Strider Rognirhar v. N. Grannis

MEMORANDUM

Strider Rognirhar contends that the district court erred in dismissing his Complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) (1) as “frivolous,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)®; and (2) for “fail[ure] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Rognirhar’s Complaint alleged that defendants violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) and the First Amendment by refusing to grant him a religious exemption from California’s prison grooming regulation, which prohibits inmates from maintaining facial hair that extends more than one-half inch outward from the face. See Cal.Code Regs, tit 15, § 3062(h).

1. This case is not moot. It is not “absolutely clear,” Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Ent’l Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 , 120 S.Ct. 693 , 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000), that § 3062(h) will not be enforced against Rognirhar. California has not yet amended § 3062(h) to eliminate restrictions on the length of inmates’ facial hair, and the Basra v. Cate settlement agreement is not enforceable by Rognirhar. As the case is not presently moot, we must decide this appeal on the merits. Should California…