MARBLEY, District Judge.

FN1. A prior version of this same regulation explicitly granted the prison warden the authority to make an exception to this rule based on a prisoner's religious beliefs. Specifically, that provision stated: “These limitations may be modified by the managing officer upon a showing by the inmate that a sincerely held belief of such inmate, deeply rooted in religion, conflicts with these limits.” Ohio Admin. Code § 5120–9–25 (Anderson 1983). This provision was revised into its current form on August 26, 1991.

[1] [2] In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the Court is to examine: (1) whether the movant has shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether irreparable harm could result to the movant if the injunction is not issued; (3) whether substantial harm could result to others if the injunction is issued; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuing the injunction. Hamad v. Woodcrest Condo. Ass'n, 328 F.3d 224, 230 (6th Cir.2003) (citation omitted). The elements are factors to be balanced against each other, but each element need not be satisfied to issue a preliminary *816 injunction. Id. (citing Mich. Bell Tel. Co. v. Engler, 257 F.3d 587, 592 (6th Cir.2001)).

[3] [4] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) governs Motions to Strike, and provides that “the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” The Court finds that the material contained in the exhibit sought to be stricken is neither redundant, nor immaterial, nor impertinent, nor scandalous. Furthermore, although the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff should not be permitted to introduce evidence necessary to prove an element of his case after the record has been closed, it is not unusual for a preliminary injunction hearing to be held without introducing all evidence that is necessary to a particular party's case. Indeed, “a preliminary injunction is customarily granted on the basis of procedures that are less formal and evidence that is less complete than in a trial on the merits. A party thus is not required to prove his case in full at a preliminary injunction hearing.” Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Sys., Inc., 119 F.3d 393, 400 (6th Cir.1997) (quoting Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981)). Therefore, the Court DENIES the Defendant's Motion to Strike.

[5] [6] [7] Leave to amend a complaint should be freely granted when justice so requires. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Here, it appears that justice requires granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Complaint so that the Plaintiff may set forth in his Complaint the facts that provide the basis for his RLUIPA claim. With respect to the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, the amendment of the Plaintiff's Complaint is necessary to aid the Court in its determination of whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of his case. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Complaint.

[8] The language of RLUIPA indicating that the substantial burden must be imposed in a program or activity that receives federal financial assistance was intended to track the language of other civil rights legislation that is promulgated pursuant to Congress's authority under the Spending Clause of the United States Constitution. 146 Cong. Rec. E1563 (daily ed. Sept. 22, 2000) (extension of Remarks by Rep. Canady). Indeed, Senators Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy explicitly stated that the law's protections “are properly confined to each federally assisted ‘program or activity,’ which is defined by incorporating a subset of the definition of the same phrase in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” 146 Cong. Rec. S7775 (daily ed. July 27, 2000) (joint statement of Sen. Hatch and Sen. Kennedy).

[9] Long hair is a fundamental aspect of Hoevenaar's sincerely held religious beliefs and practices. By requiring him to cut his hair periodically to prevent his hair from growing past his ears or his shirt collar, Madison's grooming regulations prevent Hoevenaar from engaging in this fundamental aspect of his religion. The Plaintiff is likely to succeed, therefore, in demonstrating that the grooming regulations impose a substantial burden on his religious exercise. Winburn v. Bologna, 979 F.Supp. 531, 535 (W.D.Mich.1997) (holding that, to satisfy the substantial burden requirement of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), RLUIPA's predecessor, the plaintiff had to show that the government's action interfered with a tenet or belief that is central to the religious doctrine) (citing Stefanow v. McFadden, 103 F.3d 1466 (9th Cir.1996)).^FN2

FN2. The Defendant has not argued that the Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on this aspect of his claim.

[10] Under RLUIPA, once the plaintiff has demonstrated that a substantial burden is imposed on his religious exercise in a program or activity that receives federal funding, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the substantial burden furthers a compelling state interest, and is the least restrictive means available for furthering that interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc–2(b) (“If a plaintiff produces prima facie evidence to support a claim alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause or a violation of section 2000cc of this title, the government shall bear the burden of persuasion on any element of the claim, except that the plaintiff shall bear the burden of persuasion on whether the law (including a regulation) or government practice that is challenged by the claim substantially burdens the plaintiff's exercise of religion.”). In evaluating whether the Defendant has satisfied this burden, the Court is to accord great deference to the views of prison administrators and officials regarding these issues. This deference is mandated by the legislative history of RLUIPA, which indicates that its framers adopted the legislative history of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), RLUIPA's predecessor. The particular aspect of the RFRA legislative history adopted by the RLUIPA framers indicated that Congress did not intend to limit the high degree of deference that had been given to prison officials' analyses of operational matters prior to RFRA's enactment. A Joint Statement by Senators Hatch and Kennedy regarding the adoption of the bill which was enacted as RLUIPA explained:

[11] In light of the deference to be accorded Defendant's Lazaroff's views based on his experience and expertise as a prison administrator, the Court finds that Lazaroff is significantly likely to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that the grooming regulation furthers a compelling state interest. In particular, he will likely be able to demonstrate that the grooming regulation furthers the government's interest in identifying prison inmates and suppressing contraband in prisons.

FN3. During the preliminary injunction hearing, witnesses for both parties acknowledged that long hair impacts an individual's profile, such that cutting long hair can change others' perception of the profile. Witnesses also acknowledged that individuals with long hair have a greater number of ways of altering their appearance than individuals with short hair.

FN4. Indeed, the Plaintiff points out that one of the Defendant's witnesses testified that probably less than one percent of contraband is ever recovered from inmates' hair.

FN5. For example, even an inmate with regulation-length hair has the ability to alter his appearance by shaving some or all of his hair, dyeing his hair, or purchasing a wig, glasses, or some other disguise.

FN6. At the preliminary injunction hearing, a witness for the Defendant explained that the longer time goes on without catching the escaped inmate, the less likely it becomes that the inmate will be captured.

FN7. The Defendant cites a number of cases in support of his position that courts have unanimously rejected the argument that the fact that female inmates are permitted to grow their hair long means that male inmates should be permitted to grow their hair long. See, e.g., Lentz v. Wilkerson, No. 94–4314 (6th Cir. Mar. 31, 1995); Davie v. Wingard, 958 F.Supp. 1244, 1252–53 (S.D.Ohio 1997); Pariseau v. Wilkinson, No. C2–92–1010 (S.D.Ohio Aug. 23, 1995). Those cases discuss the same arguments that the Defendant sets forth here as to why the difference between the male and female grooming regulations should not be considered by this Court. The cases that considered these arguments, however, are distinguishable because they addressed either Equal Protection claims brought by male prisoners or First Amendment claims brought prior to the promulgation of RLUIPA. Unlike RLUIPA claims, which require a finding that the regulation serves a compelling state interest and is the least restrictive means available for serving that interest, the claims examined by these courts were subject to only intermediate or rational basis scrutiny. Moreover, those cases did not examine the differences between the male and female grooming regulations with respect to the argument that the male grooming regulation is necessary for easy identification of inmates within the prison, as the Court does here.

[12] Despite these problems with some of the rationales set forth by the Defendant in support of his position that the grooming regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling government interests, the Court finds that the Defendant is likely to succeed in demonstrating that the grooming regulation is necessary to facilitate the return of an escaped inmate, and that the release of multiple pictures of an inmate with varying lengths of hair would not be a less restrictive*824 alternative for furthering this governmental interest. Nonetheless, the Court also finds that the Defendant is unlikely to succeed in demonstrating that a blanket application of the grooming regulation, without any sort of exception, is the least restrictive means of furthering the government's interest in the efficient identification of escaped inmates. The Court accepts the position that a blanket restriction on growing a full head of long hair is necessary to further this interest because of the ways in which a full head of long hair can be modified to alter an inmate's appearance, making him more difficult to locate quickly upon an escape. An exception to the grooming regulation, however, that would allow for the growing of a “kouplock” based on sincerely held religious beliefs, and would be granted to inmates who are determined not to pose a significant security risk, is a less restrictive means of furthering the compelling interest in identifying inmates.

[13] The Court notes that the Plaintiff is likely to succeed in demonstrating that the decision of whether to allow an inmate to grow a kouplock based on sincerely held religious beliefs should be based on an analysis of whether the particular inmate seeking the exemption from the grooming regulation poses a significant security risk, taking into account the inmate's security classification. Just as the Defendant takes into consideration the fact that female inmates, as a whole, pose less of a security risk than male inmates as a justification for allowing female inmates to grow their hair long, so should the Defendant take into account the different security risks of various male inmates in making the decision of whether to allow them to grow a kouplock. In particular, here, the Plaintiff will likely succeed in demonstrating that, as a medium security prisoner who is losing feeling in his feet, he is unlikely to pose a security threat by being permitted to grow a kouplock.

FN8. The Court recognizes that the Defendant asserts that a number of courts have rejected claims that are substantially similar to the claim now brought by the Plaintiff. The only Sixth Circuit case cited by the Defendant in this regard, however, Pollock v. Marshall, 845 F.2d 656 (6th Cir.1988), rejected a similar claim under the lower standard of review required by First Amendment claims, not under the strict scrutiny required by RLUIPA. Indeed, Flagner, a 2001 case out of the Sixth Circuit, concluded that a plaintiff who, like Hoevenaar, objected to the grooming regulation based on his sincerely held religious beliefs, could pursue injunctive and declaratory relief, even under the lower First Amendment rational basis standard of review. Moreover, none of the cases cited by the Defendant as having rejected similar claims under the RFRA or RLUIPA strict scrutiny standard discussed the less restrictive option of allowing a Native American who does not pose a significant security risk to grow a kouplock.

[14] [15] [16] Hoevenaar also seeks to enjoin the Defendant's enforcement of the grooming regulation as a violation of his First Amendment rights. To state a claim for violation of his First Amendment rights, a prisoner must demonstrate that the allegedly infringing regulation is not reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). In determining whether the Plaintiff has made this showing, four factors guide the Court's analysis: (1) whether there is a “ ‘valid, rational connection’ between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it”; (2) whether alternative means of exercising the constitutional right remain open to the inmate; (3) the impact accommodation of the constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, as well as on prison resources generally; and (4) whether an alternative exists that “fully accommodates the prisoner's rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interests.” Id. at 88–91, 107 S.Ct. 2254. The four factors need not be weighed evenly, but serve simply as guidelines to evaluate whether the regulation is reasonably related to a valid penological interest. Flagner v. Wilkinson, 241 F.3d 475, 484 (6th Cir.2001).

FN9. The Plaintiff argues that at least two of these incidents should not be classified as “escape attempts” because they did not involve actual, physical attempts by Hoevenaar to escape. The labeling of these two incidents as “escape attempts,” however, is logical based on the contraband that Hoevenaar was found to possess at the time of those “attempts.” For example, one of these incidents is classified as an “escape attempt” based on Hoevenaar's possession of local maps and a sharp can opener, which could have been used as a weapon. Similarly, another one of the “attempts” related to Hoevenaar's possession of security phone numbers and an officer's uniform with his name on it.

[17] On balance, the second, third, and fourth factors of the Turner analysis weigh in favor of the Plaintiff. Hoevenaar's prior history of escape attempts and citations for possession of contraband, however, weigh heavily in favor of the Defendant. Indeed, in light of Hoevenaar's extensive history, and in light of the low level of scrutiny to be imposed in First Amendment claims such as this, the Court believes that the Defendant would likely be able to demonstrate that the first of the four Turner factors outweighs the considerations set forth in the remaining three factors.

[18] The Court finds that the denial of an injunction under these circumstances would cause the Plaintiff to suffer irreparable harm. As Hoevenaar testified at the preliminary injunction hearing, and as discussed above, long hair is his “spiritual essence”; it allows him to absorb positive energy during religious ceremonies, it facilitates his connection to his ancestors, and it brings him closer to the “Red Road of Life,” or the path to goodness and spirituality. It is clear that long hair is essential to Hoevenaar's sincerely held religious beliefs and his exercise thereof. Accordingly, denial of the requested injunction, which would result in the cutting of all of his hair, would result in irreparable harm. Goodman v. Money, 180 F.Supp.2d 946, 947 (N.D.Ohio 2001) (finding that the cutting of an inmate's hair in violation of his sincerely held religious beliefs constitutes irreparable harm); Estep v. Dent, 914 F.Supp. 1462, 1467 (W.D.Ky.1996) (stating that every time prison officials cut the plaintiff's earlocks, they were potentially violating his First Amendment rights, and thereby committing irreparable harm).

[19] The Court does not believe that granting the injunction requested by the Plaintiff would result in substantial harm to others. The Defendant argues that granting the injunction would, in fact, cause harm in multiple ways. First, he contends that granting the injunction would cause other inmates without an exemption to be resentful of the Plaintiff. The Defendant has presented no evidence, however, that when inmates were granted religious exemptions under the prior grooming regulation, such resentment actually resulted among the inmates at Madison, nor has the Defendant demonstrated that resentment or tension among inmates decreased when the grooming regulation was altered so that exemptions could not be given to inmates on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs.

[20] The public interest is served when an individual is able to enjoy the rights that he is explicitly granted pursuant to federal law. Accordingly, granting the injunction sought by the Plaintiff here is in the public interest. The Defendant argues that it would be in the public interest to deny the injunction because, for the reasons discussed above, it might take longer to capture an escaped inmate who was allowed to grow his hair long. The Court has determined, however, that the less restrictive means of furthering the government interest in identifying inmates is not to allow all inmates to grow their hair long, but to allow inmates who are determined not to pose significant security risks to grow kouplocks as required by their sincerely held religious beliefs. As discussed above, a kouplock cannot be manipulated to alter the appearance of an inmate's face or his profile. Therefore, the granting of the injunction is not likely to result in the delayed capture of an inmate in the event of an escape.