Ware v. Louisiana Department of Corrections et al

Filing 121

MEMORANDUM RULING denying 57 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; denying 57 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 97 Motion for the Court to Take Judicial Notice of Additional State Policies and Procedures Relating to Inmate Grooming, Intake Haircuts, or Religious Exemptions. All claims set forth in Ware's complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 9/12/2016. (crt,Haik, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER JEROME WARE

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2214

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

LOUISIANA DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM RULING
Before this Court is an Renewed Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction (Record Document 57) filed by Plaintiff, Christopher Ware
(“Ware”). Defendants, Louisiana Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and Secretary James
LeBlanc (“Secretary LeBlanc”), filed a Memorandum in Opposition (Record Document 62).
The trial on the merits was expedited and the bench trial was held February 1-3, 2016.
See Record Documents 98, 100, 101.

For the reasons set forth in this memorandum,

Ware’s Renewed Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction is DENIED and all claims set forth in Ware’s complaint are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
Ware is a Louisiana DOC inmate who recently began practicing the religion of
Rastafarianism. He is currently being housed under a DOC contract with the Bossier
Medium Security Jail in Plain Dealing, Louisiana, which is operated by the Sheriff of Bossier
Parish. See Trial Transcript, p. 130.1 Ware was convicted in 2014 on two counts of sexual
battery. See Document 86 at ¶4. During the period prior to his convictions, he was held in

1

The Trial Transcript can be found in the record as Record Documents 106-108.

another Parish facility, the Caddo Correctional Center (“CCC”) in Caddo Parish, operated
by the Sheriff of Caddo Parish. See id. at ¶ 10.
In approximately late 2011 or early 2012, Ware became a practitioner of the
Rastafari faith, and as an exercise of his faith, he took what he describes as the “Vow of
the Nazarite,” one aspect of which requires him not to cut or style the hair on his head. See
Trial Transcript, p. 136. As a result of Ware’s adoption of the Nazarite vow in connection
with his Rastafari religious exercise, his hair has grown and continues to grow into long
dreadlocks. He began growing his dreadlocks while housed at CCC. See id.
Because of the length of his sentence, Ware was ineligible to serve the remainder
of his state sentence at CCC (or any other parish facility), and was required to be
transferred into the physical custody of the Louisiana DOC, for placement in a DOC-run
prison. See Record Document 86, at ¶ 8. DOC’s grooming policies forbid male inmates
from wearing their hair longer than their shirt collars in the back, the tops of the ears on the
sides, and the eyebrows in the front, and forbid the wearing of dreadlocks of any length.
See Record Document 86 at ¶ 21. DOC’s intake policies require that all male inmates
received into the DOC’s physical custody receive – forcibly, if necessary – a closelycropped haircut with clippers, commonly known as a “buzz cut.” See Joint Trial Ex. 14, §§
8.C.3. DOC does not allow for religious exemptions to the application of either its grooming
policies or its intake policies. See Record Document 86 at ¶ 17.
Shortly before pleading guilty on June 30, 2014, Ware instituted this lawsuit against
DOC and Secretary LeBlanc, challenging the DOC’s grooming and intake policies under
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq., and
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to preclude the DOC from enforcing those policies
Page 2 of 24

against him upon his placement into the physical custody of the DOC. See Record
Document 86 at ¶1, 4.
Since filing suit, and at the request of the Court, Ware has been held in parish
facilities rather than be received into the physical custody of the DOC, where he would be
subject to the intake and grooming policies and be forced to have his dreadlocks removed.
See Record Document 86 at ¶ 4. DOC’s primary intake facilities are the Elayn Hunt
Correctional Center (“EHCC”) for male offenders and Louisiana Correctional Institute for
Women (“LCIW”) for female offenders in St. Gabriel, La.

See Record Document 86 at ¶

12. DOC’s general intake regulation (Joint Trial Exhibit 14) (the “Intake Regulation”)
governs the procedures at both facilities and sets out general “reception procedures” for
the intake process, which include in relevant part arranging for the “[p]hotographing” of
each offender, ensuring that offenders are “showered,” and providing a “shave and/or
haircut . . . , if required, to ensure proper identification and to prevent the possible
concealment of contraband.” Id., §§ 8.C.2, 8.C.3.
The EHCC intake policy (Joint Trial Exhibit 12) (the “EHCC Intake Policy”) provides
in relevant part that “all offenders are required to shower and shampoo with anti-lice soap
and to undergo a thorough search of their persons and their possessions, and that
offenders needing photographs “are required to have haircuts for identification purposes.”
Id., §§ III.B.2, III.B.4. The haircut to which offenders at EHCC are subject upon intake is
described as a “buzz cut” or “crew cut.” See Joint Trial Exhibit 41, §§ 8.C.3. Following the
“buzz cut,” offenders are photographed in forward-facing and both-profile orientations. See
Record Document 86 at ¶ 32. Once inmates are placed at a permanent institution, ID
photographs are updated yearly, at a minimum, and historical photographs are retained
Page 3 of 24

both electronically and in the offenders’ files. See Trial Transcript, p. 373. Female
offenders do not have length restrictions, but instead are prohibited from shaving their head
(unless for documented medical reasons), and must style their hair “in such a manner that
it is kept out of the face and eyes.” Joint Trial Exhibit 7, § 8.A-B.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
I.

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”)
Ware relies on RLUIPA as the legal basis for the relief he seeks. RLUIPA provides

that
No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise
of a person residing in or confined to an institution, as defined in section 1997
of this title, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,
unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that
person--(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2)
is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
interest.
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). RLUIPA and its sister statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act of 1993 (“RFRA”) were enacted by Congress “in order to provide very broad protection
for religious liberty.” Holt v. Hobbs, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 853 (2015), citing Burwell v.
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2760 (2014).
“Religious exercise” for the purposes of RLUIPA was defined by Congress as “any
exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A). Congress also explicitly provided that RLUIPA “may require
a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial
burden on religious exercise.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(c).

Page 4 of 24

II.

ANALYSIS
In order to determine whether the DOC policy violates RLUIPA, it is necessary to

apply the test that has been set forth by Congress. RLUIPA, like RFRA, “makes clear that
it is the obligation of the courts to consider whether exceptions are required under the test
set forth by Congress.” Holt, 135 S.Ct. at 864, citing Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita
Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, et al., 546 U.S. 418, 434, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1222 (2006).
“That test requires the Department not merely to explain why it denied the exemption but
to prove that denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling
governmental interest.” Holt, 135 S.Ct. at 864. Thus, it is also necessary to look at the
policies of other states and then compare those practices to the DOC policy. Louisiana is
not required to automatically defer to what other states are doing in terms of their prisoner
grooming policy, “but when so many prisons offer an accommodation, a prison must, at a
minimum, offer persuasive reasons why it believes that it must take a different course.”
Holt, 135 S.Ct. at 866.
Ultimately, “RLUIPA requires a court to ‘scrutinize the asserted harm of granting
specific exemptions to particular religious claimants and to look to the marginal interest in
enforcing the challenged government action in that particular context.’” Knight v. Thompson
796 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir. 2015), citing Holt, 135 S.Ct. at 863.
A.

Religious Exercise

Ware bears the initial burden of proving that the DOC’s grooming policy implicates
his religious exercise. It is undisputed that Ware took the Nazarite vow, becoming a
member of the Rastafari faith in late 2011 or early 2012. The grooming policy of the
Louisiana DOC requires that all male inmates may not have hair longer than their shirt
Page 5 of 24

collars in the back, the tops of the ears on the sides, and the eyebrows in the front.
Dreadlocks are explicitly forbidden by the policy. Part of Ware’s Rastafari faith is the belief
that he may not cut his hair and he forms his hair into dreadlocks after washing his hair by
separating, gathering and squeezing groups of hair strands. The Louisiana DOC has made
clear that once Ware goes through the intake procedures at EHCC, his hair will be cut. It
is clear that the required cutting of his hair in compliance with the DOC intake and grooming
policies implicates his religious exercise, particularly his belief that he may not cut his hair
as part of his Rastafarian Nazarite vow.
B.

Substantial Burden

Ware also bears the burden of proving that the Department’s grooming policy
substantially burdens that exercise of religion. He does not have a choice as to whether
to comply with the DOC policy, as it has been made clear that once he goes through intake
at EHCC, his hair will be cut. Ware contends that the forceful cutting of his hair, which is
directly in conflict with his religious practice, places a substantial burden on his religious
exercise of his chosen aspect of Rastafarian faith. It is noteworthy that not all Rastafarians
take the so-called Nazarite vow, but Ware has indicated that he has taken the vow.
C.

Louisiana DOC’s Grooming Policy

Since Ware has met his initial burden of showing the DOC’s intake policy and
grooming policy substantially burdens his exercise of religion, the burden shifts to the DOC
to show that its grooming policy (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest
and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
See Holt, 135 S.Ct. at 863, citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). The DOC names a number of
compelling government interests in defense of their grooming policy, including: monitoring
Page 6 of 24

security threat groups, promoting a positive image, contraband control, offender
identification, offender hygiene, and prisoner on prisoner violence. This Court must
examine each interest individually and determine whether the DOC, in fact, has a
compelling government interest.

Additionally, RLUIPA “requires the Government to

demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the
challenged law ‘to the person’ - the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion
is being substantially burdened.” Holt, 135 S.Ct. at 863, citing Burwell, 134 S.Ct. at 2779..
In the event a compelling government interest has been identified, the DOC must
also be able to show that their grooming policy is the least restrictive means by which to
achieve that compelling government interest. The standard for “least restrictive means”
established in Burwell is that the government must “show that it lacks other means of
achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion
by the objecting party.” Burwell, 134 S.Ct. at 2780.
1.

Security Threat Group (“STG”) Monitoring

The DOC first claims the compelling interest of preventing security threat groups
within DOC facilities. There is a list of security threat groups that is maintained and
updated by the DOC.

See Trial Transcript, p. 306.

Jerry Goodwin, David Wade

Correctional Center’s Warden (“Warden Goodwin”), testified that Rastafarians are not
currently listed on the security threat group list. See id. He went on to testify that the list
is “not an all-inclusive list.” Id. When questioned about whether he was concerned about
Rastafarian group identification, Warden Goodwin replied “in general, no.” Id., p. 308.
Colonel Joel Odom (“Colonel Odom”), the head of the Security Threat Group team
with the DOC, was also questioned generally about security threat groups within DOC
Page 7 of 24

facilities. When asked about whether there are any security threat groups that use long
hair as an indicator of affiliation, Colonel Odom replied “no.” Id., p. 547. When further
questioned as to whether there are “any security threat groups that you know of that use
dreadlocks as an indicator of affiliation,” Colonel Odom again answered “no.” Id.
Colonel Odom spoke of Rastafarians potentially being listed as a security threat
group, testifying that “[t]here is some debate whether they’re a culture of a black separatist
group, but the Louisiana [DOC] has not declared them a STG.” Id. No specific testimony
was provided indicating that Rastafarians are currently at risk of being placed on the STG
list in the foreseeable future.
It is clear to this Court from the testimony of Warden Goodwin and Colonel Odom
that at this time there is no correlation between the Rastafarian faith, including the wearing
of dreadlocks, and any concern surrounding the STGs. There is no doubt that the DOC
has a compelling interest in preventing and controlling STGs within the prisons; however,
at this time, inmates who are Rastafarians do not fall within the category of those who are
currently being monitored by the DOC.
The DOC must be able to show that the grooming policy ban on dreadlocks is the
least restrictive means to achieve the compelling government interest in preventing STGs.
In light of the fact that all of the trial testimony indicated that Rastafarians are not currently
on any STG lists, this Court is unable to find that the grooming policy’s position with regard
to inmates wearing dreadlocks as a religious practice has any bearing on its interest in
preventing STGs. For this reason, the grooming policy ban on dreadlocks cannot be the
least restrictive means of achieving the goals of identifying, preventing and/or controlling
STGs.
Page 8 of 24

2.

Promoting a Positive Image

The DOC next contends that the grooming policy is the least restrictive means of
promoting a positive image of inmates. Warden Goodwin was specifically questioned about
the DOC wanting to make sure that offenders have a positive image. He was asked, “What
does – do you know what this posted policy means by maintaining a positive image?” and
replied:
It’s - - you know, this policy covers grooming in general, it’s not just specific
to hair - - to hair and beards and things of that nature, it discusses other
issues as well. And you want grooming and appearance standards for
offenders that work in the community to promote positive images. That’s like
the crew that goes to Haynesville every day I was referencing earlier.
Obviously, you wouldn’t want to send an offender to represent you that was - you know, that is covered in offensive tattoos or things like that; maybe he
has swastikas on his face or, you know, other things that would be
considered offensive by general community standards. So that’s basically
what it’s referring to. They have to be neat and presentable. They have to
wear clothes that fit. They can’t wear sagging pants.
See Trial Transcript, p. 389-390.
Warden Goodwin was also specifically asked about dreadlocks and the goal of a
positive image for inmates. He was asked “[i]f Mr. Ware were allowed to maintain his
dreadlocks, would he fall - - and he took, you know, baths and washed his hair, like he said
he did yesterday, would he be permitted to go into town and promote a positive image?”
Id. at 390. Warden Goodwin replied:
I don’t think the dreadlocks themselves would prohibit him from working on
a trusty crew. You would, obviously, consider the inability to properly search
him upon his return. You might not want to take that risk, and send him out,
for those reasons. But the actual appearance itself or the dreadlocks
themselves would not prohibit him from working on that type crew.
Id. While there is no doubt that the DOC has a compelling interest in promoting a positive
image of their inmates in the public, the fact that Ware may be permitted to wear
Page 9 of 24

dreadlocks and work in town shows that the grooming policy is not necessary to further that
particular compelling government interest. There was no evidence provided during trial to
establish that Ware wearing his hair in the dreadlocks style would contradict the positive
image the DOC wishes to promote on the part of its inmates. Without any evidence
showing dreadlocks casting a negative image on the DOC, this Court finds that the
grooming policy ban on dreadlocks is not the least restrictive means by which to achieve
the claimed compelling government interest in promoting a positive inmate image.
3.

Contraband Control

The third compelling government interest, and the most important one raised by the
DOC, is contraband control. There are any number of ways in which contraband can be
introduced or smuggled into a prison facility. Warden Goodwin testified that there are three
basic ways contraband generally enters prison facilities: (1) in-person visits, (2) staff, and
(3) prisoners returning from worksite crews. See Trial Transcript, pps. 313-314.
There was extensive trial testimony on the direct relationship between contraband
control and the grooming policy at issue. Ware called James Aiken (“Aiken”) as an expert
witness, and he opined on the issue of contraband control based on his experience in
multiple prison facilities. The initial question asked was whether dreadlocks could be
searched by DOC personnel for contraband. Aiken testified that “ . . . you can use a metal
wand, for example. This metal wand would go over the hair to determine if there are metal
products in the particular hair.” Trial Transcript, p. 58. He also indicated:
You can order the inmate to bend over with his hair down so that you can
determine whether anything falls out of it. You can do a hand evaluation of
feeling particular braids, et cetera, to ensure no foreign objects are in there.
And if further identification and review is required based on a trigger, that can
be done, also.
Page 10 of 24

Id. A concern expressed by the DOC with searching dreadlocks is the amount of additional
time this would take for DOC personnel. Aiken indicated that he thought the amount of
time would be “minuscule at best,” and later stated that it would take “a minute or two
maybe, maybe less than that” to search Ware’s hair appropriately. Id.
Ware was also questioned about his dreadlocks, and whether they should cause
concern for bringing contraband into the prison. Ware was specifically asked about how
his hair might be effectively and efficiently searched. He replied:
For one, the wand. For one, the hand wand that can detect metal objects
and things of that nature. Visually, the hair can be shaken out, physically
patted down as a group and individually to see if anything is out of order that
shouldn’t feel a certain way. Mainly those ways are pretty effective when it
comes to that.
Id., p. 135. Ware also demonstrated to the Court how he could put his head upside down,
and believed that things that may be hidden in there would either fall out, or somebody
could at that point squeeze and manipulate and take several seconds to ensure that there
is nothing in there that shouldn’t be there. See id., pps. 135-136. When questioned as to
how long it has taken the guards in the past to search his dreadlocks, he replied “Oh, a
minute. Less than a minute at the most.” See id., p. 142.
One of the questions raised with contraband and dreadlocks is whether contraband
can be hidden in the dreadlocks without detection. Ware stated:
First of all, you can’t put anything inside of the dreads that I know of unless
you have very, very big, thick - - it would have to be thick enough for
something to actually go inside it because poking something into a dread
would destroy it, for one. It would tear it apart. So I would have to have very,
very thick dreads for anything to even be attempted to put inside of.

Page 11 of 24

Id., p. 177.2 Of course it is Ware alone who chooses how thick, how long and how many
dreadlocks he forms after each time he washes his hair. While the precise number of
hand-gathered and compressed dreadlocks was not elicited in testimony, the Court
estimates that there were approximately sixteen (16) dreadlocks observed.
Seth Smith, Jr. (“Smith”), the Chief of Operations for the Louisiana DOC, provided
additional testimony on the issue of contraband introduction. Smith served as warden at
Hunt prior to the promotion to his current title. He agreed that a change in the grooming
policy would affect the number of contraband incidents. See Smith Video Deposition.
Smith also addressed the concern that the time and manpower constraints would differ
based on the custody level of the inmate. Maximum security offenders would have to be
shaken down more frequently, and staff would have to spend more time searching their
cells. Ultimately though, Smith believes that minimum security prisoners would likely cause
the most problems, as they spend more time outside and there are more of them.
Additionally, anyone with contact visitors is more likely to get their hands on contraband.3
See id.
Ware counters with the argument that the DOC permits pockets in some of their
facilities, which arguably could be used to bring contraband into the facility. Warden
2

Ware’s dreadlocks are not woven, instead they are formed on their own, with Ware
keeping the pieces of hair separated so that they may form dreadlocks. See Trial
Transcript, p. 153.
3

“Contraband” is defined as “any controlled dangerous substance as defined in R.S. 40:961
et seq., or any other drug or substance that if taken internally, whether separately or in
combination with another drug or substance, produces or may produce a hypnotic effect;
a dangerous weapon, or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable
use as a dangerous weapon or to aid in an escape, unless authorized by the warden of the
institution; Explosives or combustibles, unless authorized by the warden of the institution.”
See La. R.S. 14:402(D)
Page 12 of 24

Goodwin addressed this issue: “The inmates that live in general population that have a lot
of mobility, they wear blue jeans; and they report to school; they report to work
assignments; they have activities going on. They have to have a place to put things. So,
yeah, they need pockets.” Trial Transcript, p. 312. There are a number of different work
position assignments within any one DOC facility. Warden Goodwin elaborated:
There’s probably no work positions that are lower risk. There’s inmates that
have displayed less risk than other inmates, but they’re all searched the
same. It doesn’t matter if they work as my trusty in the A building that cleans
my office, or if they - - or scrubbing toilets in the cellblock. They are
searched the same.
Id., p. 322. Ultimately, the DOC has to make a judgment call as to whether a certain
privilege is important enough to grant even though there is a risk of contraband being
brought into the facility. When asked if “the DOC will allow certain privileges that increase
the opportunity for contraband to come into the system,” he replied “yes, that’s fair.” Id.
To ensure that contraband is not being brought into a DOC facility, all inmates who
have been out on work assignment must be searched by DOC staff each time they return
to the facility. DOC makes the argument that the additional time it will take to search each
prisoner wearing dreadlocks will place an undue additional burden on the DOC facilities
and personnel. Warden Goodwin testified about the current process for searching 150
individual inmates housed at David Wade Correctional Center:
That takes a significant period of time to do the pat searches. The walk
through, they’ll walk through the metal detector, so that doesn’t delay. But
your actual pat searches, you have six or seven officers - - generally six
officers, that’s what’s assigned to the work crew. And you’ll have those six
officers performing the pat-down searches, and that’s going - - you know,
that’s going to take you 45 minutes or so to do that crew.
Id., pp. 358-359. Goodwin went on to testify that he thought permitting dreadlocks would
Page 13 of 24

in fact increase the amount of time it would take to search a work crew as they came into
the facility. See id. He further testified that the grooming policy has had an effect on the
DOC’s ability to effectively search hair. See id., p. 374. Goodwin was also questioned as
to the need for a grooming policy when there are other places to hide contraband:
Because it promotes a safe environment for our staff to work in; it promotes
a safer environment for the offenders to live in; and, you know, it promotes - it assists with overall stability of the institution. Obviously, there is always
going to be areas to hide contraband. You certainly could not eliminate all
of them. But the haircut policy - - you know, it goes towards creating a better
work environment, better living environment, and a safe environment for the
public.
Id., p. 376.
A concern raised by Ray Anderson (“Chaplain Anderson”), the Chaplain at David
Wade, was that the additional time for searches would negatively impact available time for
religious programming. He testified:
And our programming runs so tight at Wade, with a skeletal crew of security,
by the time that we would get the inmates counted, fed, and then through the
various checkpoints, an additional 20 to 30 minutes would start getting into
program timing. Returning back through the gate is another 20 to 30
additional minutes on top of what already is required.
Id., p. 571.
Ware also contends that the DOC grooming policy is underinclusive when compared
to the grooming policy for women in DOC custody. Women inmates are permitted to grow
their hair long, and even have braids, so long as the braids can be readily taken out for
inspection. The Fifth Circuit looked at this exact issue in Ali v. Stephens, 822 F.3d 776 (5th
Cir. 2016). The Court in Ali relied on the position of the Tenth Circuit, that “a government
can rebut a claim that its policy is underinclusive ‘by showing that it hasn’t acted in a
logically inconsistent way- by (say) identifying a qualitative or quantitative difference
Page 14 of 24

between the particular religious exemption requested and other...exceptions already
tolerated.’” Id. at 787, citing Yellowbear v. Lampert, 741 F. 3d 48, 61, (10th Cir. 2014).
Deputy Warden Connie Moore (“Deputy Warden Moore”), who has worked for over
25 years with both male and female inmates at Elayn Hunt Correctional Center and
Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women,4 provided ample testimony at trial on the issue
of male versus female grooming policies. She made clear that, based on her experience
from working in prisons housing both male and female offenders, there are inherent
differences between men and women, particularly with the way that they hide and introduce
contraband into the prison facility. See Trial Transcript, pps. 495, 511-512, 515. During
her trial testimony, Deputy Warden Moore confirmed that at her deposition she had testified
that “hair is not a good place for women to hide contraband because, quote, they like to
hide things where we can’t see them.” Id., p. 472. Deputy Warden Moore elaborated on
the hiding places women prefer for contraband:
They hide it under their dentures. They hide it under their fat rolls. They hide
it under their breasts. They hide it in their vagina; that’s their best favorite
place because, of course, it takes us having to go to medical to get the object
out. Those are the main places that they prefer to hide things.
Id., p. 477. Deputy Warden Moore explicitly stated, “And, I mean, unless you work with the
women, the women are just different.” Id., p. 515. When questioned by this Court as to
whether in her experience women use their hair for the purpose of smuggling in
contraband, Deputy Warden Moore replied, “No, they don’t use - they haven’t used their
hair that I have been aware of.” Id., p. 518.
It is clear from the evidence provided by both Ware and the DOC that contraband
4

Deputy Warden Moore testified that she had worked in the corrections system for “27
going on 28 years.” Trial Transcript, p. 508.
Page 15 of 24

control is an extremely important aspect of internal prison security and management in both
men’s and women’s prisons. There is no doubt that the DOC has a legitimate compelling
government interest in preventing contraband from entering or being kept inside its prison
facilities. The testimony establishes that controlling contraband is essential not only for the
safety of the inmates but also for the staff of the prison facilities. Without question, this
meets the requirements of a legitimate and compelling government interest.
Extensive testimony was provided by DOC officials with decades of prison
management and administration experience as to the relationship between the introduction
of contraband and the grooming policy.5 It is not enough for this Court to merely defer to
the expertise of the DOC. While Ware may argue that there are other less restrictive
means by which the DOC can achieve its goal of controlling contraband than the current
grooming policy, the extensive testimony during trial made clear that the proposed
exception to the grooming policy for Ware would put an undue burden on the DOC. The
additional time and staffing resources that would have to be dedicated to searching Ware
and every other inmate wearing dreadlocks every time a search is conducted would
consume significant additional time and impose a costly burden. That undue burden
increases in severity with every other prisoner who wears dreadlocks.
This Court cannot merely defer to those who manage the DOC prisons with
unquestioning deference, but it is within the discretion of this Court to consider the realities
of the Louisiana DOC facilities. The testimony and evidence at trial made clear that there
5

Warden Goodwin testified that he had been with the DOC “approximately 32 years.” Trial
Transcript, p. 302. Chaplain Anderson testified, “I’m in my nineteenth year” with the DOC.
Id., p. 549. Deputy Warden Moore testified that she had “27 going on 28 years”
experience. Id., p. 508.
Page 16 of 24

have been significant budget cuts to DOC in recent years and that those cuts will worsen
in the immediate future. Additionally, as a result of budget cuts, the staff at these facilities
is being adversely affected through staff layoffs and reductions due to budget cuts. The
individuals who are on the ground day-to-day in the DOC facilities have the best
understanding of what policies and procedures are necessary to ensure that DOC facilities
are able to achieve their intended mission.
The extensive trial testimony provided by individuals at all levels within the DOC
system makes clear that the current grooming policy prohibiting dreadlocks is the least
restrictive means of ensuring that contraband does not enter the facilities in light of the
particular realities of DOC facilities.
4.

Offender Identification

The DOC has claimed offender identification as a compelling government interest
making the grooming policy necessary. Ware was specifically questioned as to his beliefs
about the DOC’s interests in identification. He replied, “I outlined a process that I believe
personally would work for that, since part of the security issue is hair being long, hair being
short, beard, your appearance being modified and whatnot.” Trial Transcript, p. 148. He
specifically stated:
[T]he facility could take a picture with my hair tied to the back, with my beard
in place, showing - - that would show a picture with my hair pulled to the back
with a very low profile on my head itself with the beard in place. Also, the
same picture with my hair hanging to show - - to put my hair into the frame,
so they could see it with the beard and with my hair showing.
Id., p. 149.
Secretary LeBlanc was also questioned on the issue of offender identification,
particularly about offenders who have escaped trying to conceal their appearance. He
Page 17 of 24

replied:
I think, when you talk about wigs and all the other things that go along with
that, it’s more - - it’s harder for them to get access to that. They have to
expose themselves to buy a wig. You know, with hair, it’s fairly simple just
to get your hair cut off, whether it’s a pair of scissors or whatever. I think the
more difficult you make it, the better off you are as far as changing identity.
Id., p. 229. Secretary LeBlanc was also asked about the current procedures for photo
identification within the facility, and why the photos of Ware throughout his time
incarcerated would not be sufficient for identification purposes. He answered, “Well, if you
use the first picture, and something happened to him right now and if you had to use the
first picture, then that would be - - make it difficult. I mean, it just - - to me, it doesn’t look
the same. I mean, he looks different.” Id., p. 271.
Warden Goodwin spoke on the effect the grooming policy has had on prisoner
identification:
I mean, it helps in a lot of ways. Not just the picture you take upon intake
and the pictures you take at your annual assessments and things of that
nature. But, you know, our turnover rate is fairly high among our security
staff, our correctional officers. At some of the institutions, it’s even much
higher than ours. So I know they have the same issues that I deal with,
maybe on a larger level. But we have about a 30 percent turnover in our
security department on an annual basis. So if you have a lot of new officers
and a lot of new staff. You know, every three weeks we’re putting out a new
group of employees that have finished the academy, and they’re on the drop
now.6
Id., p. 376. He spoke specifically to the potential problem with offenders having long hair
in that “[i]f you had several inmates with a long hairstyle, it would be very difficult to
distinguish between those guys - - if you can’t see their facial features. “ Id., p. 377.
There is no question that being able to identify offenders and prevent inmates from
6

“Drop” refers to the State of Louisiana’s Deferred Retirement Option Plan under La. R.S.
11:3385.1.
Page 18 of 24

escaping is a legitimate compelling interest of the DOC. One of the most important duties
of the prison facilities is ensuring that all offenders are accounted for, and being able to
identify offenders is a critical element of that task. The question then is whether this
grooming policy is the least restrictive means to achieve this compelling interest.
Ware and the DOC have submitted the policies of a large number of the other 49
states and territories, and several of them address offender identification and the process
for photographing inmates. Ware argues that pictures can be taken showing what he looks
like with dreadlocks and without dreadlocks such that the facility where he is housed will
have no difficulty recognizing him. The testimony of those that actually have experience
within the prison facilities makes clear that the turnover of prison staff, along with the
concern for escaped prisoners changing their appearances, makes the grooming policy the
least restrictive means by which to achieve this legitimate compelling interest of the DOC.
5.

Offender Hygiene

On the issue of offender hygiene, Warden Goodwin testified about the intake
grooming process, which includes:
[T]he delousing shampoo and medicated shampoo and other things. Once
that’s completed, everybody is, you know, examined by medical. And,
obviously, if you have, you know, really significant hair or whatever, you
might have boils or MRSA on a sore on their head, staph infection or other
things that’s not detectible by - - you know, if it’s covered by hair, the doctor
or the healthcare provider that’s providing the examination, may have a very
difficult time noting these things, and it helps us with infectious control.
Id., p. 406. When questioned, “And one of the reasons is that you felt that there might be
concealed infectious diseases on somebody’s scalp that the hair would cover up; right?”
Warden Goodwin replied, “I mentioned that as part of the intake process, yeah.” Id.
Ware argues that the grooming policy is again underinclusive as to the female
Page 19 of 24

inmates, stating that the same hygiene risks are posed to female inmates. Deputy Warden
Moore testified that female inmates are permitted to wear their hair in braids, however they
must be able to take the braids out. See Trial Transcript, p. 520. The female inmates are
not permitted to wear their hair in dreadlocks. See id. Again while Ware may argue that
the policy is underinclusive, the hygiene concern is related to prison staff not being able to
search the hair for infectious diseases. Female prisoners must be able to take any hair
style out so that their fingers can be run through their hair, permitting prison staff to view
any infectious diseases on the scalp. This is not the case with the dreadlocks hairstyle that
Ware wants to wear.
The State has a strong interest in ensuring that the inmates remain hygienic while
in custody, particularly when it comes to the potential spread of infectious diseases to
inmates, staff and administrators. This Court must look at the specific example of Ware
and the dreadlocks style that he wants to wear and that this Court observed. It is this
Court’s conclusion based on its own observation that there is no doubt that the dreadlocks
style currently being worn by Ware makes it difficult to virtually impossible to detect any
scalp conditions or infectious diseases of the scalp in general. While Ware argues that the
policy is underinclusive based on females not having to cut their hair, the female inmates
are not permitted to have a hairstyle that they cannot “take out” to be inspected by prison
facilities.
6.

Prisoner-on-Prisoner Violence

Aiken was questioned as to whether long hair puts an inmate at greater jeopardy for
being hurt by other inmates pulling his hair. His replied, “I don’t recall within a correctional
environment where the person’s hair has been used against him to control him, et cetera,
Page 20 of 24

either by staff or inmate population.” Trial Transcript, pp. 116-117. Secretary LeBlanc
testified differently, saying that he had seen inmates fight and “pull hair.” Id., p. 262. When
asked whether inmates with longer hair would be at a greater risk for injury he replied, “In
my opinion, they would. I mean, I just think it makes it easier for them to get ahold of
them.” Id., p. 263. He explicitly stated that the increased risk for physical injury is a reason
why correctional officers are not allowed to have long hair. See id.
Deputy Warden Moore also spoke on the differences between male and female
inmates when it comes to prisoner on prisoner violence during her testimony. She stated:
Um, you know, like I said, just from being at Hunt, the offender-on-offender
fights at the male institution were just a lot more severe than the female fights
that they change their girlfriend and they, you know, they got made because
she was talking to another girl, and went and slapped her. I mean, it’s just
different.
Id., p. 504-505. The Court asked Deputy Warden Moore, “When you describe the different
kinds of inmate behavior between men and women and that, in your experience, the
men-to-men fights have been far more severe, last longer, with more injury potential or
actual injury than in women, has that been your experience through out your career?”
Moore answered, “Yes, sir.” Id., p.511.
It is imperative that prisoner on prisoner violence be kept to as much of a minimum
as possible. While in the custody of the DOC, inmates are the responsibility of the DOC,
and that includes personal inmate safety. The dreadlocks style currently worn by Ware
could easily be used as a method to control him and inflict a more severe injury upon Ware
during a fight between prisoners. When asked whether he would ever cut his hair, Ware
responded, “Not willingly, no, ma’am.” Id., p. 153. He believed “that somewhere down the
line, my hair is probably going to stop growing on its own.” Id. It is unclear how long or
Page 21 of 24

thick Ware’s dreadlocks would be able to grow were he permitted to keep them, which
would only make them more problematic as a means of controlling him and inflicting an
injury upon him during a fight. He assumes that the length of his hair would stop naturally.
There is no evidence that his hair would simply stop growing in length.
Other Jurisdictions7
Both Ware and Defendants submitted extensive evidence as to the grooming
policies of other jurisdictions. After reviewing these varied policies it is clear to this Court
that there is no one controlling policy by any one state when it comes to what is permissible
grooming for inmates. The question then becomes what weight this Court must give to the
policies of other jurisdictions. This Court looks to the analysis used by the Eleventh Circuit:
That other jurisdictions choose to allow male inmates to wear long hair shows
only that they have elected to absorb those risks. The RLUIPA does not force
institutions to follow the practices of their less risk-averse neighbors, so long
as they can prove that they have employed the least restrictive means of
furthering the compelling interests that they have chosen to address.
Knight v. Thompson, 797 F.3d 934, 947 (11th Cir. 2015). In reviewing all of the evidence
provided by all parties, it is clear that the grooming policies are unique to the individual
states and the individual circumstances present in their prison facilities. Every jurisdiction
must make decisions based on the particular set of circumstances they face within their
own prison facilities.
The Supreme Court in Holt held that “[w]hen so many prisons offer an
accommodation, a prison must, at a minimum, offer persuasive reasons why it believes that
it must take a different course.” Holt, 135 S.Ct. at 865. Ware argues that a number of
7

Ware’s Motion for the Court to Take Judicial Notice of Additional State Policies and
Procedures Relating to Inmate Grooming, Intake Haircuts, or Religious Exemptions
(Record Document 97) is GRANTED.
Page 22 of 24

states permit inmates to grow dreadlocks and/or have long hair, and therefore the DOC
must offer persuasive reasons why it believes it must take a different course. Based on the
extensive testimony provided as to the specific and unique issues facing DOC prison
facilities and prison management, including cuts to the DOC budget and staff, it is clear that
the DOC facilities are not in a position to allow the requested accommodation, while also
achieving the goals of inmate and employee safety, i.e., prisoner-on-prisoner violence.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing all of the trial testimony and evidence, it is clear that the DOC has
successfully and sufficiently proven by clear and convincing evidence8 that the grooming
policy is the least restrictive means of furthering the legitimate and compelling government
interest in controlling contraband, identifying offenders, promoting offender hygiene, and
preventing or at least minimizing prisoner-on-prisoner violence. For these reasons, Ware
cannot prevail and his Renewed Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction (Record Document 57) is DENIED. Likewise, all claims set forth in
Ware’s complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.9

8

RLUIPA itself is unclear as to whether the substantive burden of proof the DOC bears in
demonstrating that the grooming policy is the least restrictive means of furthering a
legitimate and compelling government interest is a preponderance of the evidence standard
or a clear and convincing evidence standard. See 42 U.S.C. § § 2000cc-1, 2000cc-2
(allocating the “burden of persuasion” to the government without specifying the substantive
burden of proof). However, consistent with Congress’ intent that this statute be broadly
construed in favor of protecting religious exercise, the Court has held the DOC to the clear
and convincing evidence standard. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(g).
9

Ware filed this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief against the DOC’s “hair-cut policy.” Record
Document 1 at 2. He also sought a declaration that the DOC’s grooming and intake
policies as applied to him violate his rights under RLUIPA. See id. at 5.
Page 23 of 24

A Judgment consistent with the terms of the instant Memorandum Ruling shall issue
herewith.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana this 12th day of September,
2016.

Page 24 of 24