United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-2342 THOMAS WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN BALDWIN, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. No. 19-cv-50233 — Iain D. Johnston, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED MAY 19, 2023 — DECIDED JULY 26, 2023 ____________________

Before FLAUM, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Thomas Walker, a Rastafarian whose religious beliefs prohibit him from cutting his hair, was an Il- linois state prisoner at Dixon Correctional Center when prison officials forced him to remove his dreadlocks. He sued the prison officials, the prison warden, and the director of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), alleging that the defendants violated his rights under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and 2 No. 22-2342 Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). This appeal con- cerns only Walker’s RLUIPA claim, on which the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. We find that Walker abandoned this claim in the district court and decline to exercise our discretion to review the waived issue on ap- peal. I. Background On May 25, 2018—several weeks after Thomas Walker ar- rived at Dixon Correctional Center—Officer Colin Brinkmeier informed Walker at an intake interview that prison security policy prohibited prisoners from maintaining certain “un- searchable” hairstyles like dreadlocks. Walker refused to cut his hair, informing Brinkmeier that he was a Rastafarian and had taken the Nazarite vow of separation, which includes a vow to refrain from cutting his hair. Brinkmeier’s sole re- sponse was “we’ll see.” Later that day, Brinkmeier returned with another corrections officer, Lieutenant John Craft, and again ordered Walker to cut his dreadlocks. Again, Walker re- fused, citing his religious beliefs. Brinkmeier and Craft disciplined Walker for his disobedi- ence by placing him in segregated housing for several days. Walker submitted an emergency grievance, seeking an accom- modation from the prison based on his religious beliefs, but John Varga, the prison warden at the time, denied Walker’s request without explanation. On June 1, Brinkmeier and Craft brought a tactical team and mace to Walker’s cell and told Walker that if he did not acquiesce, the tactical unit would forcibly remove his dreadlocks. Walker gave in and allowed the prison barber to shave his hair. No. 22-2342 3

Following this incident, Walker began regrowing his dreadlocks. He was able to keep them for three years without any problems. When conducting security checks, prison offic- ers would run their gloved hands through his dreadlocks. At the time IDOC released him from Dixon in July 2020, Walker’s dreadlocks were roughly the same length as they had been when he was forced to cut them. According to Walker, many other inmates at Dixon were permitted to wear dreadlocks. In late 2019, Walker sued Varga, Craft, Brinkmeier, and IDOC Director John Baldwin for violations of the First Amendment and RLUIPA. At the screening stage, the district court held that Walker had a viable § 1983 claim for a violation of the First Amendment and a viable claim for injunctive relief under RLUIPA. It noted, however, that under Circuit prece- dent, Walker could not seek monetary damages against indi- vidual defendants under RLUIPA “because they are not the recipients of federal funds” and therefore dismissed that claim. The defendants later