Avery Williams v. Larry Norris

Eighth Circuit

Avery Williams v. Larry Norris

176 F.3d 1089

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 14, 1999

Docket99-1743

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 176 F.3d 1089 (Avery Williams v. Larry Norris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Avery Williams v. Larry Norris, 176 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Avery D. Williams, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Williams had claimed that Arkansas Department of Correction officials violated his constitutional rights and his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-2000bb-4, by imposing a grooming policy which prohibited Williams — a Rastafarian' — from wearing his hair in “dreadlocks.” We conclude the district court improperly granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, as the record demonstrates that Williams’s grievance had been denied by the Warden and the Assistant Director at the time the court ruled. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to allow Williams an opportunity to proceed on his claims.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Avery D. Williams, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Williams had claimed that Arkansas Department of Correction officials violated his constitutional rights and his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-2000bb-4, by imposing a grooming policy which prohibited Williams — a Rastafarian' — from wearing his hair in “dreadlocks.” We conclude the district court improperly granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, as the record demonstrates that Williams’s grievance had been denied by the Warden and the Assistant Director at the time the court ruled. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to allow Williams an opportunity to proceed on his claims.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 F.3d 1089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avery-williams-v-larry-norris-ca8-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack