University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Holt v. Hobbs PC-AR-0014
Docket / Court 5:11-cv-00164-BSM-JJV ( E.D. Ark. )
State/Territory Arkansas
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Case Summary
On June 28, 2011, a devout Muslim prisoner at the Arkansas Department of Corrections' Cummins Unit filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") against the ... read more >
On June 28, 2011, a devout Muslim prisoner at the Arkansas Department of Corrections' Cummins Unit filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") against the Director of the Arkansas Department of Corrections and the Warden of the Cummins Unit. The plaintiff, proceeding without counsel, asked the court for a temporary and permanent injunction against the enforcement of the prison's grooming policy, claiming that the prison was substantially interfering with his right to practice religion in violation of RLUIPA and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the prison's refusal to allow him to grow a 1/2 inch beard was not the least restrictive means of furthering the government's compelling interest in maintaining security in the prison.

On July 6, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe, relying heavily on Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2008), recommended that the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order be denied. On October 18, 2011, the District Court (Chief Judge Brian S. Miller), however, rejected the magistrate's proposed findings, noting that the defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving that the grooming policy was the least restrictive means to achieve prison security as applied to the plaintiff's case. The District Court then granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, and remanded the case to the Magistrate Judge for further hearings on whether the grooming policy was the least restrictive means to maintain prison security.

After an evidentiary hearing, on January 27 2012, Magistrate Judge Volpe recommended that the Court's October 18, 2011 order be vacated, that the plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Holt v. Hobbs, No. 11-cv-00164, 2012 WL 994481 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 27, 2012). Magistrate Judge Volpe noted that the state had brought forth credible evidence that a 1/2 inch beard presented security threats, notwithstanding the fact that under the policy a prisoner with a diagnosed skin condition was allowed to grow a 1/4 inch beard. For example, a 1/2 inch beard could conceal weapons and/or contraband; allowing a prisoner to keep a beard could allow him to disguise his identity (by shaving) in the event of an escape; and giving certain prisoners preferential treatment (allowing them to grow beards) could lead to other prisoners targeting them or seeing them as leaders. The plaintiff conceded that the government had a compelling interest in maintaining prison security, but argued that the policy was not the least restrictive means to do so. Specifically, the plaintiff referenced the procedures used by the New York Department of Corrections that maintain prison security by photographing inmates with and without a beard so that they may not disguise themselves in the event of an escape. Despite this evidence, Magistrate Judge Volpe declared that a high level of deference is owed to prison officials in judging the specific needs of their prison, and that policies of other prisons are not dispositive. Finally, the Magistrate Judge noted that because the plaintiff was already given several religious accommodations (a prayer rug, a list of distributors of Islamic material, correspondence with religious advisors, dietary accommodations, and unobstructed observance of religious holidays), the grooming policy did not "substantially burden" the plaintiff's religious exercise. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Moreover, he recommended that dismissal of the complaint count as a "strike" for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which penalizes prisoners if they file more than three lawsuits that are frivolous or fail to state a claim. On March 23, 2012, the District Court (Chief Judge Brian S. Miller) adopted the Magistrate's recommendations in full, and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint. Holt v. Hobbs, No. 11-cv-00164, 2012 WL 993403 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 23, 2012).

The plaintiff appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 12, 2013, the Court (per curiam) held that the State met its burden under RLUIPA of establishing that the grooming policy was the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling government interest in prison security, and affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the case. The Court did, however, reverse the District Court's holding that the dismissal counted as a strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Holt v. Hobbs, 509 Fed.Appx. 561 (8th Cir. 2013); No. 12-3185, 2013 WL 2500568 (8th Cir. June 12, 2013).

Still without counsel, the plaintiff then sought review in the Supreme Court of the United States; the Supreme Court granted certiorari, limited to the RLUIPA claims, and appointed counsel. Holt v. Hobbs, 134 S.Ct. 1512 (2014). On January 20, 2015, the Court reversed, unanimously. In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court held that Arkansas's grooming policy violates RLUIPA "insofar as it prevents petitioner from
growing a 1⁄2-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs." The opinion focused on the fact that the state's asserted security interest was undermined by the fact that it allowed prisoners to grow 1/4-inch beards for medical reasons, and also allowed prisoners to grow their hair longer than 1/2 inch.

Joshua Arocho - 11/11/2014
- 01/20/2015


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Free Exercise Clause
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Corrections
Discrimination-basis
Religion discrimination
General
Bathing and hygiene
Religious programs / policies
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Arkansas Department of Corrections
Plaintiff Description A devout Muslim inmate in the Arkansas Department of Corrections' Cummins Unit who wishes to grow a beard as required by his religion.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration 2015 - n/a
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
5:11-cv-164 (E.D. Ark.) 08/11/2014
PC-AR-0014-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
12-3185 (U.S. Court of Appeals) 08/11/2014
PC-AR-0014-9001.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
13-6827 (U.S. Supreme Court) 10/07/2014
PC-AR-0014-9002.pdf | Detail
Supreme Court website
General Documents
Complaint 06/28/2011
PC-AR-0014-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Application for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order 06/28/2011
PC-AR-0014-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Vernell Conley 09/01/2011
PC-AR-0014-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Carlos Gutierrez 09/01/2011
PC-AR-0014-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 10/18/2011 (E.D. Ark.)
PC-AR-0014-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion for Leave to Amend 10/19/2011
PC-AR-0014-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Rashaad Farris 12/19/2011
PC-AR-0014-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Transcript of Hearing on Motion for Temporary Injunction Before the Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge 01/04/2012
PC-AR-0014-0012.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Paul Smith 02/22/2012
PC-AR-0014-0008.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 03/23/2012 (E.D. Ark.)
PC-AR-0014-0009.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notice of Appeal 04/27/2012
PC-AR-0014-0017.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Affidavit 08/31/2012
PC-AR-0014-0010.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Affidavit 09/05/2012
PC-AR-0014-0011.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Statement of the Case 10/25/2012
PC-AR-0014-0013.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Appellees and Addendum 12/10/2012
PC-AR-0014-0014.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Reply Brief of the Appellant 12/26/2012
PC-AR-0014-0015.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff 06/12/2013 (509 Fed.Appx. 561)
PC-AR-0014-0016.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 09/10/2013
PC-AR-0014-0019.pdf | Detail
Petitioner's Supplemental Brief 01/03/2014
PC-AR-0014-0018.pdf | Detail
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 01/20/2015 (135 S.Ct. 853)
PC-AR-0014-0020.pdf | WESTLAW | External Link | Detail
Document Source: Supreme Court website
Judges Alito, Samuel A. Jr. (SCOTUS, Third Circuit)
PC-AR-0014-0020 | PC-AR-0014-9002
Breyer, Stephen Gerald (SCOTUS, First Circuit)
PC-AR-0014-9002
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (SCOTUS, D.C. Circuit)
PC-AR-0014-0020 | PC-AR-0014-9002
Kagan, Elena (SCOTUS)
PC-AR-0014-9002
Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (SCOTUS, Ninth Circuit)
PC-AR-0014-9002
Miller, Brian Stacy (E.D. Ark.)
PC-AR-0014-0005 | PC-AR-0014-0009
Roberts, John Glover Jr. (SCOTUS, D.C. Circuit)
PC-AR-0014-9002
Scalia, Antonin (SCOTUS, D.C. Circuit)
PC-AR-0014-9002
Sotomayor, Sonia (S.D.N.Y., SCOTUS, Second Circuit)
PC-AR-0014-0020 | PC-AR-0014-9002
Thomas, Clarence (SCOTUS, D.C. Circuit)
PC-AR-0014-9002
Volpe, Joe J (E.D. Ark.) [Magistrate]
PC-AR-0014-0012
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Laycock, Douglas (Virginia)
PC-AR-0014-0018 | PC-AR-0014-9002
Defendant's Lawyers Cryer, Christine A. (Arkansas)
PC-AR-0014-0012 | PC-AR-0014-0014 | PC-AR-0014-9000 | PC-AR-0014-9002
McDaniel, Dustin (Arkansas)
PC-AR-0014-0014
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -