Pollock v. Marshall

• Jurisdiction: United States

Pollock v. Marshall

843 F. 2d 656 (1988)

Facts

Mark Pollock, appellant inmate, filed a Section 1983 petition that challenged the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio that granted summary judgment to the appellee, a correctional superintendent in a civil rights action brought by Pollock. Pollock, a prisoner at the maximum security Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, professed a belief in the religion of the Lakota tribe of American Indians. The Lakotas believed that hair was sacred and should not be cut. Pollock sought an exemption to Ohio's prison regulation that requires all inmates to cut their hair under Ohio Admin. Code Section 5120-9-25(F), claiming a violation of his civil rights. The appellee claimed that no constitutional violation occurred because valid penal interests outweighed any constitutional amendment right to grow long hair. The District Court agreed and granted the motion. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment. The court held that the appellee could constitutionally require the appellant to cut his hair. The Circuit Court found that the interests offered by the Superintendent were both legitimate and reasonably related to the regulation limiting the length of appellant's hair.

Issue

Whether a prison may regulate the length of an inmate's hair under a regulation that conflicts with an inmate's religious beliefs.

Holding by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court holding that after balancing the interests of the appellee (keeping inmates' hair cut) and the appellant (exercising the Lakota religion), the court held that the regulation requiring inmates to cut their hair was not unconstitutional.

Reason

In Pollock, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the District Court was correct in its belief that the plaintiff sincerely and genuinely believed in the Lakota Indian religion. The District Court referred to cases such as Jihaad v. O'Brien (645 F.2d 556, 6th Cir. 1981) and Walker v. Mintzes (771 F.2d 920 6th Cir. 1985) for established standards on how to evaluate restrictions on inmates in the exercise of their First Amendment rights. The District Court determined that the defendant must prove necessity of any restrictions it imposes and must demonstrate the reasonableness of the restriction. The plaintiff in this case argued that the District Court applied the wrong...