Claims under the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) & 42 USC § 1983; Holt v. Hobbs; Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.; Haight v. Thompson; Whether the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction (ODRC) violated the RLUIPA by denying plaintiff-prisoner’s request to grow dreadlocks; Whether the denial of a special diet violated the RLUIPA; Free exercise claim; U.S. Const. amend. I; Maye v. Klee; Kent v. Johnson; Turner v. Safley; Reasonableness test; Flagner v. Wilkinson; Spies v. Voinovich; Block v. Rutherford; Equal protection claim; U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Scarbrough v. Morgan Cnty. Bd. of Educ.; Harbin-Bey v. Rutter; City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 35

The court held that because the defendants-ODRC officials could not justify the denial of plaintiff-prisoner’s (Koger) religious diet requests, the district court erred by granting them summary judgment on his RLUIPA, First Amendment, and equal protection claims relating to his diet. Koger, who is a Nyahbinghi Rastafarian, alleged that defendants’ denial of his requests for various religious privileges based on prison policy “substantially burdens” his religious practice under the RLUIPA. The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants on Koger’s claim based on their denial of his request to grow dreadlocks. The court held that although he could establish that the removal of his dreadlocks would burden his religious practice, the grooming policy would not result in their removal unless it is determined that his hair is “unsearchable.” Because he did not allege or show that it was, the court held that he failed to show the “policy prevents him from growing his locks naturally”; thus, he could not “‘demonstrate that [the] prison policy substantially burdens [his] religious practice.” But the court reversed summary judgment for defendants on Koger’s claim that the denial of his request for a special Rastafarian diet, an ital diet, and the ability to fast, violated the RLUIPA. Defendants had to show that the policy “‘serves a compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive way.’” The court held that their practice of requiring him to follow the Muslim accommodations for diet and fasting, instead of offering a Rastafarian diet and accommodation, substantially burdened his religious practices. It concluded that after RLUIPA was enacted, defendants could not deny Koger’s requests for an accommodation “‘on the ground that the request is . . . new.’” While they argued that he failed to give them sufficient information about Rastafarian dietary practices, the record did “not indicate that any ODRC official was concerned about the lack of specificity in Koger’s requests prior to this litigation.” The court also held that defendants were improperly granted summary judgment on his First Amendment free exercise claim as it related to his dietary claims where they did “not articulate[] any justification with a valid, rational connection to the denial of Koger’s diet requests.” As to his equal protection claim related to his dietary requests, considering “the evidence and drawing inferences in Koger’s favor, ODRC’s actions violated the Equal Protection Clause.” But the court affirmed summary judgment for defendants on his grooming, right to commune with other inmates, and Rule 35 claims.