Stewart v. Beach
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25846
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Stewart, a KDOC inmate at El Dorado, adheres to Rastafarianism and keeps dreadlocks, refusing to cut his hair.
- In January 2007 he sought transfer to Lansing to be near his ailing mother; KDOC denied the transfer unless hair was cut.
- Officer Beach refused boarding the transport because Stewart could not comb out his dreadlocks under IMPP § 12-110; Wilson offered a haircut or transfer.
- Stewart proposed alternatives (pat-down search, metal detector) but the transfer was canceled and he was segregated; he later filed grievances.
- Grievances were denied; Stewart cut his dreadlocks on February 5, 2007 and was transferred to Lansing the following day.
- In December 2008 Stewart filed suit pro se alleging Free Exercise and RLUIPA violations; various defendants moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal participation in Free Exercise claim against Roberts | Roberts denied the grievance; he knew of Rastafari beliefs and alternatives but still denied. | Denial of a grievance alone not sufficient for § 1983 liability; no direct participation in the alleged violation. | Roberts entitled to summary judgment; no personal participation. |
| Law of the case on qualified-immunity denial | Belot’s denial of qualified immunity bound Robinson as law of the case. | Law of the case does not bind reconsideration of interlocutory rulings; can be revisited prior to final judgment. | No binding law-of-the-case effect; reconsideration permitted; not final on that point. |
| Beach and Wilson qualified immunity on Free Exercise | Right to reasonably exercise religion; regulation violated clearly established law. | Right was not clearly established given unsettled law; required a fact-specific analysis. | Beach and Wilson entitled to qualified immunity; right not clearly established. |
| RLUIPA claim against individuals | RLUIPA allows claims against individuals under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(a). | RLUIPA claims do not extend to individual-capacity defendants; only recipient/government entity. | No individual-capacity RLUIPA claim; affirm dismissal of that claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Makin v. Colorado Department of Corrections, 183 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 1999) (right to reasonably exercise religion in prison; Turner's test for penological interests)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (U.S. 2002) (right must be established with particularized clarity for notice)
- Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1997) (general constitutional rules require particularized context for officials)
- Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (U.S. 2012) (right must be established in a particularized sense for clearly established law)
- Longstreth v. Maynard, 961 F.2d 895 (10th Cir. 1992) (prison grooming challenges; significant questions regarding religious exemptions)
- Reed v. Faulkner, 842 F.2d 960 (7th Cir. 1988) (grooming policy and safety considerations; limits of exemption)