From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gallahan v. Hollyfield

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Feb 9, 1982
670 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir. 1982)

Summary

concluding that a regulation prohibiting long hair was unconstitutional because less restrictive alternatives were available

Summary of this case from May v. Baldwin

Opinion

No. 81-6658.

Argued January 5, 1982.

Decided February 9, 1982. Rehearing Denied June 18, 1982.

Eric K. G. Fiske, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va. (Marshall Coleman, Atty. Gen. of Va., Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellants.

Michael D. Brittin, Washington, D.C. (Peter S. Everett, Paul E. Mirengoff, Hunton Williams, Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellee.

Ben Oshel Bridgers, Holt, Haire Bridgers, P. A., Sylva, N.C., on brief, for amicus curiae.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Before INGRAHAM, Senior Circuit Judge, and HALL and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

Honorable Joe M. Ingraham, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation.


Gallahan is a half-blooded Cherokee Indian and a devout member of a Cherokee religious order. The tenets of his religion require that he not cut his hair because hair is regarded as a sense organ, a manifestation of being, and a symbol of growth.

He is a member of the Eastern Sect of Cherokee Indians.

He is also a prisoner in the Virginia correctional system. A Virginia Prison regulation requires that prisoners' hair be cut so that it does not extend below the top of the collar. Accordingly, when Gallahan was placed in prison, he was compelled to have his hair cut.

He has been incarcerated at the Powhatan Reception and Classification Center in State Farm, Virginia, and at the Staunton Correctional Center in Staunton, Virginia.

Virginia Prison Guideline No. 864 reads in pertinent part:

§ III(3)(b) "Hair length may extend over the ears, but will not extend below the top of the collar."

Gallahan filed two actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, charging violations of his civil rights. The district court, 516 F. Supp. 1004, ruled that the regulation infringed upon Gallahan's freedom of worship and enjoined the defendant prison authorities from cutting his hair. The defendants appeal. We agree with the district court that the regulation is unconstitutional as applied in this case and therefore we affirm.

The two suits were consolidated by the district court.

Prison regulations which affect a prisoner's right to worship must be "reasonably and substantially justified by considerations of prison discipline and order" and further must be "in a form substantially warranted by the requirements of prison safety and order." Sweet v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 529 F.2d 854, 863 (4th Cir. 1975).

The prison authorities justify the haircut regulation on the following grounds: (1) Inmates with long hair can use it to shroud their features and prevent quick identification; (2) long hair provides a hiding place for contraband; and (3) it is unsanitary. However, we find these asserted reasons to be either overly broad or lacking in substance. See Teterud v. Burns, 522 F.2d 357, 361 (8th Cir. 1975).

Even if the justifications were legitimate, they are not warranted in this case because less restrictive alternatives are available. The district court enjoined the appellants only from cutting Gallahan's hair. However, they could make him wear it pulled back from his face in a ponytail to prevent him from using it as a mask. Furthermore, they are not enjoined from searching his hair for contraband or requiring him to keep it neat and clean.

The Guideline also states:

§ III(3)(1) "Hair [must be] clean and neatly groomed."

Under these circumstances, the regulation unconstitutionally restricts Gallahan's right to freely exercise his sincere religious beliefs. Accordingly, the district court's order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Gallahan v. Hollyfield

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Feb 9, 1982
670 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir. 1982)

concluding that a regulation prohibiting long hair was unconstitutional because less restrictive alternatives were available

Summary of this case from May v. Baldwin

upholding a Cherokee Indian prisoner's right to have long hair, in accordance with the tenets of his religion

Summary of this case from Barrett v. Virginia

affirming injunction against haircut policy because "less restrictive alternatives" were available

Summary of this case from Lawson v. Cheatham, (S.D.Ind. 2001)

recognizing that the plaintiff, of Cherokee Indian descent, followed a religious tenet dictating that his hair was "a sense organ" and that loss of hair equated to loss of a body part

Summary of this case from A.A. v. Needville Independent School District

In Gallahan v. Hollyfield, 670 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir. 1982), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a prison haircut regulation was unconstitutional because it restricted an inmate's right to exercise freely his sincere religious beliefs when less drastic alternatives were available.

Summary of this case from Shabazz v. Barnauskas
Case details for

Gallahan v. Hollyfield

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL G. GALLAHAN, APPELLEE v. CPL. B. B. HOLLYFIELD; OFFICER J. W…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Feb 9, 1982

Citations

670 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir. 1982)

Citing Cases

Shabazz v. Barnauskas

The Court is aware that at least two circuits have adopted a "least restrictive means" standard of review for…

Smith v. Ozmint

Within the Fourth Circuit, however, it has not been established that a grooming policy which offers no…