Williams v. Batton, Civ. No. 2951.

• Decision Date: 03 May 1972
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 2951.
• Citation: 342 F. Supp. 1110
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: Barry WILLIAMS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Donald L. BATTON, Assistant Major, Odom Farm, Rt. 1, Box 36, Jackson, North Carolina, Defendant.

342 F. Supp. 1110

Barry WILLIAMS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Donald L. BATTON, Assistant Major, Odom Farm, Rt. 1, Box 36, Jackson, North Carolina, Defendant.

Civ. No. 2951.

United States District Court, E. D. North Carolina, Raleigh Division.

May 3, 1972.

Barry Williams and others, pro se.

Robert Morgan, Atty. Gen. of N. C., by Jacob L. Safron, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N. C., for defendant.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

LARKINS, District Judge:

This cause is before the Court in an action for declaratory relief pursuant to the provisions of Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983, known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The Plaintiffs seek redress for an alleged deprivation of certain freedoms and rights which they claim are guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States. Specifically, they allege that they have been deprived of rights protected by the 1st, 8th and 14th Amendments to the The Constitution of the United States, in that they have not been allowed to grow "Afro" type hairstyles, and to grow mustaches and goatees by the Defendant in this action. Plaintiffs are all inmates at Odom Prison in Jackson, North Carolina, and the Defendant is the officer in charge at Odom Prison Unit. Defendants deny that the Plaintiffs have been denied any Federally protected right, and move the Court to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law without any hearing. For reasons which shall appear more fully herein, the Court is of the opinion that the Defendant's motion is well taken, and the suit must be dismissed as a matter of law.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

The issue presented for determination in this case is apparently one of novel dimensions for this Court and other District Courts in this District. The Plaintiffs claim that the regulation adopted by the prison authorities in this area discriminates against them in that they are unable to grow their hair to sufficient length to maintain an "Afro" hair cut. This, they say, results in them not being able to practice their religion, (although it is not alleged what religion requires them to wear their hair in such a manner) subjects them to cruel and unusual punishment, and generally deprives them of property without due process of the Law.

The hair regulations within the North Carolina Prison system provides that "inmates are required to keep their hair neatly cut and properly groomed". Furthermore, inmates are required to be clean shaven. The services which are necessary in order to insure that inmates are clean shaven and have haircuts are provided free of charge by inmate barbers. Just what length and how closely shaven the inmate must be is not clear from the pleadings, but it appears that Afro haircuts are too long, and that mustaches and goatees are prohibited.

An "Afro" haircut, to the best of this Court's knowledge, has no precise dictionary definition. Further, there appears to be a lack of any Court Decision which has precisely defined just what an Afro is. Thus, the Court must rely upon its own common knowledge to describe the term. An "Afro" would appear to be a moderately long to long haircut, most commonly worn by Black Americans. It is bushy in appearance, and appears to extend outward from the wearer's head in a symmetrical fashion, often taking the shape of a hemisphere. The resulting hair cut appears to be very thick and dense in nature, and because of the way it stands up away from the wearer's head, often makes the wearer appear to be taller than his actual height.

It is well settled that the Federal Courts will not interfere with prison administration and discipline except in extreme cases. Childs v....