Jones v. Meinzer et al
ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT 86 Partial Report and Recommendation; defts' 46 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; judgment will be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 10/18/13. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
LARRY WAYNE JONES,
No. 5:12CV00117 JLH-JTK
CURTIS MEINZER, et al.
This is another challenge brought by an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction
pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2), challenging the ADC’s grooming policy provided in Administrative Directive
98-04, which prohibits beards other than quarter-inch beards permitted only for diagnosed
dermatological problems. The defendants moved for summary judgment on several grounds, one of
which was that the Eighth Circuit has already held that the grooming policy provided in
Administrative Directive 98-04 does not violate RLUIPA. See Holt v. Hobbs, 509 Fed. App’x 561
(8th Cir. 2013), and Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2008); see also Deaton v. Ark. Dep’t
of Correction, No. 2:12CV00186-JLH-JAK, 2012 WL 6115102 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 15, 2012).
The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion for summary judgment, distinguishing
Holt v. Hobbs on the ground that the inmate in that case sought to grow a one-half inch beard,
whereas Jones wants to grow a one-fourth inch beard.
Upon de novo review, the Court has concluded that summary judgment must be entered in
this case because binding precedent from the Eighth Circuit has held that the grooming policy at issue
here does not violate RLUIPA. The Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Holt v. Hobbs did not hinge on the
fact that Holt sought to have a one-half inch beard rather than a one-fourth inch beard. Indeed, the
opinion never mentions the length of the beard that Holt sought to have. Instead, the Eighth Circuit
said, “we conclude that defendants met their burden under RLUIPA of establishing that ADC’s
grooming policy was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest.” Holt v. Hobbs,
509 Fed. App’x at 562 (citing Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d at 903 and 905). Because the Eighth
Circuit has held that Administrative Directive 98-04 does not violate RLUIPA, the defendants are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Document #46.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of October, 2013.
J. LEON HOLMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?