Brightly v. Wainwright, s. 86-5071

• Decision Date: 13 April 1987
• Docket Number: Nos. 86-5071,s. 86-5071
• Citation: 814 F.2d 612
• Parties: Patrick BRIGHTLY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Dr. Ann I. Gispert, Lt. Mowery, and Sgt. E.C. Savoia, Defendants-Appellants. Joseph ROCHELLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, C.P. Worthington, and Lt. N.C. Gemell, Defendants-Appellants. Samuel ESTRELLA, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louie WAINWRIGHT, Ana I. Gispert, Nancy Brown Balcerzak, and Lt. John Delashmet, Defendants-Appellants. Earl JOHNSON, Lukey Riley, Nathaniel Watts, Robert Owens, Bruce Simmons, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, et al., Defendants-Appellants. to 86-5073, 86-5092.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 612

814 F.2d 612

Patrick BRIGHTLY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Dr. Ann I. Gispert, Lt. Mowery, and Sgt. E.C. Savoia, Defendants-Appellants.

Joseph ROCHELLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, C.P. Worthington, and Lt. N.C. Gemell,

Defendants-Appellants.

Samuel ESTRELLA, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louie WAINWRIGHT, Ana I. Gispert, Nancy Brown Balcerzak, and Lt. John Delashmet, Defendants-Appellants.

Earl JOHNSON, Lukey Riley, Nathaniel Watts, Robert Owens, Bruce Simmons, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 86-5071 to 86-5073, 86-5092.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

April 13, 1987.

Jason Vail, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendants-appellants.

Peter M. Siegel, Randall C. Berg, Jr., Florida Justice Institute, Inc., Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before GODBOLD and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and SWYGERT, ^* Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants in these cases, all officials of the Florida Department of Corrections, challenge the several rulings of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida holding unconstitutional, as applied, a regulation of the Florida Department of Corrections that requires all male inmates to have their hair cut short and to be clean-shaven. We reverse.

Each of the appellees is a Florida prison inmate. At the time they filed their complaints all of them were housed at one institution, Dade Correctional Institution, near Homestead, Florida. Each of the appellees claims to be a member of the same religious group, the Ethopian Zion Coptic Church. One of the sincere beliefs of this faith is that men should not shave or cut their hair. Consequently, appellees filed various suits under Sec. 1983 alleging that the Florida Department of Corrections rule requiring all inmates to shave or cut their hair violated their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.

In each case below, the Department of Corrections argued that its restriction on plaintiffs' rights was a reasonable one designed to: (1) aid in the recapture of prisoners following their escape; (2) establish a uniform grooming policy; and (3) reduce the security risk inherent in maintaining a prison. Each district court rejected these justifications and determined that a practice of before-and-after photography (i.e., photographing each prisoner both with and without a beard) would constitute a less restrictive alternative adequately satisfying the department's legitimate concerns. These appeals then ensued and the cases were consolidated for our consideration.

We hold that each of the instant cases is controlled by prior circuit precedent. See Shabazz v. Barnauskas, 790 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir.1986); Maimon v. Wainwright, 792 F.2d 133 (11th Cir.1986). ¹ Both Shabazz and Maimon involved the precise issue presented on this appeal. In both those cases, we concluded that the penological interest in preventing escape was sufficiently great to overcome the prisoner's interest in his...