×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Dismissal of Haircut Suits Reversed
In two brief, separate rulings, the court of appeals for the Eighth circuit reversed and remanded the dismissal of lawsuits challenging prison haircut rules by Rastafarian prisoners. In one case, the court held the district court had improperly concluded the plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies.
Dwight Cofer, a Missouri state prisoner and a Rastafarian, filed suit claiming he was intermittently required to cut his hair. The Rastafarian religion prohibits its adherents from cutting their hair. The district court held the suit was frivolous, denied Cofer In Forma Pauperis status and dismissed the case.
The court of appeals reversed and remanded. "We do not disagree with the district court's conclusion that security concerns permit prison officers to require Cofer to cut his hair, but we find no evidentiary basis in the record of this case, which is still at the initial screening stage, for applying the cases cited by the district court. Liberally read, Cofer's still uncontested pleadings establish an intermittent unexplained requirement that he cut his hair, a requirement he finds offensive because of his adherence to the Rastafarian religion. Such a claim is not frivolous." See: Cofer v. Schriro, 176 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 1999).
Avery Williams is a Rastafarian prisoner in Arkansas. He filed suit challenging an Arkansas Department of Corrections rule prohibiting Rastafarians from wearing their hair in dreadlocks. The district court dismissed the suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), finding Williams had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
The appeals court reversed and remanded. "We conclude the district court improperly granted defendants' motion to dismiss, as the record demonstrates that Williams' grievance had been denied by the warden and assistant director at the time the court ruled. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to allow Williams an opportunity to proceed on his claims." See: Williams v. Norris, 176 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 1999).
Readers should note that neither ruling is on the merits. Courts have usually upheld prison grooming rules that violate the religious beliefs of prisoners.
Dwight Cofer, a Missouri state prisoner and a Rastafarian, filed suit claiming he was intermittently required to cut his hair. The Rastafarian religion prohibits its adherents from cutting their hair. The district court held the suit was frivolous, denied Cofer In Forma Pauperis status and dismissed the case.
The court of appeals reversed and remanded. "We do not disagree with the district court's conclusion that security concerns permit prison officers to require Cofer to cut his hair, but we find no evidentiary basis in the record of this case, which is still at the initial screening stage, for applying the cases cited by the district court. Liberally read, Cofer's still uncontested pleadings establish an intermittent unexplained requirement that he cut his hair, a requirement he finds offensive because of his adherence to the Rastafarian religion. Such a claim is not frivolous." See: Cofer v. Schriro, 176 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 1999).
Avery Williams is a Rastafarian prisoner in Arkansas. He filed suit challenging an Arkansas Department of Corrections rule prohibiting Rastafarians from wearing their hair in dreadlocks. The district court dismissed the suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), finding Williams had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
The appeals court reversed and remanded. "We conclude the district court improperly granted defendants' motion to dismiss, as the record demonstrates that Williams' grievance had been denied by the warden and assistant director at the time the court ruled. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to allow Williams an opportunity to proceed on his claims." See: Williams v. Norris, 176 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 1999).
Readers should note that neither ruling is on the merits. Courts have usually upheld prison grooming rules that violate the religious beliefs of prisoners.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal cases
Williams v. Norris
| Year | 1999 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 176 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 1999) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
Williams v. Norris, 176 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 05/14/1999)
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
[2] No. 99-1743
[4] May 14, 1999
[5] AVERY D. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; PERRY, MAJOR, CHIEF OF SECURITY, NORTH CENTRAL UNIT; STEVE LIVELY, DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER, NORTH CENTRAL UNIT; LARRY MAY, WARDEN/ CENTER SUPERVISOR, NORTH CENTRAL UNIT; DAVID GUNTHARP, GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, APPELLEES.
[6] Before Wollman, Chief Judge, Richard S. Arnold, and Beam, Circuit Judges
[7] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
[8] [PUBLISHED]
[9] Submitted: April 7, 1999
[10] PER CURIAM.
[11] Avery D. Williams, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Williams had claimed that Arkansas Department of Correction officials violated his constitutional rights and his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-2000bb-4, by imposing a grooming policy which prohibited Williams -- a Rastafarian -- from wearing his hair in "dreadlocks." We conclude the district court improperly granted defendants' motion to dismiss, as the record demonstrates that Williams's grievance had been denied by the Warden and the Assistant Director at the time the court ruled. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to allow Williams an opportunity to proceed on his claims.
[12] A true copy.
[13] Attest:
[14] CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
[2] No. 99-1743
[4] May 14, 1999
[5] AVERY D. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; PERRY, MAJOR, CHIEF OF SECURITY, NORTH CENTRAL UNIT; STEVE LIVELY, DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER, NORTH CENTRAL UNIT; LARRY MAY, WARDEN/ CENTER SUPERVISOR, NORTH CENTRAL UNIT; DAVID GUNTHARP, GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, APPELLEES.
[6] Before Wollman, Chief Judge, Richard S. Arnold, and Beam, Circuit Judges
[7] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
[8] [PUBLISHED]
[9] Submitted: April 7, 1999
[10] PER CURIAM.
[11] Avery D. Williams, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Williams had claimed that Arkansas Department of Correction officials violated his constitutional rights and his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-2000bb-4, by imposing a grooming policy which prohibited Williams -- a Rastafarian -- from wearing his hair in "dreadlocks." We conclude the district court improperly granted defendants' motion to dismiss, as the record demonstrates that Williams's grievance had been denied by the Warden and the Assistant Director at the time the court ruled. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to allow Williams an opportunity to proceed on his claims.
[12] A true copy.
[13] Attest:
[14] CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Cofer v. Schriro
| Year | 1999 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 176 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 1999) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
Cofer v. Schriro, 176 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 05/10/1999)
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
[2] No. 99-1852
[3] 176 F.3d 1082, 1999
[4] May 10, 1999
[5] DWIGHT E. COFER, APPELLANT,
v.
DORA SCHRIRO, APPELLEE.
[6] Before Murphy, Wollman, and Beam, Circuit Judges.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam.
[8] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
[9] (PUBLISHED)
[10] Submitted: April 26, 1999
[11] In his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, Missouri inmate Dwight Cofer alleged numerous constitutional violations, including an intermittent requirement that he cut his hair. Cofer pleaded that such a requirement infringes the free exercise of his Rastafarian religion. The district court found the complaint frivolous, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the complaint. Upon consideration of the record before the district court, we affirm, except for the dismissal of Cofer's free-exercise claim.
[12] We do not disagree with the district court's Conclusion that security concerns may permit prison officers to require Cofer to cut his hair, but we find no evidentiary basis in the record of this case, which is still at the initial screening stage, for applying the cases cited by the district court. Liberally read, Cofer's still-uncontested pleadings establish an intermittent, unexplained requirement that he cut his hair, a requirement he finds offensive because of his adherence to the Rastafarian religion. Such a claim is not frivolous. See Jones v. Schriro, No. 98-3929 (8th Cir. Apr. 9. 1999) (remanding dismissal of Rastafarian's claim as frivolous); Reed v. Faulkner, 842 F.2d 960, 963-64 (7th Cir. 1988) (remanding because evidence before district court did not support judgment rejecting Rastafarian's free speech and equal protection claims).
[13] We agree, however, with the dismissal of Cofer's other claims. Thus, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[14] A true copy.
[15] Attest:
[16] CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
[2] No. 99-1852
[3] 176 F.3d 1082, 1999
[4] May 10, 1999
[5] DWIGHT E. COFER, APPELLANT,
v.
DORA SCHRIRO, APPELLEE.
[6] Before Murphy, Wollman, and Beam, Circuit Judges.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam.
[8] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
[9] (PUBLISHED)
[10] Submitted: April 26, 1999
[11] In his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, Missouri inmate Dwight Cofer alleged numerous constitutional violations, including an intermittent requirement that he cut his hair. Cofer pleaded that such a requirement infringes the free exercise of his Rastafarian religion. The district court found the complaint frivolous, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the complaint. Upon consideration of the record before the district court, we affirm, except for the dismissal of Cofer's free-exercise claim.
[12] We do not disagree with the district court's Conclusion that security concerns may permit prison officers to require Cofer to cut his hair, but we find no evidentiary basis in the record of this case, which is still at the initial screening stage, for applying the cases cited by the district court. Liberally read, Cofer's still-uncontested pleadings establish an intermittent, unexplained requirement that he cut his hair, a requirement he finds offensive because of his adherence to the Rastafarian religion. Such a claim is not frivolous. See Jones v. Schriro, No. 98-3929 (8th Cir. Apr. 9. 1999) (remanding dismissal of Rastafarian's claim as frivolous); Reed v. Faulkner, 842 F.2d 960, 963-64 (7th Cir. 1988) (remanding because evidence before district court did not support judgment rejecting Rastafarian's free speech and equal protection claims).
[13] We agree, however, with the dismissal of Cofer's other claims. Thus, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[14] A true copy.
[15] Attest:
[16] CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.