Opinion ID: 70996
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The TDCJ’s Hair-Length Policy

Text: The magistrate judge properly found that Diaz v. Collins, 114 F.3d 69 (5th Cir. 1997), and Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 2007), foreclosed Thunderhorse’s RLUIPA claim against the TDCJ’s hair-length policy. In both cases, the plaintiffs, like Thunderhorse, were prisoners who, for religious reasons, sought permission not to cut their hair. Diaz, 114 F.3d at 70 (following the religious practices of the Aztecs); Longoria, 507 F.3d at 900-01 (practicing his religion as a Mexica Nahua Native American). In both cases, we found that the policy substantially burdened (or the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded that the policy substantially burdened) a religious exercise. See Longoria, 507 F.3d at 903; Diaz, 114 F.3d at 72-73. But we upheld the policy as the least restrictive way to serve a compelling governmental interest—prison security. In Diaz, which arose under RLUIPA’s predecessor statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), we explained that prisoners may hide weapons and other contraband in their hair. 114 F.3d at 73 In addition, requiring short hair makes it more difficult for an escaped prisoner to alter his appearance from the photographs that the TDCJ periodically takes of each 6 Case: 08-40821 Document: 00511023468 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/09/2010 No. 08-40821 inmate. Id.2 In light of these concerns, we held that “the security interest at stake cannot meaningfully be achieved appropriately by any different or lesser means than hair length standards.” Id. In Longoria, 507 F.3d at 904, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Longoria’s RLUIPA claim even though the district court did not determine whether the policy was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. We explained that such a determination was unnecessary because we had previously evaluated the same policy under RFRA. Id. at 901, 904 (citing Diaz, 114 F.3d at 73). Because RLUIPA and RFRA shared the least-restrictivemeans, compelling-interest test, we held that the district court was not required to reexamine the TDCJ’s hair-length policy to conclude that Longoria had failed to state a claim under RLUIPA. See id. at 904. Consistent with these decisions, we affirm the dismissal of this RLUIPA claim.3