REUVEN MAIMON, A/K/A RAYMOND MCMAHON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE WAINWRIGHT AND RAYMOND G. MASSEY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
REUVEN MAIMON, A/K/A RAYMOND MCMAHON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
LOUIE WAINWRIGHT AND RAYMOND G. MASSEY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
792 F.2d 133
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1986)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Maimón is a practitioner of the Lubavitch sect of Orthodox Judaism who is confined to a maximum security Florida state prison. The grooming regulations of the Florida Department of Corrections, enacted pursuant to statute, require that inmates be clean shaven and that sideburns be unflared and no longer than the inmate’s ear lobe. Maimón filed this suit contending that this rule violates his free exercise of religion under the First Amendment because the tenets of his faith require that the male face not be shaved and that payehs or earlocks be maintained and allowed to grow freely. It is not disputed that these are tenets of Maimon’s faith and that his beliefs are sincerely held. The district court denied relief.
This case is controlled by our decision in Shabazz v. Barnauska, 790 F. 2d 1536 and Shabazz v. Williams, 790 F. 2d 1536 (11th Cir.1986), decided by the same district court and affirmed by this court. Shabazz, a Muslim, raised essentially the same arguments that are made by Maimón (particularly the argument that the state could take repeated photographs of inmates from time to time as they lengthened or shortened their hair and beards, and that this procedure presented a less restrictive alternative). This court rejected them.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499 (11th Cir. 1996)…standard, this court has repeatedly found that such rules were permissible for those reasons. See, e.g., Brightly v. Wainwright, 814 F. 2d 612, 613 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 944, 108 S.Ct. 332, 98 L.Ed.2d 359 (1987); Maimon v. Wainwright, 792 F. 2d 133 (11th Cir.1986); Shabazz v. Barnauskas, 790 F. 2d 1536, 1540 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1011, 107 S.Ct. 655, 93 L.Ed.2d 709 (1986). The RFRA, passed by Congress in late 1993, changed the standard relied on in Mar-tinelli. The RFRA provide…
-
Martinelli v. Dugger, 817 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir. 1987)…was sufficient to support a conclusion that the regulations in this case are rationally related to the substantial interests advanced. As to Florida’s no beard rule, this conclusion is compelled by our decisions in Shabazz III, Maimon v. Wainwright, 792 F. 2d 133 (11th Cir.1986), and Brightly v. Wainwright, 814 F. 2d 612 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam).27 A similar conclusion is required as to the hair length rules because they serve the same interests as the no beard rule. See Maimon, 792 F. 2d at 133 (upholdi…1 / 2
-
Brightly v. Louie L. Wainwright, 814 F.2d 612 (11th Cir. 1987)…erns. These appeals then ensued and the cases were consolidated for our consideration. We hold that each of the instant cases is controlled by prior circuit precedent. See Shabazz v. Barnauskas, 790 F. 2d 1536 (11th Cir.1986); Maimon v. Wainwright, 792 F. 2d 133 (11th Cir.1986).1 Both Shabazz and Maimón involved the precise issue presented on this appeal. In both those cases, we concluded that the penological interest in preventing escape was sufficiently great to overcome the prisoner’s interest in his rig…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Abdul Hakim Jamal Nasir Shabazz v. K.C. Barnauskas, 790 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1986)