964 F.3d 532
6th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Cecil Koger is an Ohio inmate and Nyahbinghi Rastafarian who repeatedly (2006–2018) requested religious accommodations: grow dreadlocks, receive an Ital diet and observe fasts, wear tams, order Rastafarian literature, and hold “groundings.”
- ODRC repeatedly denied or disapproved his requests; staff force-cut his dreadlocks on multiple occasions (not at issue on appeal), and in 2016 staff shaved his hair after he refused an order to cut it.
- After district-court litigation elsewhere (Glenn), ODRC revised its grooming policy (Oct. 22, 2018) to allow braids/dreadlocks so long as each lock ≤ 1/2 inch and hair is "searchable;" exemptions remain available after a particularized inquiry.
- Koger sued under RLUIPA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants and denied Koger’s motion to strike photos taken by ODRC staff; Koger appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment as to dreadlocks, communing (groundings), and the Rule 35/photo issue; it reversed as to Koger’s claims relating to religious diet and fasting (and found his equal-protection allegation sufficient) and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RLUIPA / grooming (dreadlocks) | Policy substantially burdens Koger's sincere belief to grow locks naturally. | Locks do not currently exceed 1/2"; policy permits individualized exemption and searches; no evidence hair is unsearchable. | Affirmed: Koger failed to show a substantial burden—no evidence hair is unsearchable or will be deemed so; exemption process available. |
| RLUIPA / First Amendment (Ital diet & fasting) | Denial of Ital diet and ability to fast substantially burdens religious practice. | Requests were vague/lacked specifics; DRC provides vegetarian alternatives and reasonable accommodations. | Reversed: Koger showed a burden and defendants failed to articulate a compelling, sufficiently particularized interest—summary judgment improper. |
| RLUIPA (communing/groundings) | Requests for groundings were denied or ignored, burdening practice. | Record does not show a clear denial or specifics. | Affirmed: Insufficient record to show denial; no genuine issue of material fact. |
| Equal Protection | ODRC treats Rastafarians differently (forcing use of Muslim accommodations), a religiously discriminatory classification. | Denies purposeful discrimination; argues procedural/ specificity deficiencies. | Reversed/Survives: Evidence permits inference of discriminatory treatment; Koger sufficiently alleged an equal-protection violation. |
| Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 / photographs | Photos taken of Koger without court-ordered exam violated Rule 35 and should be stricken. | Photos are not a Rule 35 physical exam and were not relied upon; harmless. | Affirmed: District court did not rely on photos; even if error, it was harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (Supreme Court) (RLUIPA provides broad protection for religious liberty)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (Supreme Court) (Congress enacted broad free-exercise protections informing RLUIPA analysis)
- Haight v. Thompson, 763 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2014) (RLUIPA burden and strict-scrutiny framework in prison context)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court) (prison regulation valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (Supreme Court) (deference to prison administrators in regulating inmate religious practices)
- Maye v. Klee, 915 F.3d 1076 (6th Cir. 2019) (prison free-exercise and equal-protection analysis where religious classification occurred)
- Cavin v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 927 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2019) (First Amendment burden when a prison policy singles out a prisoner’s sincere beliefs)
- Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (Supreme Court) (articulating connection requirement between regulation and governmental interest)
- Maxwell v. Dodd, 662 F.3d 418 (6th Cir. 2011) (Rule 61 harmless-error principle)