Michael T. Rinehart and Ronald H. Brown v. Lou v. Brewer, Iowa State Penitentiary

491 F.2d 705

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: March 5, 1974
• Docket: 73-1623
• Status: Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This is a civil rights action by two state prisoners challenging the constitutionality of the hair length regulations of the Iowa State Penitentiary at Fort Madison, Iowa. The district court, in a memorandum opinion, upheld the validity of the regulations in the face of a broad range of constitutional claims. 360 F.Supp. 105 (S.D.Iowa 1973). In this appeal plaintiffs have narrowed their attack to the argument that the regulations constitute an unwarranted infringement of their right to govern their own personal appearance. For the reasons stated below we affirm the judgment of the district court.

On two prior occasions this court has summarily rejected identical challenges to similar regulations in other penal institutions. Ralls v. Wolfe, 448 F.2d 778 (8th Cir. 1971), aff’g per curiam 321 F.Supp. 867 (D.Neb.1971); Blake v. Pryse, 444 F.2d 218 (8th Cir. 1971), aff’g per curiam 315 F.Supp. 625 (D. Minn.1970). Plaintiffs argue that these cases should not be deemed controlling because they antedated our first public school hair regulation decision, Bishop v. Colaw, 450 F.2d 1069 (8th Cir. 1971). Furthermore, plaintiffs argue that the “hands off” judicial attitude to review of prison administrative decisions reflected in Ralls and Blake has since been abandoned by us. To this effect plaintiffs cite McDonnell v. Wolff, 483 F.2d 1059 (8th Cir. 1973), and Moore v. Ciccone, 459 F.2d 574 (8th Cir. 1972). We reject both of these arguments.

The constitutional considerations presented by a public school hair regulation are qualitatively different from those involved in an otherwise similar prison 'regulation. Even if one ignores the prison administrator’s substantially greater concern over identification, security against contraband, and maintenance of peaceful relations among the institution’s patrons, a warden’s interest in hair length regulation is readily distinguishable from that of the public school principal. The primary function of the public school is to educate its students. Any concern over the maintenance of discipline is secondary to the purpose of education. The primary function of the prison, however, is to restore in the inmate population that minimal degree of personal discipline that is essential to a safe and orderly society. On the basis of this difference alone we feel Bishop v. Colaw is distinguishable and Ralls and Blake are controlling. As for plaintiffs’ contention that we have abandoned our restrained approach to review of matters involving prison administration, we disagree. We are, of course, always sensitive to any deprivation of a prisoner’s fundamental constitutional rights. Nevertheless, we also remain highly deferential to the discretion of the prison administrator where, as here, a reasonable disciplinary regulation is enforced with at least the minimal procedural fairness required by the constitution.

As plaintiffs recognize, we have already upheld a police department’s hair length regulation applicable to its officers. Stradley v. Andersen, 478 F.2d 188 (8th Cir. 1973). Thus, plaintiffs would have us grant to every convicted felon in prison the unqualified freedom to cater to his own tonsorial tastes that we have denied his arresting officer and the guard responsible for his safekeeping. We cannot accept such an anomalous result.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.