Christopher Deaton v. Arkansas Dept. of Correction, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Steven M. Colloton, Pasco M. Bowman and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED), DISSENT BY: Steven M. Colloton [4226816] [14-1916]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-1916
___________________________
Christopher Deaton
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Arkansas Department of Correction; Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of
Correction; Larry Norris, Former Director, Arkansas Department of Correction;
Larry May, Chief Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Raymond
Naylor, Hearing Officer Administrator, Arkansas Department of Correction;
Danny Burl, Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Greg Harmon, Former
Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Richard Todd Ball, Deputy Warden,
East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Dexter Payne, Deputy Warden, East Arkansas
Regional Unit, ADC; Steve Outlaw, Former Deputy Warden, East Arkansas
Regional Unit, ADC; Essie Clay, DHO, Arkansas Department of Correction;
Minnie L. Drayer, DHO, Arkansas Department of Correction; Lahan Ester, Former
DHO, Arkansas Department of Correction; Justine Minor, DHO, Arkansas
Department of Correction; Curtis Rolfe, Former DHO, Arkansas Department of
Correction; Lorie Taylor, DHO, Arkansas Department of Correction; Jeremy C.
Andrews, Chief Security Officer, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; DeAngelo
M. Earl, CSO, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Clinton Wade Hall, CSO, East
Arkansas Department of Correction; Clarence Kelley, CSO, East Arkansas
Regional Unit, ADC; Maurice Williams, CSO, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC;
Moses Jackson, Captain, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Wallace MacNary,
Captain, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Janice Gray, Law Library Supervisor,
East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Derrick Harris, Corporal, Arkansas
Department of Correction
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________

Appellate Case: 14-1916

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/17/2014 Entry ID: 4226816

Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena
____________
Submitted: November 4, 2014
Filed: December 17, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas prisoner Christopher Deaton appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of
his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint asserting violations of his constitutional rights
and rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of 2000,
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. The district court dismissed the complaint partially under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A and partially on summary judgment. Upon careful de novo
review, we find no basis for reversal. See Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th
Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (standard of review for § 1915A dismissal); Seltzer-Bey v.
Delo, 66 F.3d 961, 963 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review for summary judgment).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
COLLOTON, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Holt v. Hobbs, 134 S. Ct. 1490 (2014),
to consider the following question: “Whether the Arkansas Department of
1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, adopting the reports and recommendations of the Honorable
Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of
Arkansas.
-2-

Appellate Case: 14-1916

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/17/2014 Entry ID: 4226816

Correction’s grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., to the extent it prohibits petitioner
from growing a one-half-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.” Id. at
1512. The case was argued on October 7, 2014, and a decision is likely to be issued
soon.
This case is factually distinguishable from Holt, because appellant Deaton—like
the prisoner in Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2008)—claims a right based
on RLUIPA to grow a full beard in accordance with his religious beliefs. But the
Court’s reasoning in Holt will inform how Deaton’s claim should be analyzed and
whether Fegans has continuing vitality. In the interest of judicial economy, I would
hold this case briefly pending a decision in Holt rather than burden Mr. Deaton with
the need to file a petition for writ of certiorari to secure an order granting certiorari,
vacating this court’s decision, and remanding for further consideration in light of Holt.
______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-1916

Page: 3

Date Filed: 12/17/2014 Entry ID: 4226816