![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Cool!
This is from![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
appellate, one of the syndicated journals.
Ninth Circuit reinstates Rastafarian inmate's challenge to California Department of Corrections' hair length regulations:
Today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated a Rastafarian prison inmate's challenge to the California Department of Corrections' policy that a male inmate's hair may not be longer than three inches. The appellate court's opinion dealt mainly with procedural issues.
First, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the trial court did not give the prisoner an adequate opportunity to challenge findings formulated when dismissing an earlier, similar lawsuit brought by a different inmate. Second, the appellate court ruled that the trial court should have given the prisoner a chance to substitute a claim under the newly enacted Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act for his claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional as applied to the States. Finally, the Ninth Circuit joined with the vast majority of other federal appellate courts in holding that the exhaustion of available administrative remedies required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act constitutes an affirmative defense to liability that the defendant (here, the California prison system) must raise and prove. Because it was unclear whether the trial court understood that the prisoner's failure to exhaust was subject to waiver by the prison system, the Ninth Circuit reversed that ground for dismissal as well.
This is from
appellate, one of the syndicated journals.Ninth Circuit reinstates Rastafarian inmate's challenge to California Department of Corrections' hair length regulations:
Today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated a Rastafarian prison inmate's challenge to the California Department of Corrections' policy that a male inmate's hair may not be longer than three inches. The appellate court's opinion dealt mainly with procedural issues.
First, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the trial court did not give the prisoner an adequate opportunity to challenge findings formulated when dismissing an earlier, similar lawsuit brought by a different inmate. Second, the appellate court ruled that the trial court should have given the prisoner a chance to substitute a claim under the newly enacted Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act for his claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional as applied to the States. Finally, the Ninth Circuit joined with the vast majority of other federal appellate courts in holding that the exhaustion of available administrative remedies required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act constitutes an affirmative defense to liability that the defendant (here, the California prison system) must raise and prove. Because it was unclear whether the trial court understood that the prisoner's failure to exhaust was subject to waiver by the prison system, the Ninth Circuit reversed that ground for dismissal as well.