Alfonza Greenhill v. Harold Clarke
944 F.3d 243
4th Cir.2019Background
- Alfonza Greenhill, an SM-0 (most restrictive) inmate at Red Onion State Prison, is in restrictive housing for extensive disciplinary infractions and refuses to participate in VDOC’s Step-Down Program.
- Greenhill is an observant Muslim who says Jum’ah (Friday congregational prayer) is central and can be satisfied by viewing the broadcast; he also claims a religious obligation to maintain a ~4-inch beard.
- VDOC policy: SM-0 inmates are denied personal televisions and many group privileges as incentives in the Step-Down Program; earlier grooming policies limited beard length (¼" in 2013; ½" in 2016) and tied noncompliance to continued segregation.
- District court granted summary judgment to VDOC, holding the television restriction and grooming rules did not violate RLUIPA or the Free Exercise Clause under Turner.
- Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded: it rejected treating access to religious exercise as a punishable "privilege," held the grooming rules and TV denial could substantially burden religious exercise, and required further justification under RLUIPA and renewed First Amendment analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RLUIPA — denial of TV access for Jum’ah | Denial of limited TV access substantially burdens Greenhill’s sincere religious exercise; TV viewing suffices for Jum’ah | TV access is a privilege earned via Step-Down; program incentives are a compelling interest and least restrictive means | Vacated; court held religious exercise cannot be treated as a privilege and remanded for VDOC to show a compelling interest and least-restrictive means specific to denying Jum’ah access |
| Free Exercise (Turner) — TV access | Denial violates Free Exercise because it places a substantial burden on sincere belief | Restriction is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests (incentive structure) | Vacated; court found district court’s Turner analysis flawed because it assumed no right (treated exercise as a privilege) and remanded for proper analysis |
| RLUIPA — grooming/beard length | Grooming policy forces choose between religious observance (4" beard) and release from segregation—substantial burden | Greenhill is segregated for his misconduct; policy promotes ID, safety, sanitation and does not substantially burden | Vacated; court concluded the challenged grooming policies did substantially burden religion and remanded to determine whether they are least-restrictive means (noting VDOC later relaxed policy) |
| Free Exercise (Turner) — grooming/beard length | Policy unreasonably burdens sincere religious practice | Policy reasonably relates to penological interests (security, ID, sanitation) | Vacated; court ordered a new First Amendment analysis in light of errors and the revised grooming policy |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (describes Jum’ah as a weekly Muslim congregational service)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (prison regulations that burden rights are valid if reasonably related to penological interests; four-factor test)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (deference to prison administrators in RLUIPA context)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (RLUIPA requires least-restrictive-means scrutiny; government must lack alternatives)
- Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (Fourth Circuit on substantial burden definition and RLUIPA analysis)
- Incumaa v. Stirling, 791 F.3d 517 (RLUIPA burden-shifting in Fourth Circuit)
- Couch v. Jabe, 679 F.3d 197 (Fourth Circuit: removing privileges to compel grooming can be a substantial burden)
- Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (Ninth Circuit decision noting loss of privileges can impose a substantial burden)