OPINION & ORDER Thomas Bryant (“Plaintiff”), currently an inmate at Sing Sing Correctional Facility (“Sing Sing”), brings this pro se Action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§2000cc-1, et seq., against Michael Capra (“Capra”) and Ms. Hickson (“Hickson”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights when they purportedly mandated that Plaintiff must tie back his dreadlocks in order to participate in recreational activities in the prison yard. (See Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) (Dkt. No. 33-1).) Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss (the “Motion”) the SAC. (See Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 35).) For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted. I. Background A. Factual Background The following facts are taken from Plaintiff’s SAC and the exhibits attached therein and are assumed true for purposes of resolving the instant Motion.1 At all relevant times, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Sing Sing. (SAC 1.) Plaintiff claims not to believe in God and not to “participate in the practices of religion that propagate this ideology.” (Id. 14.) Plaintiff also alleges to have floor-length dreadlocks that he has been growing for approximately 25 years. (Id. 13.) On July 13, 2018, while Plaintiff was playing basketball at Sing Sing, Hickson approached him and told him that he could not “have his hair up with nothing securing it unless it was with a religious hair covering.” (Id. 15.) Plaintiff interpreted this to mean that he needed to take his hair “out of the wrapped style (atop his head) he had it in without a religious covering on it.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims that this was inconsistent with a directive issued by the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), Directive 4914, because, according to Plaintiff, nothing in that directive obligates Plaintiff to bind his dreadlocks with a religious hair covering. (Id. 16.) Plaintiff alleges that because he was unable to secure his dreadlocks without using “religious means,” he “ha[d] no opportunity to protect his hair…while being active in the yard,” resulting in his hair being exposed to “filth, dirt, sweat, blood; being stepped on, or being tangled up with people” during recreational activity. (Id.
17-18.) According to Plaintiff, he has not been to the yard since receiving Hickson’s instructions, as he is allegedly unable to both exercise his “non-religious” beliefs by not wearing religious protective gear and to physically participate in recreational activity without damaging his dreads. (Id. 19.) Plaintiff alleges that he filed a grievance regarding Hickson’s instruction, which was denied by the Inmate Grievance Review Committee (“IGRC”). (Id. 20.) Plaintiff then appealed that grievance to Capra, the Superintendent of Sing Sing, who “[a]ccepted in part” Plaintiff’s grievance. (SAC Ex. B (“Grievances”) 17 (Dkt. No. 33-1).)2 Capra’s decision recites the facts underlying Plaintiff’s grievance and states, “In accordance with directive #4914…inmates wearing below shoulder length dreadlocks must tie them back in a ponytail with[a] barrette, rubber band, or other fastening device approved by the Superintendent. Grievant advised it is in his best interest to speak to an area supervisor who is in the best position to address immediate concerns.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims he appealed Capra’s decision, but never received a ruling from the final decisionmaker in the inmate grievance process, the Central Office Review Committee (“CORC”). (SAC 23.) According to Plaintiff, he has a history of behavioral issues and illnesses, such as antisocial personality disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, and “impulsivity.” (Id. 24.) Plaintiff alleges that engaging in recreation and physical exercise is an important way for him to develop better social skills, focus on work, and avoid engaging in behavioral outbursts. (Id.
