c ys u b s t a n t ia ll yb u r d e n s t h e a d h e r e n t ’sN o. 07- 41015

8 e x e r c is e o f r e lig io n . S ee 42 U
. S
. C
. § 2000 cc- 2(b)
. Th i s r equ i res courts t o an sw er tw o q u e s tio n s : (1 ) Is th e b u r d e n e da c tiv ity“r e lig io u s e x e r c is e ,” a n d i f s o (2 ) is th e “bu rd en su b stan ti a l”? T h e R L U IPAdef

i n es “rel i giou s e xerci se” t o i n cl u de “anyexerci se of
r e lig io n , w h e th e ro rn o t c o m p e lle db y , o rc e n tr a l t o , a s y s te m o f r e lig io u s b e lie f.” 42 U
. S. C. § 20 00 c c - 7(A)
. The ac t ivit i e s all e ge d t o be bur de ne d i n t hi s c as e – t he
w eari n g of

a qu art er- i n ch bearda n d a K u f i– easi l y sati sf

y t h i s broad defi n i t i on o f “r e l i gi o us e xe r c i s e . ” Thus , t hi s c as e pr e s e nt s t he q u est i o n o f w he t he rt he T D C J ’s g r o o m in ga n dh e a d -c o v e r in g s p o li c ie s “ s u b s t a n t ia ll yb u r d e n ” G a r n e r ’s e xe r c i s e o f

r e li gi o n. Al t ho ughno tde f

i ne d b y s t at ut e , thi s c i r c ui tha s he l d t hata g o ve r nm e nt r e gul at i o n su bstant i all y bur de ns a“r e l i gi o us e xe r c i s e ” f o rt he pur po s e s o f

t he RL U I PAif

i t“t r ul y pr e s s ur e s t he a dhe r e ntt o s i gnif i c ant l y m o dif

y hi s r e l i gi o us b eh a vior a n d sign i fi ca n tly v i olate h i s be l i efs. ” Adki nsv . Kas par , 393 F. 3d 559, 5 7 0 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 4 ). T h i s test req u i res a “case -by -case , fa c t-sp ecif i c i n q u i ryto determ i n e w h et h er th e governm en tact i on or regulat i on i nqu est i on i m poses a sign i fi ca n t bu rd en on an ad h ere n t’ s reli giou s ex ercise. ” Id
. at 57 1
. In cond u ct i n g t h i s i n qu i ry, courts are f orbi dd en f

rom asking w h et h er t h e pract i ce a t is s u e is ce n tr a l to th e a d h e r e n t’s re lig io u s -b e lie f s y s te m . Id . a t 5 7 0
. T h is l i m i t ati on , how ever, “ does n otreli eve a com p lai n i n g ad h erent of t h e bu rden of de m o ns t r at i ng t he ho ne s t y anda c c ur ac y o f hi s c o nt e nt i o n t hatt he r e l i gi o us p ra cti ce a t i ssu e is i m p orta n t t o th e free ex ercise of h i s reli gion
. ” Id
. I f t he TD CJ’ s po l i c i e s i m po s e as ubs t ant i alb ur de n o n Gar ne r ’ s r e l i gi o us exerci se, t h e defen da n t s m u stt h e n est abli sh that t h e pol i ci es f u rt h er a c o m pe l l i ng g o v e r nm e nti nt e r e s ta nd a r e t he l e as tr e s t r i c t ive m e anso f f ur t he r i ng t hati nt e r e s t . 4 2 U
. S. C. § 2 00 0c c - 1( a) ; 4 2 U
. S. C. § 2 00 0c c - 2(b)
. I n c o nduc t i ng t hi s i nqu i ry , c o ur t s a r e g ui de d b y t he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s r e c o gnit i o n t hatt he R LU I PAdoe s not“ el evat e a c c om m odat i on o f r eli gi ous ob se rvance s ove ran i n sti tu ti on ’ s n ee dto m a i n tainord er a n dsafety
. ” C u t t er , 544 U
. S. at722.N o. 07- 41015

9 I nde e d, “ pr i s o n s e c ur i t y i s ac o m pe l l i ng s t at e i nt e r e s t , a nd [] defe r e nc e i s due to i n sti tu ti on a loff

i ci a l s’ex p ertise i n this are a . ” Id
. at 725 n. 13. N evert h el ess, w e d o n ot be l i ev e th a t th e S u p rem e C ou rt i n ten d e d t h ese pr on ou n cem en ts t o r el i ev e p r i s o ns f

r o m t he e x p r e s s m a nd a t e p l a c e do n t he m b yCo ng r e s s : t hat pol i c i es w hi c h subs t anti a l l y bur den t he r eli gi ous pr ac t i c e o f i nm at es be pre di c at ed o n a c om pelli ng i nt er es t , t hatt hey f urt hert hatin teres t, and t hat th e yd o s o inth e le a s t r e s tr ic tiv e m a n n e rp o s s ib le
. S ee 4 2 U .S .C
. § 2 0 0 0 cc -1 (a ); 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 c c -2 (b ). O u r c i rcui th as n ever a dd ress ed t h e q u est i onof w h et h er a rel i gi on - based
r e q u e s tto h a v e aq u a r t e r -i n c h b e a r dis as ig n if ic a n tb u r d e n o n th e a d h e r e n t ’s
r e lig io u s e x e r c is e o f th e Is la m icre lig io n o rw h e th e rth e cle a n -s h a v e n p o lic yis th e le a s t r e s tr ic tiv e m a n n e ro f fu r th e r in gaco m p e llin gin te r e s t. G ree n , 229 F. 3d 486 , i s not di sp o sitiv e as itw as deci ded based u pon l aw f rom a t i m e w h en R L U IP A ’ s p re d e ce ss o r s ta tu te , th e R e li g iou s F re e d o m s R e sto ra tion A ct (R F R A), h a db e e n fo u n du n c o n s tit u tio n a l a n dt h e R L U IP Ah a dn o t y e t b e e n p a s s e d
. W e h a v e u p h e l daT D C J p o l i c yb a n n i n gl o n gh a i ru n d e rt h e R F R A , b a s e do n s o me o f th e s a m e in te r e s ts a s s e r te db yth e T D C J h e r e . Se e D i az v . Col l i ns , 114 F. 3d 6 9 , 7 3 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). A lth o u g h t h e R F R Ah a s s in c e b e e n h e ldu n c o n s tit u tio n a l, th e R L U IP Aa d o p ts th e s a m e h e ig h te n e ds ta n d a r d o f s c r u tin y a s th e R F R A
. S ee C u t t er , 544 U
. S
. at 715
- 16. I n a recent u n pu bl i shed opi n i on , how ever, w e noted th a t D i az’ s r e as o ni ng c o nc e r ni ng l o ng hai r i s n otdi s po s i t ive o f t he i s s ue p r e s e n te db yq u a r te r -in c h b e a r d s . G o o d en v . C ra in , 2 5 5 F e d
. A p p ’ x 8 5 8 , 8 6 1 n .1 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) (u n pu bl i shed ) (reversi n g sum m ary j u dg m en tbecau se t h e i ssues i nvo lvi ng t he q uar t e r - i nc h b e ar d p o l i cy wer e c o nt e s t e d fac tq ue s t i o ns )
. The di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no tha vet he b e ne f i to f o urde c i s i o n i n G ood en w h en i tden i ed re li e f. O urc i r c ui tha s e xp r e s s e d t he v i e w t hatac as e o f f i r s ti m pr e s s i o n m i ght p r e s e n t a n “e x c e p tio n a lc i r c u m s ta n c e ” ju s tify in ga p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l. S an t an a v. Ch an d ler , 961 F
. 2d514 ( 5th C i r. 199 2) (concl u di n g, how ever, thattheN o. 07- 41015

10 p r e s e n c e o f la w in o th e rc ir c u its le s s e n e dth e n e e dfo rco u n s e l); s e eals o D ur an v . Re no , 1 93 F. 3d8 2 ( 2dCi r . 1 99 9) (c o uns e la ppo i nt e d o n a ppe alb e c aus e t he case presented an i ssue of f i rst i m pressi on )
. T h e di st ri ctcourtvi ew ed thi s c ase as one pr es ent i ng a w ell

- se t t l ed i ss ue – c i t i ng D i az a n dth e si n ce- reversed di st ri ctcou r to pi ni o n i n G ood en –r at he rt han a c as e o f f i r s ti m pr e s s i o n. The c our ts t at ed: “ pl ai nt i f f ’ s c l ai m s do not pre se nt any c om pl exit i es t hatar e unusual i n pr i son er a cti on s. ” T h u s, th e cou rt’ s a n a l ys i s of th e ne ed to a p p oin t cou n sel fai l ed to t a k e into accoun tt h e parti cul ar com pl exi t y an d l egal n ovel t y of t h i s c ase. A s noted above,
w e concl u de th at t h i s case i s n ot t h e u sua l on e. B ecau se ap poi n t m en tof coun sel i n t h e di st ri ctcourtis a qu est i on of di scr et i on – albei tdi scr et i on exerci sed u n der t h e proper an al ysi s of t h e sit u ati on – w e concl u de that t h e app ropri ate c ou rse of ac t i o n i s t o v ac at e t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s r ul i ngs o n t he RLU IPA cl ai m s a nd the ap poi n t m en tof

coun selm ot i on an d rem an d f or reconsi derati on of the lat t er f i rst fo llo w e db yth e fo r m e rinlig h t o f th e o p in io n h e r e s ta te d
. I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e VA C A T E th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s a d v e r s e s u m m a r yj u d g m e n to n G a r n e r ’s R L U IPAcl ai m s and t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s or der den yi n g ap poi n t m en to f coun sel andRE M AN D
. W e no t e t hato urr e c e ntde c i s i o n i n Sos s am o n h el d, as a m att er o f s t at ut o r y i nt e r pr e t at i o n a nd t o a vo i d c e r t ai n c o ns t i t ut i o nalc o nc e r ns , t hatt he R L U IPAdoes not perm i tsui t s agai n stdefen da n t s i n t h ei r i n divi du alcapaci t i es. S ossam on , 2 00 9 U
. S
. A pp . LEX I S 3 70 1, a t* 28
. Ac c o r di ngly, o n r e m and , G a r n e r ’ s R L U IP Acla im s a r e lim ite dt o d e c la r a to r ya n dinju n c tiv e re lie f. In a ll oth er re sp ects, w e A F F IR M the distri ct cou rt’ s j u d gm en t.