DeMoss v. Crain
636 F.3d 145
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- DeMoss is a Muslim inmate challenging TDCJ policies under RLUIPA and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
- Policies challenged: cell-restriction for disciplinary inmates, recording of inmate-led services, pocket Qur'an/Bible restrictions, grooming/beard policy, and dayroom standing restrictions.
- District court granted summary judgment for Defendants on most claims; found unequal enforcement of the cell restriction violated RLUIPA and granted DeMoss relief, but otherwise favored Defendants after bench trial.
- The cell-restriction policy was later abandoned; the district court did not find it violated RLUIPA as to the policy itself.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated/ remanded as moot on injunctive relief for the cell restriction, holding the mootness and related damages issues, but ultimately affirmed the district court’s disposition on remaining RLUIPA and §1983 claims.
- The court applied de novo review to RLUIPA questions and Turner v. Safley to First Amendment claims where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cell restriction policy is moot and whether injunctive relief should be granted. | DeMoss seeks injunctive/declaratory relief. | Policy was voluntarily abandoned; mootness applies. | Mootness vacated district ruling; DeMoss’s injunctive relief denied as moot. |
| Whether the religious text policy fails to state a claim. | Policy denied Qur'an access; harms religious practice. | No plausible conflict with practice; insufficient burden. | District court properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. |
| Whether Dayroom and Grooming policies impose substantial burdens under RLUIPA. | Policies substantially burden prayer and religious practice. | Policies are the least restrictive means to important interests. | Dayroom policy not a substantial burden; Grooming policy upheld as least restrictive. |
| Whether recording policy violates the First Amendment. | Recordings chill religious speech. | Policy facilitates security and investigation; alternatives costly. | Recording policy constitutional under Turner; does not overly burden religion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sossamon v. Texas, 560 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2009) (mootness of policy challenges when policy abandoned)
- Mayfield v. Tex. Dept. of Criminal Justice, 529 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2008) (burden and least restrictive means under RLUIPA; framework guidance)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (U.S. 2005) (deference to prison administrators on regulations; compelling interest standard)
- Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2004) (substantial burden defined; modification of religious exercise)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (tests for constitutional restrictions on prison regulations)
- Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 2007) (compelling interest in prison policies; beard/grooming context)
- Green v. Polunsky, 229 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 2000) (beard prohibition and penological interest)
- Mayfield v. Tex. Dept. of Criminal Justice, 529 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2008) (RLUIPA framework and deference to prison officials)