DeMoss v. Crain
636 F.3d 145
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Inmate James DeMoss challenges multiple TDCJ policies under RLUIPA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Policies challenged: cell restriction (no services while cell-restricted), recording of inmate-led services, religious text (pocket Bible/Qur’an) possession, grooming (beard) rule, and dayroom standing restriction.
- District court granted summary judgment for Defendants on most issues; found unequal enforcement violated RLUIPA regarding the cell restriction policy.
- Policy was subsequently abandoned; bench trial occurred and district court held no policy violated RLUIPA or the First Amendment.
- On appeal, DeMoss argues four issues including mootness of relief for the cell restriction policy and challenges to the text, dayroom, grooming, and recording policies.
- Court reviews mootness de novo and ultimately affirms the district court’s judgment, with partial vacatur on mootness grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of injunctive/declaratory relief for cell restriction policy | DeMoss contends relief should remain; policy still burdens relig. exercise. | Policy abandoned; moot; no live controversy. | Moot; vacatur of related district court ruling. |
| Religious text policy failure to state claim | Policy prevented Qur’an/Bible access; burden on religious practice. | No plausible conflict or substantial burden shown. | District court properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. |
| Grooming policy and RLUIPA substantial burden | Beard requirement imposes substantial burden; alternatives exist. | Policy serves compelling interests; least restrictive means. | Grooming policy satisfies RLUIPA; no violation. |
| Recording policy and First Amendment under Turner | Recording of services burdens religious exercise and expression. | Policy rationally related to security; feasible alternatives costly. | Recording policy not a substantial burden; Turner standard satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2004) (substantial burden requires significant modification of religious practice)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (U.S. 2005) (prison security is a compelling interest; deference to prison officials)
- Green v. Polunsky, 229 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 2000) (beard policy and penological interests considered in Turner's framework)
- Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 2007) (beard policies related to security interests)
- Mayfield v. Tex. Dept. of Criminal Justice, 529 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2008) (substantial burden and least restrictive means under RLUIPA)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (Turner test for prison regulation of speech)
- Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2009) (mootness and official policy changes; abatement considerations)
- Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007) (costs of policy changes and administrative burdens can be compelling interests)
- Mayfield v. Tex. Dept. of Criminal Justice, 529 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2008) (RLUIPA burden-shifting framework and deference to prison administration)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (standard for evaluating prison Regulations affecting speech)