Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1709943.html
Timestamp: 2020-05-26 04:09:16
Document Index: 263720115

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 1985']

Thomas Otter Adams, suing individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Billy Two Feathers Jones, suing individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, et al., Consol., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. William S. Stricker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, et al. individually and in their official capacity, Consol., Defendants–Appellees. | FindLaw
Thomas Otter Adams, suing individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Billy Two Feathers Jones, suing individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, et al., Consol., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. William S. Stricker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, et al. individually and in their official capacity, Consol., Defendants–Appellees.
Ricky KNIGHT, Franklin Irvin, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, Thomas Otter Adams, suing individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Billy Two Feathers Jones, suing individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, et al., Consol., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Leslie THOMPSON, in his individual capacity, Donald Parker, et al., Defendants–Appellees, William S. Stricker, Ellen Ruth Leonard, et al. individually and in their official capacity, Consol., Defendants–Appellees.
Before HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER*, District Judge. Mark Sabel, Sabel Law Firm, LLC, Montgomery, AL, Peter Sean Fruin, Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs–Appellants. Joseph D. Steadman, Dodson & Steadman, PC, Mobile, AL, Kim Tobias Thomas, Luther J. Strange, III, Alabama Department of Corrections, Andrew Weldon Redd, Alabama Department of Transportation, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants–Appellees.
Plaintiffs–Appellants (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) are male inmates in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”). They wish to wear their hair unshorn in accordance with the dictates of their Native American religion, but an ADOC policy forbids them from doing so. Plaintiffs brought this suit against the ADOC and several other defendants (collectively “ADOC”), challenging the ADOC's hair-length policy on various constitutional grounds and under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq. The United States has intervened on Plaintiffs' behalf. After a full evidentiary hearing and bench trial, the District Court made several findings of fact and entered judgment in favor of the ADOC. Because the ADOC carried its RLUIPA burden to demonstrate that its hair-length policy is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling governmental interests, we affirm.
Lathan v. Thompson, 251 F. App'x 665, 667 (11th Cir.2007) (internal citation omitted, second and third alterations in original). This Court, therefore, vacated the District Court's judgment as to the hair-length claims and remanded the case for a full evidentiary hearing and bench trial, “following which the district court shall make detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law.” Id.
We review the District Court's factual determinations for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. In particular, we will conduct a de novo review of the District Court's overall legal determination that the ADOC's hair policy comports with the RLUIPA. Cf. Lawson v. Singletary, 85 F.3d 502, 511–12 (11th Cir.1996) (“Whether the Rule comports with [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] is a pure question of law, and is subject to de novo review by this Court.”); accord Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1552 (8th Cir.1996); Hoevenaar v. Lazaroff, 422 F.3d 366, 368 (6th Cir.2005); McRae v. Johnson, 261 F. App'x 554, 557 (4th Cir .2008); United States v. Friday, 525 F.3d 938, 949 (10th Cir.2008); Garner v. Kennedy, 713 F.3d 237, 242 (5th Cir.2013).4
Congress enacted the RLUIPA as a response to the Supreme Court's decisions in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), and City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997). In Smith, the Court held that the Free Exercise Clause typically does not shield religiously motivated conduct from the burdens of generally applicable laws. 494 U.S. at 878–79. Congress responded three years later by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). In an effort to restore the level of protection that religious observances enjoyed before Smith, the RFRA commanded that “government”—including state and local governments—“shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless such a burden met a “compelling governmental interest” and “least restrictive means” test. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb–1. In Flores, the Supreme Court declared the RFRA's application to the States unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress's Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power. 521 U.S. at 532–36.
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc–1(a). The Act broadly defines “religious exercise” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” Id. § 2000cc–5(7)(A). Under the RLUIPA, the plaintiff bears the burden to prove that the challenged law, regulation, or practice substantially burdens his exercise of religion. Once a plaintiff has made this prima facie showing, the defendant bears the burden to prove that the challenged regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Id. § 2000cc–2(b); Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1276 (11th Cir.2007), abrogated on other grounds by Sossamon v. Texas, –––U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1651, 179 L.Ed.2d 700 (2011).
Although the RLUIPA protects, to a substantial degree, the religious observances of institutionalized persons, it does not give courts carte blanche to second guess the reasoned judgments of prison officials. Indeed, while Congress enacted the RLUIPA to address the many “frivolous or arbitrary” barriers impeding institutionalized persons' religious exercise, it nevertheless anticipated that courts entertaining RLUIPA challenges “would accord ‘due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators.’ “ Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 716–17, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005) (quoting 146 Cong. Rec. 16698, 16699 (2000) (joint statement of Sens. Hatch and Kennedy on the RLUIPA)). The Supreme Court has cautioned that “[w]e do not read RLUIPA to elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution's need to maintain order and safety,” and “an accommodation must be measured so that it does not override other significant interests.” Id. at 722. The Court further instructed:
Id. at 722–23 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This deference is not, however, unlimited, and “policies grounded on mere speculation, exaggerated fears, or post-hoc rationalizations will not suffice to meet the act's requirements.” Rich v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 716 F.3d 525, 533 (11th Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
It is also beyond dispute that the ADOC has compelling interests in security, discipline, hygiene, and safety within its prisons and in the public's safety in the event of escapes and alteration of appearances. Lathan, 251 F. App'x at 667. The crux of this appeal, then, is simply whether the ADOC's blanket short-hair policy furthers those goals and is the least restrictive means of doing so.
Alternatively, even assuming that the proposed alternative could eliminate the ADOC's concerns as to concealment of weapons and contraband and inmate identification, Plaintiffs' proposed alternative does nothing to assuage the ADOC's concerns about gang-formation and hair-pulling during fights, or the concealment of infections and infestations. Thus, based on these concerns, the ADOC has shown, at the very least, that its short-hair policy, as applied to Plaintiffs, is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling interests in safety and hygiene. Plaintiffs cannot point to a less restrictive alternative that accomplishes the ADOC's compelling goals, and neither can we. The ADOC has carried its burden on both RLUIPA prongs.
It is true, as Plaintiffs point out, that some of our sister courts have focused on the RLUIPA's command that prison administrators “demonstrate” the lawfulness of their policies and have held that notwithstanding Cutter's deference mandate, prison administrators must show that they “actually considered and rejected the efficacy of less restrictive measures before adopting the challenged practice.” See, e.g., Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 999 (9th Cir.2005); Spratt v. Rhode Island Dep't of Corr., 482 F.3d 33, 41 (1st Cir.2007) (adopting Warsoldier's heightened proof requirement); Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272, 284 (3d Cir.2007) (same). This, however, is not the law in this circuit, and none of this Court's cases have adopted Warsoldier's more strict proof requirement. The language of the RLUIPA directs us to inquire merely whether the policy under review is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. It is certainly possible—though perhaps relatively less common—for prison administrators to promulgate an appropriately tailored policy without first considering and rejecting the efficacy of less restrictive measures. The RLUIPA asks only whether efficacious less restrictive measures actually exist, not whether the defendant considered alternatives to its policy. As already explained, the ADOC has shown that no efficacious less restrictive measures exist and has therefore carried its RLUIPA burden.
Plaintiffs' heavy fixation on the policies of other jurisdictions similarly misses the mark. While the practices of other institutions are relevant to the RLUIPA analysis, they are not controlling—the RLUIPA does not pit institutions against one another in a race to the top of the risk-tolerance or cost-absorption ladder. See Rich v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 716 F.3d 525, 534 (11th Cir.2013) (practices of other institutions are relevant but not controlling); see also Daker v. Wetherington, 469 F.Supp.2d 1231, 1239 (N.D.Ga.2007) (interpreting the RLUIPA to leave “room for a particular prison to decline to join the ‘lowest common denominator’ when, in the discretion of its officials, the removal of a challenged restriction poses an appreciable risk to security”). The ADOC has shown that Plaintiffs' requested exemption poses actual security, discipline, hygiene, and safety risks. That other jurisdictions choose to allow male inmates to wear long hair shows only that they have elected to absorb those risks. The RLUIPA does not force institutions to follow the practices of their less risk-averse neighbors, so long as they can prove that they have employed the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling interests that they have chosen to address. The ADOC has shown that its departure from the practices of other jurisdictions stems not from a stubborn refusal to accept a workable alternative, but rather from a calculated decision not to absorb the added risks that its fellow institutions have chosen to tolerate. This cannot amount to an RLUIPA violation.
In a mere two pages at the end of their initial brief, Plaintiffs assert that the ADOC's hair-length restrictions violate their “additional legal rights.” Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that the ADOC's hair-length policy violates their free exercise and freedom of association rights under the First Amendment, their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Except for their equal protection claim, Plaintiffs provide no supporting discussion and have therefore abandoned these additional issues in this appeal. See Rowe v. Schreiber, 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n. 1 (11th Cir.1998) (issues mentioned in passing but without supporting argument or discussion are abandoned).