Deblasio v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 25 October 2000
• Docket Number: No. CIV. A. 00-211-AM.,No. CIV. A. 00-18-AM.,No. CIV. A. 99-1859-AM.,No. CIV. A. 00-170-AM.,No. CIV. A. 99-1818-AM.,CIV. A. 99-1818-AM.,CIV. A. 99-1859-AM.,CIV. A. 00-18-AM.,CIV. A. 00-170-AM.,CIV. A. 00-211-AM.
• Parties: Keith William DEBLASIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. Ira Wayne Madison, Plaintiff, v. Ronald J. Angelone, et al., Defendants. Richard Gutridge, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gene M. Johnson, et al., Defendants. Lian J. Ross, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ron De'Angelo, et al., Defendants. T. Understanding Allah, Plaintiff, v. R. Angelone, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

128 F.Supp.2d 315

Keith William DEBLASIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.

Ira Wayne Madison, Plaintiff, v. Ronald J. Angelone, et al., Defendants.

Richard Gutridge, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gene M. Johnson, et al., Defendants.

Lian J. Ross, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ron De'Angelo, et al., Defendants.

T. Understanding Allah, Plaintiff, v. R. Angelone, Defendant.

No. CIV. A. 99-1818-AM.

No. CIV. A. 99-1859-AM.

No. CIV. A. 00-18-AM.

No. CIV. A. 00-170-AM.

No. CIV. A. 00-211-AM.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division.

October 25, 2000.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Keith William DeBlasio, Victoria, VA, pro se.

Donald Wells, Victoria, VA, pro se.

S. Batts, Victoria, VA, pro se.

D. Wilson, Victoria, Va, pro se.

D McBride, Jarratt, VA, pro se.

John Harris, Victoria, VA, pro se.

Eric Hobbs, Victoria, VA, pro se.

Nash, Danville, VA, pro se.

Pamela Anne Sargent, Rick Randall Linker, Office of Atty. General, Richmond, Va, for defendants.

OPINION

HILTON, District Judge.

This case involves several constitutional and statutory challenges to the new Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC") inmate grooming standards regulation, Division of Operations Procedure 864 ("DOP 864"). Plaintiffs are inmates in the Virginia prison system who filed this consolidated pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in order to launch a facial challenge to DOP 864 on First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4 ("RFRA"), grounds. Plaintiffs have also made several implementation challenges to DOP 864, based on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs have named various state officers and prison officials as defendants (collectively, the defendants). Plaintiffs seek compensatory, punitive, declaratory, and injunctive relief. Parties have now filed cross Motions for Summary Judgment on the constitutionality of DOP 864.

I. Factual Background

DOP 864 became effective on November 15, 1999, with a mandatory compliance date of December 15, 1999. DOP 864 is modeled after the grooming policy implemented by the South Carolina Department of Corrections in August, 1997. DOP 846 applies to all inmates confined in state correctional facilities operated by the Virginia Division of Operations and by private operators under contract with the Department. There is no exception for inmates claiming that they cannot cut their hair for religious reasons. The policy is available for inmate review in the law library of each VDOC facility.

DOP 864 indicates that the rationale behind the promulgation of the grooming policy was to promote safety, security, sanitation and to facilitate the identification of inmates. Deputy Director of Operations for the VDOC, defendant Gene Johnson, by way of affidavit, expands on the purposes behind the creation and implementation of the grooming policy.¹ With regard to security, defendant Johnson states that longer hair provides inmates with an additional place to hide contraband; that inmates may use hairstyles to symbolize gang activity; and that shorter hair facilitates routine searches of inmates by staff because less hair requires less time to search. In addition, defendant Johnson indicates positive identification of each inmate is important in the event of escape from confinement: upon escape, an inmate can remove hair and drastically altering his appearance, thus making recapture more difficult. With regard to the somewhat different treatment of men and women under DOP 864, VDOC data and experience indicates that female inmates are not as violent as male inmates, and are not as prone to hide weapons in their hair to escape.²

DOP 864 requires that all male inmates' hair be not more than 1" in thickness/depth. Moreover, with regard to male inmates, styles such as braids, plaits, dreadlocks, cornrows, ponytails, buns, mohawks, partially shaved heads, designs cut into the hair, etc., and any style which could conceal contraband, are not permitted. With regard to female inmates, female inmates' hair cannot be longer than shoulder length. One or two braids or ponytails are allowed, but hair must be kept out of the face and eyes. Styles such as mohawks, "tailed" haircuts, shaved or partially shaved heads, more than two braids/plaits/ponytails, dreadlocks, cornrows, designs cut into the hairs, and any style which could conceal contraband, are not permitted.

No inmates may have beards, goatees, or sideburns below the middle of the ear. A mustache is authorized; however, it must be neatly trimmed and must not extend beyond the corner of the mouth or over the lip. If an inmate has a medical condition that could be aggravated by shaving or complete removal of facial hair, the inmate must receive a "no shave" medical order from the institutional medical authority. Inmates who have a "no shave" medical order must continually trim all facial hair so that it does not exceed 1/2" in length.

In addition, all inmates' fingernails must be neatly trimmed and cannot extend more than 1/8" beyond the tip of the finger or thumb. Fingernails cannot be filed to a point; they must be rounded.

When inmates are initially brought into a receiving or parol violator unit, all receive haircuts and shaves on the same day they are received. If an inmate refuses to cooperate, use of force and restraints is authorized in order to bring the inmate into compliance with grooming standards. Thereafter, inmates are to maintain their compliance with the grooming standards in DOP 864.

Inmates who fail to keep their hair, and any permitted facial hair, clean and neatly trimmed, or otherwise fail to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene, can be charged with a minor institutional offense. Repeat violators can be charged with a major institutional offense.

Inmates who entirely refuse to comply or who chronically violate inmate grooming standards are managed as potential risks to institutional order and safety. Specifically, noncomplying inmates are to first be given an order to comply with grooming standards. If they continue to refuse to comply, they are to be charged with a major institutional offense and placed on pre-hearing detention. Such inmates must then remain assigned to special housing and all visitation and telephone privileges (except legal), commissary privileges (except for those items specifically authorized for inmates on isolation status), work, and program activities are suspended until they fully comply with grooming standards.

Thereafter, a disciplinary hearing is to be held as soon as possible after twenty-four hours after service of the charge. Inmates found guilty are given a mandatory penalty of five days isolation for the first offense. On the fifth day of detention/isolation, if still non-compliant, inmates are given an additional order to comply. If such inmates continue to refuse to comply, they are charged again with an additional institutional offense and continued special assignment to special housing pending a hearing. On a second conviction, the mandatory penalty is ten days isolation. For a third conviction, the mandatory penalty is fifteen days isolation. One day prior to the expiration of each isolation penalty, inmates are given another order to comply and remain assigned to special housing until compliance is achieved. Consecutive isolation sentences may be imposed, provided that out-of-cell exercise is provided after the first 15 days, in accordance with the conditions of segregation.

Continued failure to comply after the third conviction may result in referral to the Institutional Classification Authority for assignment to segregation and possible reclassification to a higher security level institution. Inmates are not released into the general population setting, and their privileges are withheld, until they comply with the grooming standards. Moreover, such inmates are not eligible for reclassification to a less restrictive housing assignment (e.g., release from segregation), or a lower security level institution, until they have complied with DOP 864.

In implementing the grooming policy, facilities that must abide by DOP 864 are to ensure that adequate hair care and barbering services are made available to all inmates, regardless of housing status, to meet the grooming policy.

II. Analysis

In reviewing a Motion for Summary Judgment, courts must view the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. See Porter v. United States Alumoweld Co., 125 F.3d 243, 245 (4th Cir.1997). Summary judgment is appropriate where "there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A "genuine" issue of material fact is present "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could ... return a verdict for the non-moving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). "When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported ... [by affidavits], an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Moreover, "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citing 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2725, at 93-95 (1983)). Because the court finds no genuine issue of material fact, the court will rule on the Cross Motions for Summary...