Omar Grayson v. Harold Schuler
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 730
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff, a former inmate at Big Muddy Correctional Center, sues a correctional officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for forcible shearing of his dreadlocks, alleging First Amendment free exercise violation.
- Illinois allows inmates to have any hair length so long as it does not create a security risk; the officer ordered cutting on security grounds without justification presented.
- Prison chaplain claimed Rastafarians may wear dreadlocks, while plaintiff is African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem; chaplain said dreadlocks were not required by plaintiff’s faith.
- Internal grievance denying the claim was based on the chaplain’s theological opinion; plaintiff’s religious observance is tied to a Nazirite vow and long hair.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendant; plaintiff released from prison, injunctive relief moot, leaving only a personal-capacity damages claim.
- Seventh Circuit reverses, finding discriminatory application of the hair ban and lack of a legitimate security basis for permitting Rastafarians but denying others to wear dreadlocks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rastafarian exception to the hair ban violate Free Exercise? | Plaintiff argues selective permission to Rastafarians is religious discrimination. | State security interests and policy allow Rastafarians but not others to wear dreadlocks. | Yes; Rastafarian exception cannot be justified; discrimination invalid. |
| Can defendant invoke qualified immunity for a reasonable-application error of clearly established law? | Claims defendant acted with religious targeting; wrong application of law. | Reasonable belief in security concerns could shield immunity. | No; no reasonable belief shown; immunity not established. |
| Can official-capacity claims be maintained given sovereign immunity and the Religious Freedom Act limitations? | Act claims might be allowed; damages in official capacity barred by sovereign immunity. | Act does not authorize official-capacity actions; state immunity bars such claims. | Official-capacity claims barred; personal-capacity damages only remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (RA religious rights in prison reinforced by CARE for institutionalized persons)
- Reed v. Faulkner, 842 F.2d 960 (7th Cir. 1988) ( Rastafarians allowed long hair; no blanket ban)
- Vinning-El v. Evans, 657 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2011) (immunity analysis in religious-expression cases)
- Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2009) (personal vs official-capacity claims under § 1983)
- Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral laws of general applicability need not accommodate religion)
- O’Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987) (prison accommodation of religious practice requires balance with security)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations evaluated for reasonableness under security and penological concerns)
- Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972) (protecting religious exercise includes heretical beliefs)