Sims v. Inch, CASE NO. 4:16cv49-RH-CAS

• Decision Date: 23 August 2019
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 4:16cv49-RH-CAS
• Citation: 400 F.Supp.3d 1272
• Parties: Durrell SIMS, Plaintiff, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida

400 F.Supp.3d 1272

Durrell SIMS, Plaintiff,

v.Mark S. INCH, Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, Defendant.

CASE NO. 4:16cv49-RH-CAS

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division.

Signed August 23, 2019

Joshua Conrad Carpenter, Olivia Rae Waters Kelman, Paul Francis Hancock, K&L Gates LLP, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff

Edward M. Wenger, Office of the Attorney General, Matthew F. Vitale, Corrections Litigation Section, Damaris E. Reynolds, Erik Dewitt Kverne, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant

OPINION ON THE MERITS

Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge

In Holt v. Hobbs , 574 U.S. 352, 135 S. Ct. 853, 190 L.Ed.2d 747 (2015), the Supreme Court held that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") entitled a prisoner to grow a half-inch beard as required by his religion. This case presents the question whether RLUIPA entitles a prisoner to grow a fist-length beard. Because a fist-length beard can be accommodated as easily as a half-inch beard—or nearly so—this order holds that the answer is yes. This order sets out the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law following a bench trial.

I. Introduction

Congress adopted RLUIPA in 2000 to push back against judicial decisions it deemed insufficiently protective of religious freedom. The statute prohibits a prison from imposing a "substantial burden" on a prisoner's "religious exercise" unless the burden "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and is "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a).

The plaintiff Durrell Sims is an inmate in the Florida Department of Corrections. One tenet of his Muslim religion is that he must grow a fist-length beard and trim his moustache. The Department's policy allows an inmate to grow a half-inch beard or no beard at all—nothing in between. And the policy applies also to moustaches—an inmate can have a moustache only if he has a beard, and the moustache cannot be trimmed other than to half an inch. Mr. Sims thus cannot abide by this tenet of his religion and the Department's policy at the same time.

Mr. Sims filed this action for injunctive relief asserting the beard policy, as applied to him, violates RLUIPA. As proper under Ex parte Young , 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), the defendant is the Secretary of the Department of Corrections in his official capacity. For convenience, this order sometimes refers to the defendant as the Department.

II. Factual Background

A. The Witnesses and Their Credibility

Three witnesses testified for the Department: Carl Kirkland, the Department's Deputy Director of Institutional Operations; James Upchurch, a prison-administration expert and former Assistant Secretary in the Department; and James Coker, the Warden of Wakulla Correctional Institution. Each has significant experience working in or administering one or more of the Department's facilities in Florida, but none has experience working in or administering a facility that allows inmates to grow beards longer than half an inch.

Mr. Sims testified and also called an expert witness, Tim Gravette. Mr. Gravette has experience as a correctional officer and as an associate warden in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Mr. Gravette has not served in the Florida Department of Corrections but does have experience in a federal facility in Florida and in facilities that allow inmates to grow beards longer than half an inch.

On issues related to searching inmates with beards longer than half an inch, the risks posed by such beards, and the difficulty of accommodating such beards, I credit Mr. Gravette's testimony over the conflicting testimony of the Department's witnesses.

B. Mr. Sims and His Religion

Mr. Sims has been in the Department of Corrections since 2006. He converted to Islam in 2007. The Department allows Mr. Sims to practice his faith in many ways. Mr. Sims resides in a faith-and-character-based dormitory. He prays five times a day, attends study classes and prayer services, reads Islamic texts, dons a kufi, and keeps a prayer rug. He uses the first name Mohammed. He strives to maintain a diet consistent with his religious beliefs. He observes Ramadan by eating his meals before sunrise and after sunset and by praying more frequently with his peers.

Mr. Sims's religion requires him to grow a fist-length beard and to trim his moustache. For Mr. Sims, not complying with this requirement is a punishable sin. There is only one exception. He may trim or shave his beard if necessary for his health or safety—for example, if he develops a skin condition that cannot be treated while keeping the beard.

Mr. Sims has been a near-model inmate. In 13 years, he has received only one disciplinary report—for nonviolent conduct related to a court proceeding.

C. The Department's Beard Policy Over Time

When Mr. Sims was initially incarcerated, the Department's policy required inmates to be clean-shaven, with one exception: an inmate with a medical reason not to shave was allowed to grow a quarter-inch beard. There were no religious exceptions. Mr. Sims attempted to challenge this policy by filing a grievance but did not file a lawsuit.

In 2015 the Supreme Court decided Holt , establishing an inmate's right to a half-inch beard as a religious exercise. Largely to avoid a case-by-case beard-approval process, the Department changed its policy to allow all inmates to grow half-inch beards. An inmate in a Department facility now may grow a half-inch beard or remain clean-shaven—nothing in between. Despite the Department's pre- Holt concerns, the change did not have adverse consequences.

When the Department changed its policy, Mr. Sims grew a half-inch beard.

III. Mr. Sims's Burden of Proof under RLUIPA

To prevail on his RLUIPA claim, Mr. Sims must first show that the half-inch-beard policy substantially burdens his sincere religious exercise. See Holt , 135 S. Ct. at 862 ; 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a).

The Department does not dispute Mr. Sims's sincerity or that growing a beard is a religious exercise. But the Department does dispute that its policy substantially burdens that exercise. The Department points to Mr. Sims's statement that he can shave if necessary for his health or safety.

Determining the contours of a religious exercise is the province of the religious adherent, not the state. Mr. Sims's religion calls for a fist-length beard all the time, with a narrow exception for circumstances that do not now exist. The exception says very little about whether precluding Mr. Sims from having the required beard substantially burdens his religion.

A different example shows the fallacy of the Department's argument. Most religious adherents pray, but few pray constantly. That an adherent chooses not to pray every minute of every day does not mean prayer is not a fundamental part of the religion. If the Department banned all prayer, was challenged by a prisoner under RLUIPA, and said the prayer ban did not impose a substantial burden because, after all, the prisoner's religion did not require prayer every minute of every day, the argument would go nowhere. So too with the argument that Mr. Sims's religion does not necessarily require him to have a beard every minute of every day.

The Department's policy substantially burdens Mr. Sims's religious exercise. Cf. Holt , 135 S. Ct. at 862 (rejecting the assertion that the burden on an inmate's religious exercise of growing a beard was "slight" because his religion would "credit" him for attempting to follow his religious belief, even if he was unsuccessful).

IV. The Department's Burden of Proof in Response

Because Mr. Sims has shown the Department's policy substantially burdens his religious exercise, the burden is on the Department to show that its refusal to allow Mr. Sims to grow a fist-length beard is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. Id. at 863 ; 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). The Department must satisfy this test through the policy's application to Mr. Sims himself. See Holt , 135 S. Ct. at 863 ; see also Smith v. Owens , 848 F.3d 975, 981 (11th Cir. 2017). In assessing the Department's reasons, the court must consider the harm it will suffer from granting Mr. Sims an exemption and " ‘look to the marginal interest in enforcing’ the challenged government action" in the particular context.

Holt , 135 S. Ct. at 863 (quoting Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. , 573 U.S. 682, 726, 134 S.Ct. 2751, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014) ).

RLUIPA "does not give courts carte blanche to second guess the reasoned judgments of prison officials." Knight v. Thompson , 797 F.3d 934, 945 (11th Cir. 2015). Congress "anticipated ... that courts entertaining complaints under [RLUIPA] would accord ‘due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators.’ " Cutter v. Wilkinson , 544 U.S. 709, 716-17, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005) (quoting 146 Cong. Rec. 16698, 16699 (2000) (joint statement of Sens. Hatch and Kennedy)). But the court need not defer to speculative or exaggerated fears or after-the-fact rationalizations. Knight , 797 F.3d at 945 ; Rich v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr. , 716 F.3d 525, 533 (11th Cir. 2013).

In Knight , the Eleventh Circuit upheld Alabama's short-hair policy against a RLUIPA challenge by specific inmates. The court did so based on the record and findings in that case. That was not, however, a holding that a ban on long hair never violates RLUIPA as applied to a specific inmate, let alone a holding that a ban on fist-length beards never violates RLUIPA as applied to a specific inmate. That Knight is not controlling on the different evidence, different findings, and different circumstances involved in the case at bar is confirmed by the Eleventh Circuit's later decision in Smith . There the court remanded a Muslim inmate's RLUIPA beard-length claim for an "individualized, context-specific inquiry"; the court did not say Knight settled the...