Hines v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections
| Decision Date | 23 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 96-7318,96-7402,s. 96-7318 |
| Citation | 148 F.3d 353 |
| Parties | Clarence HINES; John Cooke Wilson; Orlando Brinson; Khalil Kasson Ali Al-Munin; Coy S. Gunter; Lumumba Mumia Tafari-i a/k/a Lummie Hearns; Malik Baqi; Tahrim Supreme C. Jihad; Kenneth Washington; Salaam A. Hakim a/k/a Michael Bailey; Zakariya Abdul Shahid; Ray Charles Degraffenreid; Maurice Livingston; Demarcus Marshall; Hakim Sabur Muhammad; Ras Kolonji Muata Kafele; Willie James Asbury; Mustafa Abdullah A. Al-Mujahid; John Michael Gladney; Davis Young; Bruce Scott; Chris Lefever; Dashel Strobert; Vincent Kemp; Larry Bobean; Royce Maurice Collins; John Brinson; Gary L. Moore; Jame A. Khaliq; Lester Young; Philip H. Tanner; Michael Landry; Donchell Wade Blatch; William R. Smith; Mark T. Larsen; Kahim Khamil Muhammad; Adrian Hicks; Matin Abdul Ali Muntaqim a/k/a Marshall L. Land; Yusuf Ahmad Abdullah Muhammad; Heyward Harrison, Jr.; Barry Alan Fowler; Raheem Abdullah Al-Raqib; James B. Patterson; Don Eric Robertson; Tyrone Mitchell; Omar Abdel Al Numit a/k/a John James Bell; Cecil Allen Simmons; Joseph T. Jackson; Willie Gary; Kojo Soweto Ameen; Malcom Omawale Abdullah; Gerald Garner; Quash A. Abbass a/k/a Charles James Lee a/k/a Rush Abdul B. Ali Abu Abbass; Gregory L. Fennell; Ras Kolonji Mutata Kafele; Edward Bull; Freddie Green; Utamu Mfume; Curtis A. Nicholas; Jimmy L. Belton; Kevin Smith; Ras Njonjo Afi Khafre; Frank J. Burgess; Eddie L. Hall; Steven Phillips; Theodore Harrison, Jr.; Kevin Smith; Roderick Dennis Folks; Llewellyn Nelson; Lummie Hearins; Shaka Macumba Zulu X a/k/a Michael W. Montgomery; Gregory Campbell; Gregg L. Ray; Rufus Muldrow; Khayri Abdullah Muhammad; Derrell Edwards; Donald Lloyd; Timothy C. Baker; Ahmad M. Mujihadin a/k/a Robert Frost; Tafara Moyenda a/k/a Robert Frost; Jerome Williams; Elvis C. Taylor; Everton Bin Crosby; William J. Copeland; Owen Henderson; Charles Sergio Hagler, Jr.; Colville Brissett; Ahmad Kans Abdul Sattar; Marchs A. Joseph; Mikail Abdullah; Ronnie Brightman; Terry Michael Cassell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Tommy |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
ARGUED: Patrick James Flynn, University of South Carolina School of Law, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. David Clifford Eckstrom, Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs & Pollard, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Thomas C.R. Legare, Jr., Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs & Pollard, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina; Andrew F. Lindemann, Ellis, Lawhorne, Davidson & Sims, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; James M. Brailsford, III, Robinson, Mcfadden & Moore, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before ERVIN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and OSTEEN, United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge HAMILTON wrote the opinion, in which Judge ERVIN and Judge OSTEEN joined.
This case arises from complaints filed by approximately 100 inmates confined by the State of South Carolina (the Inmates) against the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the Department) and various state officers and prison officials (collectively, the Defendants). The Inmates are Muslims, Rastafarians, Native Americans, and other individuals who are challenging a grooming policy that requires all male inmates to keep their hair short and their faces shaven (the Grooming Policy). The Inmates claim that the Grooming Policy forces them to compromise their religious beliefs and practices, and therefore violates their rights guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. I. Because we conclude that the Grooming Policy does not violate the Inmates' free exercise rights, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.
Soon after his appointment in 1995 as Director of the Department of Corrections, Michael Moore instituted a prison reform program that included the Grooming Policy at issue in this case. The Grooming Policy requires, inter alia, that all male inmates keep their hair short and their faces shaven. Braids, plaits, mohawks and other "extreme" hair styles are prohibited. Neatly-groomed mustaches are permitted, but beards are forbidden unless the inmate has a medical condition that would be aggravated by shaving.
Moore implemented the Grooming Policy in order to address concerns about gang activity, prison security, and prisoner discipline. Moore believed that prisoners used extreme hairstyles and a lack of grooming to symbolize their defiance to prison authority. This, in turn, made it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wendell A. Humphrey v. Janis Lane
... ... Trafford and Constance M. Greaney, ... 41 South High Street, 29th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215 ... corrections facility possesses a compelling state interest in ... RFRA, which must control"); Hines v. South Carolina ... Dept. of Corrections (C.A.4, ... ...
-
Antietam Battlefield Koa v. Hogan
...neutral if it proscribes conduct without regard to whether that conduct is religiously motivated or not." Hines v. S.C. Dep't of Corr. , 148 F.3d 353, 357 (4th Cir. 1998). Alternatively, a law is not neutral if it targets conduct because of its religious motivation, which may be shown throu......
-
Beahn v. Gayles
...neutral if it proscribes conduct without regard to whether that conduct is religiously motivated or not." Hines v. S.C. Dep't of Corr. , 148 F.3d 353, 357 (4th Cir. 1998). Alternatively, a law is not neutral if it targets conduct because of its religious motivation, which may be shown throu......
-
Deblasio v. Johnson
...contested defendants assertion that DOP 864 is modeled after the South Carolina grooming policy at issue in Hines v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 148 F.3d 353 (4th Cir.1998). In fact, plaintiffs have not asserted any facts, either in terms of the requirements of DOP 864 or their cir......
-
The Big Man in the Big House: Prisoner Free Exercise in Light of Employment Division v. Smith
...formulated three years later in [ Smith ]” but declining to address the issue for the same reason). 134. See Hines v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 148 F.3d 353, 357–58 (4th Cir. 1998) (applying both Smith and Turner to a prisoner grooming policy and validating the policy under both standards); Smit......
-
Chapter 6 First Amendment: Freedom of Religion
...Flagner v. Wilkinson, 2001. 241 F.3d 475. Goings v. Aaron, 1972. 350 F. Supp 1. Hines v. South Carolina's Department of Corrections, 1998. 148 F.3d 353. Jackson v. Mann, 1999. 196 F.3d 316. Kahane v. Carlson, 1975. 527 F.2d 492. Katcoff v. O'Marsh, 1985. 755 F.2d 223. Kerr v. Farrey, 1996. ......