George Brown, Jr. v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida
Cases that cite this one
28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- In re Gatts (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)
- Anthony W. Martinelli, Cross-Appellant v. Richard L. Dugger, Mrs. Ana Gispert, Cross-Appellees, Lt. T. Mowery, Sgt. E. Savoia (11th Cir. 1987)
- Abdul Hakim Jamal Nasir Shabazz A/K/A Owen X. Denson v. K. C. Barnauskas, D. S. Gladis, C. W. Blivens, Davis H. Brierton (5th Cir. 1979)
- Shabazz v. Barnauskas (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1985)
- Bennie W. Brooks v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director (5th Cir. 1970)
- Jerry Teterud v. Kevin J. Burns, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Director of the Department of Social Services for the State of Iowa (8th Cir. 1975)
- Zeigler v. Riley (New York Supreme Court 1971)
- Goulden v. Oliver Et Al. (Supreme Court of the United States 1979)
- Wright v. Raines (Kan. Ct. App. 1977)
- Poe v. Werner (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1974)
- Blake v. Pryse (D. Minn. 1970)
- Harris v. Dugger (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1989)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Townley Engineering & Manufacturing Company (9th Cir. 1988)
- Yusaf Asad MADYUN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gayle M. FRANZEN, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees (7th Cir. 1983)
- Childs v. Duckworth (District Court, N.D. Indiana 1981)
- Moskowitz v. Wilkinson (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1977)
- Burgin v. Henderson (2d Cir. 1976)
- Burgin v. Henderson (2d Cir. 1976)
- State Ex Rel. Pingley v. Coiner (W. Va. 1972)
- Theriault v. Carlson (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1972)
- Smith v. Sampson (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1972)
- Sellars v. Beto (District Court, S.D. Texas 1972)
- United States Ex Rel. Goings v. Aaron (D. Minn. 1972)
- Howard v. Warden, Petersburg Reformatory (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1972)
- Collins v. Schoonfield (District Court, D. Maryland 1972)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I.
Appellant is a Florida convict presently incarcerated in the state prison at Rai-ford. He filed a petition in the court below to invalidate the prison regulation requiring prisoners to be clean-shaven. Appellant alleges he is a demi-god, “an offspring of a God and Mortal”, and that his mustache is a gift from his creator. He states that he is an established religion, and to require him to shave is an infringement upon his religious liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution.
The court below denied relief without a hearing in an order filed February 11, 1969, stating that the matter is one for prison administration. In the same order a certificate of probable cause to appeal was denied.
Appellant filed another petition in the district court containing the same allegations and requesting a rehearing. The court denied the motion and dismissed the action in an order filed June 2, 1969, *1377 referring to its prior order of February 11.
Lawful incarceration brings with it the necessary withdrawal or limitations of many privileges and rights. Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 86 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948); Jackson v. Godwin, 5 Cir., 1968, 400 F.2d 529; Walker v. Blackwell, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F. 2d 23.
The rule in question is applied to all inmates alike. For personal cleanliness and for personal identification under prison conditions, the rule appears to be neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. There is thus no Constitutional basis for our interference with this vital state function, Adams v. Ellis, 5 Cir., 1952, 197 F.2d 483; Schack v. State, 5 Cir., 1968, 391 F.2d 593; Granville v. Hunt, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 9.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.