Allen Justus v. Gary D. Maynard, Warden, and Steve Hargett, Deputy Warden Frank Marks, Chaplain Donald Lankford, Food Supervisor
Docket: 93-7078
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; June 3, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Unpublished opinions may now be cited if they have persuasive value on a material issue, provided a copy is attached to the citing document or copies are furnished to the Court and all parties during oral arguments. In the case of Allen Justus v. Gary D. Maynard, No. 93-7078, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Justus's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 related to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections' grooming policy. The court previously held that the policy was facially valid, but remanded for further findings on the application of the policy to Justus, who has since received an exemption.
In a July 6, 1993, order, the district court closed the case, ruling that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity concerning damage claims, as the law regarding prison grooming codes was not clearly established when the defendants acted. The court clarified that government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages if their actions do not violate clearly established rights. The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the right in question was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Justus's arguments regarding the constitutionality of the grooming code and his religious rights were not sufficient to overcome the qualified immunity defense.
Several cases address the enforcement of prison grooming policies and their impact on religious freedom, but they do not definitively establish the legality of such policies. The case of Longstreth, which consolidated appeals from Oklahoma prisoners regarding a state grooming code, illustrates this uncertainty. The district court upheld the grooming code as reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, denying Longstreth's request for a preliminary injunction. In contrast, the LeFors case found the grooming code unconstitutional, though it allowed for ongoing monitoring of security concerns. Additionally, the Hall case permitted the grooming code at an intake facility without exemption procedures. Other circuit courts have upheld similar grooming regulations as constitutional, indicating a lack of a clear consensus on the issue at the time of the defendants' actions. For qualified immunity to apply, the law must be sufficiently developed, and since the constitutionality of the grooming policy was not clearly established, the defendants are granted qualified immunity. The district court's judgment is affirmed, with the ruling not serving as binding precedent except under specific legal doctrines. Inmates must be afforded reasonable opportunities to practice their religion, but this must align with the prison's legitimate interests, reflecting a more flexible standard than for non-prisoners. Reference to other circuit cases is permissible in assessing whether the law is clearly established.
