Lester J. Smith v. Brian Owens
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2816
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Lester Smith, a Georgia inmate, sued GDOC Commissioner Brian Owens under RLUIPA after GDOC grooming policy required shaving, and Smith asserted Islam requires an uncut beard.
- District court dismissed other claims but allowed Smith’s RLUIPA injunctive claim to proceed; summary judgment was later entered for Owens.
- GDOC policy then allowed a medical exception of a 1/8-inch beard; Smith argued that exception showed religious requests were not least restrictive and proposed a 1/4-inch universal beard rule as a less restrictive alternative.
- While Smith’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Holt v. Hobbs (addressing a 1/2-inch beard), and GDOC revised its policy to allow a 1/2-inch beard for all inmates.
- Smith grew a 1/2-inch beard but appealed; Eleventh Circuit held the case is not moot because Smith seeks permission to grow an uncut beard and Holt changed the legal standard the district court did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith’s RLUIPA claim is moot after GDOC changed its policy | Smith still seeks permission for an uncut beard; policy change to 1/2-inch does not fully redress his requested relief | Owens argued policy change moots appeal because Smith obtained requested relief | Not moot — court can still grant meaningful relief because policy still bars an uncut beard |
| Whether GDOC’s grooming policy substantially burdens Smith’s religious exercise | Policy forces Smith to choose between violating belief or facing discipline; that is a substantial burden | Relied on medical exception (1/8-inch) to show Smith could exercise religion without substantial burden | Holt requires assessing the imposed choice; district court’s earlier analysis insufficient under Holt |
| Whether GDOC met RLUIPA’s least-restrictive-means test | Smith: GDOC’s medical exception and alternatives (e.g., 1/4- or 1/2-inch allowance) show less restrictive means exist | Owens: grooming policy furthers compelling interests (security, hygiene, safety) and is necessary | Holt mandates a focused, person-specific inquiry; district court must reassess whether the policy as applied to Smith is least restrictive |
| Whether district court’s summary-judgment analysis remains adequate post-Holt | Smith argued Holt alters the framework and requires remand for application to him | Owens argued prior analysis was adequate or moot due to policy change | Court vacated and remanded — district court must reanalyze under Holt and the revised policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (U.S. 2015) (RLUIPA requires person-specific, least-restrictive-means inquiry)
- Knight v. Thompson, 723 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2013) (earlier Eleventh Circuit review of prison hair policy)
- Knight v. Thompson, 797 F.3d 934 (11th Cir. 2015) (panel decision applying Holt on remand)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (U.S. 2014) (discusses substantial-burden analysis and strict scrutiny context)
- United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (U.S. 2000) (less-restrictive-means principle in First Amendment strict scrutiny)
- Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections, 382 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2004) (mootness reviewed de novo)