Oscar Guthrie v. M D Reed

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: September 11, 2000
• Docket: 00-1899
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 00-1899 ___________

Oscar Guthrie, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the M.D. Reed, Warden, Cummins Unit, * Eastern District Arkansas Arkansas Department of Correction; * Jonathan Robinson, Teacher, * [UNPUBLISHED] Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction (originally sued as J. * Robertson); B. Glover, Principal, * Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction; A.J. Hall, Major, * Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction; D. Harris, Lt., * Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction; J. Robertson, Kitchen * Supervisor, Cummins Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction; A.D. * Bradberry, Assistant Warden, * Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction; Larry Norris, Director, * Arkansas Department of Correction; * Justine Minor, Hearing Officer, * Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction (originally sued as * Justine Minnor); Louis Walls, * Correctional Office, Cummins Unit, * Arkansas Department of Correction * (originally sued as “L A Walls”), * * Appellees. * ___________

Submitted: August 25, 2000

Filed: September 11, 2000 ___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Oscar Guthrie, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1 for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissing this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For reversal appellant argues that the district court erred in concluding that enforcement of a prison grooming regulation does not violate his constitutional rights. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

This court has repeatedly upheld similar challenges to prison grooming regulations, see Campbell v. Purkett, 957 F.2d 535, 536-37 (8th Cir. 1992); Dunavant v. Moore, 907 F.2d 77, 79 (8th Cir. 1990), and Guthrie’s complaint did not allege any facts that would distinguish this case from the line of cases upholding hair and beard restrictions, see Iron Eyes v. Henry, 907 F.2d 810, 814 (8th Cir. 1990) (preventing prisoners from concealing contraband and alleviating confusion in prisoner

1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- identification are valid penological interests justifying prison hair-length policy, although contraband had never been found in any inmate’s hair, and identification fears were hard to credit in light of prison’s lax approach to photographing inmates). Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Guthrie’s “Motion for Issuing a Restriction Order” is denied.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLE RK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-3-