Broussard v. Stephens et al
Filing
46
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; denying 39 Motion.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(lcayce, 2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
BRAD BROUSSARD,
Plaintiff,
VS.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-211
§
§
§
§
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED REQUEST FOR
A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This lawsuit was brought by a Muslim inmate at the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), alleging that TDCJCID’s policy requiring all inmates to be clean shaven violated his rights under the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §
2000cc1(a) (D.E. 1). Following the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Holt
v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015), this case was stayed to allow TDCJ-CID Director
William Stephens time to amend TDCJ policies to allow a religious exception to the
grooming regulation (D.E. 38).
The stay was conditioned on Defendant Stephens’
agreement to allow Muslim inmates to grow a beard of up to one-half inch in length (Id.).
A report by Defendant Stephens is due September 1, 2015 (Id.).
Plaintiff has filed a pleading titled “Motion Requesting Federal Intervention on
Discriminatory Practices by Texas Department of Criminal Justice” (D.E. 39). The Court
has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion as well as the responses and replies (D.E. 39, 42, 43, 44,
45). Because Plaintiff is requesting that this Court order Defendant Stephens to change
1/4
his interim policy and allow Plaintiff to trim his beard, sideburns, and neck hair, the
motion will be construed as a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction.
Standard
In order to obtain a preliminary injunction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), the
applicant must demonstrate: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a
substantial threat that the movant will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied;
(3) the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction might cause the
defendant; and (4) the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Texans for Free
Enter. v. Texas Ethics Comm’n, 732 F.3d 535, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2013). Injunctive relief is
an extraordinary remedy which requires the applicant to unequivocally show the need for
its issuance. Sepulvado v. Jindal, 729 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal citations
and quotations omitted), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1789 (2014). Plaintiff must carry the
burden as to all four elements before a preliminary injunction may be considered. Voting
for Am., Inc. v. Steen, 732 F.3d 382, 386 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
Discussion
As to the first factor, the court will assume, without deciding, that Plaintiff can
demonstrate a likelihood that he will prevail on his RLUIPA claims; however, he cannot
carry his burden as to any of the remaining three factors.
As to the second factor, Plaintiff has not alleged any irreparable harm for which
there is no remedy at law. Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328,
2/4
338 (5th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff claims he is being “forbidden to shave unruly/irritating
throat hairs, as well as trimming sideburn hairs off the ears, and trimming moustache hair
to the [upper] edge of the top lip – in order to maintain a presentable well groomed
appearance of Plaintiff’s one-half inch beard” (D.E. 39 at 2). Plaintiff cited neither facts
nor any legal authority that supports his personal opinion that Director Stephens is
engaging in discrimination or that he has a right, under RLUIPA or the United States
Constitution, to trim his beard. Moreover, Director Stephens presented evidence that
allowing a prisoner to trim his beard can significantly change his appearance, resulting in
an increase in costs to frequently update identification cards, as well as an increased
security and escape risk (D.E. 42-4).
On the third and fourth factors, Plaintiff has failed to show that his interest in a
trimmed beard outweighs the interest of the prison in reducing costs while at the same
time maintaining safety and security. It would be cost prohibitive and not serve the
public’s interest for the Court to micro-manage the shaving preferences of individual
Muslim inmates. See Kahey v. Jones, 836 F.2d 948, 951 (5th Cir. 1988) (federal courts
defer to prison administrators concerning day-to-day operations in absence of a
constitutional violation).1
1
If Plaintiff is experiencing pain or ingrown or infected hair follicles, this is a medical, not a religious issue.
Plaintiff should seek medical care, and if the issue is not addressed by medical personnel, he may exhaust his
administrative remedies and file suit seeking injunctive relief for a deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs.
3/4
Plaintiff has not carried his burden. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s construed motion for
a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (D.E. 39) is DENIED.
ORDERED this 23rd day of June, 2015.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4/4
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?