Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rocky Don Nitzel v. R. Michael Parsons, R. Michael Cody, Larry Fields, Phil Gilstrap, Susan Gilbert, Paul Bettes, Brent Crousse
Citations: 43 F.3d 1483; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 39757; 1994 WL 697325Docket: 94-6092
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; December 12, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Rocky Don Nitzel, a pro se inmate, appealed the dismissal of his civil rights action challenging a grooming code that restricted hair length unless an exemption was granted. Nitzel claimed the code infringed upon his religious beliefs. The grooming code allowed for exemptions based on a sincere religious belief, assessed by a three-person committee. Nitzel's request for an exemption was denied, prompting him to seek injunctive relief. The Magistrate Judge noted a related case where it was reported that the grooming code had been rescinded, leading to a recommendation for dismissal of Nitzel's case as moot. Nitzel objected to this reliance, arguing that the defendants’ claims were insufficient. However, he did not file an objection to the Magistrate Judge's subsequent report, which concluded that the grooming code had been replaced by a personal hygiene code, rendering Nitzel's claims moot. On appeal, Nitzel contended that the defendants had not proven the grooming code would not be reinstated and claimed past reinstatements of the code. The Attorney General affirmed that the grooming code was indeed rescinded. The court ruled that Nitzel's claims were moot since he was no longer subject to the code and did not address his claims regarding the dismissal process due to his failure to object. The Tenth Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, emphasizing that Nitzel's lack of objection constituted a waiver of those issues. The order clarified that it is not a binding precedent except under specific legal doctrines.