Wright v. Raines, s. 48911
| Citation | 571 P.2d 26,1 Kan.App.2d 494 |
| Decision Date | 22 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | 48992,Nos. 48911,s. 48911 |
| Parties | Jack L. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. Mr. R. R. RAINES, Secretary of Corrections, Mr. K. G. Oliver, Director of Kansas State Penitentiary, Lt. K. Lynch, et al., Appellees. Kenneth CHILDERS, Appellant, v. R. R. RAINES, Secretary of Corrections, K. G. Oliver, Director of Kansas State Penitentiary, Lt. Kenneth Lynch, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Kansas |
Syllabus by the Court
1. An inmate confined in a penal institution retains all the rights of an ordinary citizen except those expressly, or by necessary implication, taken from him by law. (Following Levier v. State, 209 Kan. 442, Syl. 1, 497 P.2d 265.)
2. The rights of an inmate include entitlement to adequate food, light, clothing, medical care and treatment, sanitary facilities, reasonable opportunity for physical exercise and protection against physical or psychological abuse or unnecessary indignity. (Following Levier v. State, supra, Syl. 2.)
3. Habeas corpus provides an appropriate remedy for inquiry into mistreatment of a continuing or probably continuing nature alleged by an inmate of a penal institution. (Following Levier v. State, supra, Syl. 3.)
4. Prison officials as executive officers of the state are charged with the control and administration of the penal institutions of the state and as such are vested with wide discretion in the discharge of their duties. That discretion should not be interfered with by the courts in the absence of abuse or unless exercised unlawfully, arbitrarily or capriciously. (Following Levier v. State, supra, Syl. 4.)
5. Where a claim is made by a prisoner professing a legitimate belief in an established religion that prohibits the cutting of hair, a hearing must be held to determine if the state's purpose in requiring beards to be cut outweighs the claimed religious right.
6. Only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion.
Michael F. Willcott, Leavenworth, for appellant, Jack L. Wright.
William E. Pray, Leavenworth, for appellant, Kenneth Childers.
Roger M. Theis, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Curt T. Schneider, Atty. Gen., for appellees.
Before HARMAN, C. J., and FOTH and SPENCER, JJ.
Appellants are prisoners at the Kansas State Penitentiary at Lansing and each has appealed from an order of the district court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-1501, et seq.
The issues here involved are identical and, although dealt with separately in the trial court and docketed separately in this court, we deem it appropriate to consolidate the appeals for this opinion. Counsel for each petitioner has indicated his agreement to our doing so.
We have been furnished Department of Corrections Administrative Procedure 207 "Standard of Cleanliness to be Observed/Hair Standards for Male Inmates," which provides in part:
Petitioners allege that respondents-appellees' attempts to enforce the policy prohibiting the wearing of beards is in violation of their First Amendment rights in that each is a member of the Sikh religion, among the tenets of which is the prohibition of cutting hair from the body.
Both petitions are handwritten, pro se, and entitled "Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus." The Wright petition was filed March 1, 1977; the Childers petition was filed March 17, 1977.
The Wright petition alleges that on or about January 28, 1977, Lt. Kenneth Lynch, officer in charge of the Adjustment and Training Building at the Kansas State Penitentiary, informed Wright that he (Wright) must shave off his beard. Wright informed Lt. Lynch that his religious beliefs prohibited him from doing so. On January 31, 1977, Wright was denied all "privileges" because of his refusal to shave. The petition also alleges that all administrative remedies have been exhausted.
The Childers petition alleges that on or about January 25, 1977, Childers was requested by Lt. Lynch to shave his beard; that Childers informed Lt. Lynch that he could not comply because of his religious beliefs; but thereafter, because of threats of loss of good time and out of ignorance of his constitutional rights, Childers did comply and did shave. On February 1, 1977, Childers was transferred to the Larned State Hospital where he was allegedly beaten and sustained injuries. Upon his return to Lansing on February 12, 1977, he was allowed to refrain from shaving in order that the cuts he had received in the beating could heal. However, on March 11, 1977, Lt. Lynch informed Childers that he must shave his beard, to which Childers again replied that his religion would not permit him to do so. Having in the interim been informed of his constitutional rights, Childers did not this time comply with the order. He was subsequently denied all "privileges." The petition also alleges that all administrative remedies have been exhausted.
We make note here of information furnished the court upon oral argument to the effect that Wright entered the penitentiary with his beard and presumably his religion; and that Childers, who perhaps was a prison convert, developed his beard while in confinement.
Each petition was denied summarily on the day it was filed. The orders of dismissal are identical and read as follows:
The designated points on appeal in each case are substantially the same and, in the final analysis, the issue here is whether in the absence of responsive pleading or an evidentiary hearing, the trial court may properly dismiss the petitions as failing "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in a habeas corpus proceeding . . . ."
Bearing in mind that petitioners claim a violation of their First Amendment rights that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ," as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, we consider first whether in fact we are dealing with an established religion.
Our very brief and limited research in this respect, taken from The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 10, p. 408, et seq., reveals that "Sikh" is a term applied to a religious group concentrated in northwest India. The term meaning "disciple" is the correlative of guru "teacher." The religion was founded and developed by a series of ten gurus, who in turn trace the beginnings of their faith to one Kabir, circa 1400 A.D. The first guru, Nanak, was active circa 1500 A.D. The principal book of the Sikhs is the Adi Granth or Granth Sahib. The religion is sometimes said to be an attempt to reconcile Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, although it is generally recognized to be a Hindu sect.
The history of the Sikhs is obscure after 1708 (the death of the last of the ten gurus). After 1800 they gradually took political and military control of the Punjab and fought with the British until 1848. Following the victory of the British, many of the Sikhs entered the British Army while in India.
From Buddhism the faith takes as one of its tenets belief in Nirvana. The essentials of Sikh practice are abstention from idolatry, wine and tobacco; observance of the caste system is prohibited; the duty to earn one's living is expressed. True Sikhs are distinguished by the wearing of five articles long hair, comb, sword, white clothing, and steel bracelet. From a publication originating at the Sikh Dharma Brotherhood headquarters at Los Angeles, California, furnished us by counsel for the appellants, we learn that one of the qualifications of a Sikh is as follows:
From evidence made available to us at this time, we must conclude that the Sikh Dharma, referred to in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stinemetz v. Kan. Health Policy Auth.
...citizens, but only if the condition is justified by a compelling state interest. 208 Kan. at 614, 493 P.2d 590. In Wright v. Raines, 1 Kan.App.2d 494, 571 P.2d 26 (1977), two Kansas prisoners challenged a regulation prohibiting the wearing of beards by an inmate on the ground that the regul......
-
Shabazz v. Barnauskas, 79-2467
...536 F.2d 501, 504, and n. 8 (CA2 1976). Accord: Jihaad v. Carlson, 410 F.Supp. 1132, 1134 (ED Mich.1976); Wright v. Raines, 1 Kan.App.2d 494, 500-501, 571 P.2d 26, 31-32 (1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 933, 98 S.Ct. 1508, 55 L.Ed.2d 530 (1978). Similarly, the Eighth Circuit has rejected the ......
-
Goulden v. Oliver
...536 F.2d 501, 504, and n. 8 (CA2 1976). Accord: Jihaad v. Carlson, 410 F.Supp. 1132, 1143 (E.D.Mich.1976); Wright v. Raines, 1 Kan.App.2d 494, 500-501, 571 P.2d 26, 31-32 (1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 933, 98 S.Ct. 1508, 55 L.Ed.2d 530 (1978). Similarly, the Eighth Circuit has rejected the......
-
Turner v. Maschner, 57486
...as to shock general conscience or be intolerable in fundamental fairness." 209 Kan. at 451, 497 P.2d 265; see also Wright v. Raines, 1 Kan.App.2d 494, 499, 571 P.2d 26, rev. denied 222 Kan. 749 (1977), cert. denied 435 U.S. 933, 98 S.Ct. 1508, 55 L.Ed.2d 530 Petitioner argues that his confi......