TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stephen James Earl Kemp v. Dick Moore, George A. Lombardi, Steven D. Long, Denis Dowd, Charles E. Harris, Joseph Rosenberg

Stephen James Earl KEMP, Appellant, v. Dick MOORE, George A. Lombardi, Steven D. Long, Denis Dowd, Charles E. Harris, Joseph Rosenberg, Appellees

Stephen James Earl Kemp v. Dick Moore, 946 F.2d 588 (8th Cir. 1991)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 7, 1991
Docket
No. 90-2903
Judges
Arnold, Beam, Heaney, Per Curiam
Citations
946 F.2d 5881991 WL 1973271991 U.S. App. LEXIS 23226

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Kemp, a member of the Chickasaw Indian Nation, is imprisoned at the Farmington Correctional Center in Missouri. He follows the religious tenets and practices of the Native American religion embraced by the Chickasaws. One practice involves the wearing of long hair. A sweat lodge is also used in some religious ceremonies.

Kemp sought an injunction in the district court to prohibit Missouri prison officials from enforcing a regulation that requires the hair to be cut to collar length. He also requested an order forcing the construction of a sweat lodge. In addition, Kemp claimed the right to money damages.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the complaint. The court cited Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 , 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2261-63 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); Iron Eyes v. Dowd, 907 F.2d 810 (8th Cir.1990) and Dunavant v. Moore, 907 F.2d 77 (8th Cir.1990) as controlling law in this circuit. •

We agree that these cases require the result ordered by the district court. There would be no precedential value in discussing them at length in this opinion. We, accordingly, affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

Concurrence — Heaney

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge,

concurring.

I concur only because our opinion in Iron Eyes v. Dowd, 907 F.2d 810 (8th Cir.1990), *589 leaves me no other alternative. I continue to believe that our opinion in Iron Eyes was not required by Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987).

This case is even stronger than Iron Eyes . Here, Stephen Kemp, a member of the Chickasaw Indian Nation, was permitted to wear his hair long at the Missouri State Penitentiary. It was only after he was transferred to the Farmington Correctional Center that the director of that facility told Kemp that he had to have his hair cut. No rational reason has been advanced as to why it was permissible to wear long hair in the Missouri State Penitentiary but not at the Farmington Correctional Center, even though the former is a more secure prison than the latter.

This case smacks of harassment and religious persecution to me. See generally, John Rhodes, An American Tradition: The Religious Persecution of Native Americans, 52 Mont-L.Rev. 13 (1991). The sooner our court en banc considers this question and resolves to do away with the penological myth that the director of this institution perpetuates, the better.

Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document

946 F.2d 588

Stephen James Earl KEMP, Appellant, v. Dick MOORE, George A. Lombardi, Steven D. Long, Denis Dowd, Charles E. Harris, Joseph Rosenberg, Appellees.

No. 90-2903.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 1991. Decided Oct. 7, 1991.

Donald Wolff, Clayton, Mo., argued (Glenn Moller, St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.

Erwin Switzer, St. Louis, Mo., for appellees.

Before ARNOLD and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

Kemp, a member of the Chickasaw Indian Nation, is imprisoned at the Farmington Correctional Center in Missouri. He follows the religious tenets and practices of the Native American religion embraced by the Chickasaws. One practice involves the wearing of long hair. A sweat lodge is also used in some religious ceremonies.

2

Kemp sought an injunction in the district court to prohibit Missouri prison officials from enforcing a regulation that requires the hair to be cut to collar length. He also requested an order forcing the construction of a sweat lodge. In addition, Kemp claimed the right to money damages.

3

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the complaint. The court cited Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 , 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2261-63 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); Iron Eyes v. Dowd, 907 F.2d 810 (8th Cir.1990) and Dunavant v. Moore, 907 F.2d 77 (8th Cir.1990) as controlling law in this circuit.

4

We agree that these cases require the result ordered by the district court. There would be no precedential value in discussing them at length in this opinion. We, accordingly, affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

5

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring.

6

I concur only because our opinion in Iron Eyes v. Dowd, 907 F.2d 810 (8th Cir.1990), leaves me no other alternative. I continue to believe that our opinion in Iron Eyes was not required by Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987).

7

This case is even stronger than Iron Eyes. Here, Stephen Kemp, a member of the Chickasaw Indian Nation, was permitted to wear his hair long at the Missouri State Penitentiary. It was only after he was transferred to the Farmington Correctional Center that the director of that facility told Kemp that he had to have his hair cut. No rational reason has been advanced as to why it was permissible to wear long hair in the Missouri State Penitentiary but not at the Farmington Correctional Center, even though the former is a more secure prison than the latter.

8

This case smacks of harassment and religious persecution to me. See generally, John Rhodes, An American Tradition: The Religious Persecution of Native Americans, 52 Mont.L.Rev. 13 (1991). The sooner our court en banc considers this question and resolves to do away with the penological myth that the director of this institution perpetuates, the better.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1992: 41994: 11996: 219922026peak 1992 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hamilton v. Schriro74 F.3d 1545 (8th Cir. 1996)
  2. Mark Hamilton v. Dora Schriro74 F.3d 1545 (8th Cir. 1996)
  3. Brown-El v. Allen972 F.2d 353 (8th Cir. 1992)
  4. Chester A. Bettis v. Paul Delo, Superintendent Don Roper, Assistant Superintendent, Programs, Pcc14 F.3d 22 (8th Cir. 1994)
  5. Sours v. Long978 F.2d 1086 (8th Cir. 1992)
  6. Gerald Holmes v. Janet Schneider Paul Caspari Larry Bogan Janet Vogel Harold Fisher Carmen McKay Olivia Rexroat978 F.2d 1263 (8th Cir. 1992)

Most recent

  1. Hamilton v. Schriro74 F.3d 1545 (8th Cir. 1996)
  2. Mark Hamilton v. Dora Schriro74 F.3d 1545 (8th Cir. 1996)
  3. Chester A. Bettis v. Paul Delo, Superintendent Don Roper, Assistant Superintendent, Programs, Pcc14 F.3d 22 (8th Cir. 1994)
  4. Gerald Holmes v. Janet Schneider Paul Caspari Larry Bogan Janet Vogel Harold Fisher Carmen McKay Olivia Rexroat978 F.2d 1263 (8th Cir. 1992)
  5. Sours v. Long978 F.2d 1086 (8th Cir. 1992)
  6. Sours v. Long978 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir. 1992)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) 6,045
Iron Eyes v. Henry, 907 F.2d 810 (8th Cir. 1990) 60
Dunavant v. Moore, 907 F.2d 77 (8th Cir. 1990) 15

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list