Casby v. LeBlanc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TERRELL T. CASBY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER: 20-3009 JAMES M. LEBLANC, ET AL. R EPORT AND RECOM MEND ATIONSECTION: “M”(5) Before the Court is the Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss filed by the Defendants, Secretary James M. LeBlanc of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (“DOC”) and Mark Hollingsworth, the Chaplain of the Rayburn Correctional Center (“RCC”) in Angie, Louisiana. (Rec. doc. 12). Plaintiff has filed no memorandum in opposition to 1/ Defendants’ motion. For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that the Defendants’ motion be granted and that Plaintiff’s suit be dismissed as moot. Plaintiff is an inmate of RCC who, in December of 2018, changed his religion to the Rastafarian faith, in an exercise of which he took a vow not to cut or style the hair on his head. (Rec. doc. 1-1, pp. 1, 5). In contravention of his religious beliefs, Plaintiff alleges that he was forced to cut his hair as a result of the DOC grooming policy, which he identifies as Regulation No. B-08-003, and which he argues “… prohibits the growing of dreadlocks 2/ period” and is unconstitutionally underinclusive in violation of the Fifth Circuit’s holding 1/ Johnson v. Colvin As Plaintiff has filed no memoranda in response to DBefeeannd avn. tBsa’ rmnohtaiortn, timely or otherwise, the Court may properlyJ oansseus mv.e L tahrapte hnete hras no opposition to it. , No. 14-CV-0401, 2014 WL 4186790a daot p*1te nd. 1 (E.D. La. Aug. 22, 2014)(citing Local Rule 7.5 aLnudca s v. Crowe , 473 F.Supp.2d 739, 741 (E.D. Tex. 2007)); ad,o Nptoe.d 13-CV-0056, 2013 WL 1947243 at *1 n. 1 (E.D. La. Apr. 12, 2013), , 2013 WL 1947188 (E.D. La. May 10, 2013)(same); , No. 11B-rCaVly-2 v7. 5T2ra, 2il013 WL 870514 at *1 n. 1 (E.D. La. Feb. 15, 2013), , 2013 WL 870437 (E.D. La. Mar. 7, 2013)(same). Of course, a motion like the Defendants’, evethn if unopposed, may be granted as long as it has merit. , 254 F.3d 1082 , 2001 WL 52 /64155 at *2 (5 Cir. 2001). Although Plaintiff asserts that the regulation in question speaks of no exceptions, elsewhere in his statement of claim he acknowledges that his request for a “[r]eligious exemption was denied for security and Ware v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections cert. denied th in , 866 F.3d 263 (5 Cir. 2017), , ___ U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 1181 (2018). (Rec. doc. 1-1, p. 1-4). In his prayer for relief, Plaintiff asks that he be allowed to grow dreadlocks within grooming standards as a religious right, that the alleged prohibition against dreadlocks in the DOC’s grooming policy be amended, that the DOC adhere to its policy concerning religious exemptions to the grooming regulatioInd., court costs, and a transfer to a different jail facility so that he “… can be accomodated.” ( at p. 4). Defendant now moves for the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint as moot as he was recently granted a religious exemption to the applicable DOC grooming regulation on 3/ February 3, 2021 and is now allowed to grow dreadlocks. (Rec. docs. 12, 12-1, 12-5). As noted above, Plaintiff has filed nothing countervailing the arguments raised in Defendants’ motion. Federal courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, possess the power tCoo uardyj uvd. iPcraotte only those cases authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States. , th 85 F.3d 244, 248 (5 Cir. 1996). “If a district court lacGkeso rjugrei svd. icDtiiovenr soivfieerd tFhoeo sdus bajencdt mSeaatstoenr inogfs ,a I npcl.aintiff’s claims, dismissal is required.” , No. 13-CV-5388, 2014 WL 379381 at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 2014) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)). The lack of subject matter jurisdIidc.tion canK boen trraiiks evd. R ayta anny time during the pendency of MthceD coansael bv.y A abnbyo tpta Lratyb so.r the court. (citing , 540 U.S. 443 , th 456 (2004) and , 408 F.3d 177 , 182 n. 5 (5 Cir. 2005)). Events that policy that that was in effect at RCC was ultimately denied because he failed to properly complete the religious exemption request form after the request was initially denied due to security and hygiene 3c/onsiderations. (Rec. doc. 1-1, pp. 5, 6). occur both before and after a lawsuit is filed may render a plaintiff’s case moot as the mootness doctrine requires that the controBvaercscyu s rva.i sPeadr rbisyh a plaintiff’s complaint be th present “througChaorurt vt.h Ael tlait Vigeartdioe nIn pdruoscterisess.,” In c. , 45 F.3d 958, 961 (5 Cir. th 1995) (quoting , 931 F.2d 1055, 1061 (5 Cir. 1991)). The granting of the relief sought by a plaintiffM ianl ohnisy vc.o Smcphlleasinintg teyrpically removes the case or th controversy and renders a lawsuit moot. , 488 F.2d 521, 522 (5 Cir. 1974). The party invoking the jurisdiction of tRhaem cmouinrgt vb.e Uarnsi tethde S tcaotnesstant burden of establishing that jucreisrdt.i cdteinonie dd osuebs nino m f.act exist. , 281 F.3d 158 , th 161 (5 Cir. 2001), 536 U.S. 960 , 122 S.Ct. 2665 (2002). The standard of review applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is similar to that governing Rule 12(b)(6) mWoitliloianms se xvc. eWpty nthnaet Rule 12(b)(1) allows a court to th consider a broader range of materials. , 533 F.3d 360 , 364-65 n. 2 (5 Cir. 2008). In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, a court may rely on: 1) the complaint alone, presuming the allegations therein to be true, 2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts, or 3) the coGmeoprlgaeint supplemented by undisputed facts and by theW coaurert’ssu rpersaolution of disputed facts. , 2014 WL 379381 at *2. In , , the Fifth Circuit invalidated a Louisiana prison regulation which contained no religious exemptions and which required inmates practiWcinagre the Rastafarian religion to cut their dreadlocks. The offendSinege rWegaurela vti. oLno uaits iiasnsuae D ienp t. of C owrares cNtioo.n Bs-08003, the very regulation cited by Plaintiff. rev’d , No. th 14-CV-2c2e1r4t., 2d0en1i6e dWL 4916844 at *1 (W.D. La. Sept. 12, 2016), , 866 F.3d 263 (5 Cir. 2017), , ___U.SW. _a_r_e, 138 S.Ct. 1181 (2018). In the fall of 2018, the DOC, presumably in response to , changed the regulation that Plaintiff complains of to allow Porter v. oMfafenncdheersste rto request religious exemptions to the DOC’s grooming standaraddso. p ted , No. 19-CV-0411, 2021 WCLa e3s8a9r 0v9. 0L oaut i*si5a n(Ma .DDe. pLaar. tJmane.n 4t ,o 2f 0C2o1r)r,e ctions , 2021 WL 388831 (M.D. La. Feb. 3, 2021); , No. 174/ CV-1691, 2019 WL 3980644 at *9 (M.D. La. Jul. 26, 2019). As noted above, Plaintiff was recently granted a religious exemption as allowed by Regulation No. PS-E-I(7)(1) and is now permitted to grow dreadlocks as he prayed for in his complaint. Given that the regulation cited by Plaintiff has, in fact, been amended, that he has successfully availed himself of the religious exemption provided for in the updated regulation, and that he is now allowed to grow dreadlocksS, eethe reTlieufr ntehra vt . Theex arse qDueepsatretdm einn t hoifs Ccriomminpalal iJnuts thicaes 5/ effectively been rendered moot. , e.g., , th 836 Fed.Appx. 227 , 229-30 (5 Cir. 2020). Accordingly, it will be recommended that Defendants’ motion be granted andR tEhaCtO PMlaMinEtiNffD’sA laTwIOsuNit be dismissed as moot. For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Defendants’ motion be granted and that Plaintiff’s lawsuit be dismissed as moot. A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that 4/ See The offending regulation and the initial one allowing for religious exempMtiaodndso, xN vo. .T Bh-o0m8a-0s05, have since b5/een superseded by Nos. IS-C-4 and PS-E-1. ( rec. docs. 12-2, 12-3). Douglass v. United States Auto. Assoc. such consequences will result from a failure to object. , th 6/ 79 F.3d 1415 (5 Cir. 1996)(en banc2).4t h May New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of , 2021. MICHAEL B. NORTH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Douglass 6/