132694prHollandv.Goord

UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS1FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT2

AugustTerm20133(Argued:April10,2014Decided:July10,2014)4

5

No.132694pr6_____________________________________7

8

DARRYLHOLLAND,910

PlaintiffAppellant,11v12

GLENNS.GOORD,inhisindividualcapacity,ANTHONYJ.ANNUCI,inhisofficial13capacityasActingCommissioneroftheDepartmentofCorrectionsand14

CommunitySupervision,ANTHONYF.ZON,inhisindividualcapacityandofficial15capacityasFormerSuperintendent,WendeCorrectionalFacility,THOMAS16

SCHOELLKOPF,inhisindividualcapacityandofficialcapacityasHearingOfficer,17WendeCorrectionalFacility,JOHNBARBERA,inhisindividualcapacityand18

officialcapacityasCorrectionalOfficer,WendeCorrectionalFacility,MARTIN19KEARNEY,inhisindividualcapacityandofficialcapacityasCaptain,Wende20

CorrectionalFacility,2122

DefendantsAppellees,23JAYWYNKOOP,inhisindividualcapacityandofficialcapacityastheWatch24Commanderand/orKeeplockReviewOfficer,WendeCorrectionalFacility,25

26

Defendant.*27_____________________________________28

* Acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annuci has been substituted in place of formerCommissionerBrianFischer,pursuanttoFederalRuleofAppellateProcedure43(c)(2).TheClerkoftheCourtisdirectedtoamendthecaptiontoreflectthealterationssetoutabove.

1Before: JACOBS,CALABRESI,andLIVINGSTON,CircuitJudges.23

AppealfromthejudgmentoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheWestern4DistrictofNewYork(Telesca,J.),grantingthedefendantsmotionforsummary5judgmentanddenyingtheplaintiffscrossmotionforsummaryjudgmentastothe6plaintiffsfreeexercise,retaliation,anddueprocessclaimsbroughtpursuantto427U.S.C.1983,andhisclaimundertheReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalized8PersonsAct(RLUIPA),42U.S.C.2000ccetseq.Evenassumingarguendothatthe9substantialburdenrequirementremainsanecessarycomponentofaplaintiffsfree10exerciseclaim,weconcludethatthedefendantsconductplacedsuchaburdenon11theplaintiffsfreeexerciserights.Accordingly,wevacatethedistrictcourtsgrant12ofsummary judgmentinthedefendantsfavor,basedonitsconclusionthatthe13burdenimposedherewasdeminimis,andweremandtheplaintiffs1983claimfor14damages under the First Amendment for further consideration of this claim.15BecausewealsoconcludethattheplaintiffsclaimfordamagesunderRLUIPAis16barred,thathisclaimsforinjunctivereliefunderRLUIPAandtheFirstAmendment17aremoot,andthathehasfailedtostateaclaimforeitheradenialofdueprocessor18FirstAmendment retaliation,weaffirm thegrantof summary judgment in the19defendantsfavoronthoseclaims.20

21

VACATEDANDREMANDEDINPARTANDAFFIRMEDINPART.2223

JEFFREYA.WADSWORTH(CandaceM.Curran,onthe24brief),HarterSecrest&EmeryLLP,Rochester,N.Y.,25forPlaintiffAppellant.26

27

KATE H. NEPVEU, Assistant Solicitor General28(Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, and29AndrewD.Bing,DeputySolicitorGeneral,onthe30brief),forEricT.Schneiderman,AttorneyGeneralof31the State of New York, New York, N.Y., for32DefendantsAppellees.33

34

35

2

DEBRAANNLIVINGSTON,CircuitJudge:1

PlaintiffAppellantDarrylHolland (Holland),an inmateandpracticing2

Muslim,assertsthatdefendantprisonofficialsGlennGoord,AnthonyJ.Annuci,3

Anthony F. Zon, Thomas Schoellkopf, John Barbera, and Martin Kearney4

(collectively,Appellees)1unconstitutionallyburdenedhisreligiousexercisewhen5

theyorderedhimtoprovideaurinesamplewithinathreehourwindowthetime6

limitthenpermittedbyprisonregulationswhileHollandfastedinobservanceof7

Ramadan,theholymonthduringwhichMuslimsrefrainfromingestingfoodand8

drinkduringdaylighthours.ThoughHollandcitedhisfasttoexplainwhyhecould9

notcomplywiththeorderordrinkwatertoaidhiscompliance,Appelleesdidnot10

permitHollandanopportunitytoprovideaurinesampleaftersunsetwhenhisfast11

hadended. Instead,whenHolland failed timely toproducea sample,hewas12

ordered confined in keeplock.2 In this ensuing lawsuit, Holland asserts that13

1HollandalsonamedLieutenantJayWynkoopinhissecondamendedcomplaint,buttherecordreflectsthathewasneverserved,isnotrepresentedbycounsel,andisnotapartytothisappeal.2Keeplockisaformofadministrativesegregationinwhichtheinmateisconfinedtohiscell,deprivedofparticipationinnormalprisonroutine,anddeniedcontactwithotherinmates.Peraltav.Vasquez,467F.3d98,103n.6(2dCir.2006)(internalquotationmarksomitted).WenotethespecificsofHollandskeeplockstatusbelow.

3

AppelleesorderanddisciplinaryactioninfringedhisrightsundertheFreeExercise1

ClauseoftheFirstAmendmentandtheReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalized2

PersonsAct(RLUIPA),42U.S.C.2000ccetseq. Hollandalsoassertsthathis3

inabilitytocallawitnessduringasubsequentdisciplinaryhearingresultedina4

denialofdueprocessundertheFourteenthAmendment,andthathisconfinement5

inkeeplockamountedtoFirstAmendmentretaliation.Hollandseeksdamagesand6

injunctiverelief.7

Followingcrossmotionsforsummaryjudgment,thedistrictcourt(Telesca,8

J.)enteredjudgmentinfavorofAppellees.Significantly,thedistrictcourtheldthat9

HollandcouldnotprevailonhisFirstAmendmentfreeexerciseandRLUIPAclaims10

becauseAppellees conducthadplacedonlyademinimisburdenonHollands11

religiousexercise.SeeHollandv.Goord,No.05Civ.6295(MAT),2013WL3148324,12

at *1112 (W.D.N.Y. June 19, 2013). The district court also ruled that, in the13

alternative,Appelleeswere entitled toqualified immunity as toHollands free14

exerciseclaimsbecauseHollandsrighttoanexceptionfromthethreehourlimit15

hadnotbeen clearly established at the time theorderwasgiven. Id. at *810.16

Further,thedistrictcourtnotedthatRLUIPAdoesnotsupportHollandsclaimfor17

4

moneydamages,id.at*7;itdismissedHollandsdueprocessclaimontheground1

thatHollandlackedalibertyinterestinavoidingkeeplock,id.at*56;and,finally,2

thecourtconcludedthatHollandsFirstAmendmentretaliationclaimwasproperly3

dismissed becauseHolland failed to raise any issue as to a retaliatorymotive4

underlyinghiskeeplockconfinement,id.at*1314.5

Onappeal,weconcludethatthechoiceeithertoprovideaurinesampleby6

drinkingwaterduringhisfastortofacedisciplinaryactionplacedasubstantial7

burdenonHollandsreligiousexercise.Accordingly,wevacatethedistrictcourts8

judgment insofar as it concerns Hollands claim for damages under the First9

AmendmentsFreeExerciseClauseandremandforfurtherconsiderationofthis10

claim.Weaffirmtheremainderofthejudgment,albeitlargelyonalternategrounds.11

BACKGROUND12

A. Facts13

Hollandwas incarcerated inWendeCorrectionalFacility(Wende)from14

1999until2005,duringwhichtimeheconvertedtoIslam.OnNovember20,2003,15

MartinKearney,acaptainatWende,purportedlyreceivedinformationthatHolland16

wasusingdrugsanddirected JohnBarbera,a correctionalofficeratWende, to17

5

obtain aurine sample fromhim. At the time,NewYorkStateDepartmentof1

CorrectionalServices(DOCS)Directive4937requiredthatinmatesprovideaurine2

samplewithin threehours of being ordered todo so,without exception. The3

Directivealsoprovidedthatinmatescouldbegivenuptoeightouncesofwaterper4

hourduringthethreehourtimespantoassistintheirproduction.OnKearneys5

order,BarberadirectedHolland toprovideaurinesample. However,Holland6

stated that hewasunable todo so, citing his fast in observance ofRamadan.7

Hollandalsorefusedwateronthosegrounds.ThoughHollandofferedtodrink8

waterandprovideasampleaftersunset,whenhisfasthadended,Barberadeclined9

topermitanexceptiontotheDirective.AfterthreehourshadelapsedandHolland10

hadfailedtocomplywiththeorder,Barberaissuedamisbehaviorreportcharging11

Hollandwithviolatingtheurinalysisguidelinesanddefyingadirectorder.Holland12

wasthenplacedinkeeplockpendingadisciplinaryhearingonthematter.13

Atthathearing,Hollandtestifiedthathehadbeenunabletoprovideasample14

whenhewasorderedtodosobecausehecouldnotdrinkwaterpriortosunset15

duringRamadan.Hollandalsorequestedthathisimambepermittedtoattestto16

thesebeliefs;however,ThomasSchoellkopf,ahearingofficeratWende,refusedto17

6

permitthewitness,statingthatitwasunnecessarytocalltheimamgiventhathe1

hadnotbeenpresentattheincidentandthathistestimonyregardingthepractice2

of Muslims observing the Ramadan fast would be duplicative of Hollands.3

Following this exchange, Schoellkopf found Holland guilty of violating the4

urinalysisguidelines,statingthathewasnotawareofanyreligiousexceptions5

suchasRamadanthatexcuse[]...participationindrugtesting.Schoellkopfalso6

foundHollandnotguiltyofthechargethathefailedtocomplywithadirectorder,7

statingthathismorelenientdispositionwasanattempttoencourage[Holland]8

tofollowtheurinalysisguidelinesinthefuture.Inlightoftheguiltydisposition9

ontheurinalysischarge,SchoellkopfsentencedHollandto90daysinkeeplock,as10

wellas90daysoflostprivileges.11

Hollandinitiatedseveraladministrativeappealsoftheverdictfromkeeplock12

andsentalettertoAnthonyF.Zon,thethenSuperintendentofWende,informing13

him of the sentence. Hollands imam also sent a memorandum to Kearney,14

reaffirmingHollandsbeliefs,questioningwhyHollandhadnotbeenpermittedto15

provideasampleaftersunset,andaskingKearneytolookintothematter.While16

Hollands initialappealswereresolved inhis favorwithZondeterminingon17

7

January21,2004that[u]rinalysistestingcouldbetakenaftersunsetHollandwas1

not immediatelyreleasedfromkeeplock. Instead,Hollandfurtherappealedhis2

claimsuntil,onFebruary5,2004,theDirectorofSpecialHousing/InmateDiscipline3

workingunderthenDOCSCommissionerGlennGoordreversedandexpungedthe4

disciplinaryaction,citingSchoellkopfs failure toelicit relevant testimony from5

Hollandsimam.Hollandwasreleasedfromkeeplockthatday,afterserving776

daysindetention.Whileinkeeplock,Hollandwasconfinedtohiscellfor23hours7

eachday,wasbarredfromattendingIslamicservices,includingtheEidulFitrfeast8

celebratingtheendofRamadan,allegedlyreceivedpunishmenttrayscontaining9

meagerportions,andlosthisseniorityandhigherwagejobatWende.10

B. ProceduralHistory11

HollandfiledtheunderlyingactionproseinJune2005.Afterhiscomplaint12

survivedtwomotionstodismiss,seeHollandv.Goord,No.05Civ.6295(CJS),200713

WL2789837(W.D.N.Y.Sept.24,2007);Hollandv.Goord,No.05Civ.6295(CJS),200614

WL1983382(W.D.N.Y.July13,2006),Hollandwasappointedcounselandfileda15

secondamendedcomplaint,assertingunder42U.S.C.1983andRLUIPAthatthe16

ordertoprovideaurinesampleandhisresultantconfinementinkeeplockviolated17

8

hisrighttofreeexerciseofreligion.Hollandalsoassertedunder42U.S.C.19831

thatSchoellkopfsrefusal tocallhis imamasawitnessdeniedhimdueprocess2

undertheFourteenthAmendment,andthathisconfinementinkeeplockamounted3

to retaliation forhis religiousbeliefs inviolationof theFirstAmendment. As4

relevanthere,Hollandsoughtdamagesandinjunctiverelief.AspartofHollands5

requestedinjunctiverelief,hesoughtanorderrequiringDOCStoamendDirective6

4937toincludeexpressprotectionforinmatesfastingduringRamadan.7

InJuneandJuly2010,thepartiescrossmovedforsummaryjudgment.In8

May2012,aftersevenyearsoflitigationandwhilethepartiesmotionswerefully9

briefed,DOCSaddedaNotetoDirective4937advisingthat10

[i]nmatesparticipating inanapproved religious fast shouldnotbe11required to provide a urine sample during fasting periods since12consumptionofwatermaybenecessary.Samplerequestsshouldbe13scheduled during other periods of the day and normal urinalysis14testingproceduresshouldthenapply,includingofferingwatertothose15inmatesunabletoprovideaurinesample.16

17

AppelleesdidnotnotifyeitherthedistrictcourtorHollandthatthisnotehadbeen18

added.19

OnJune18,2013,thedistrictcourtgrantedAppelleesmotionforsummary20

judgmentanddeniedHollandscrossmotion.Initsdecision,thedistrictcourtheld21

9

that theorder toprovideaurinesampleplacedonlyademinimisburdenon1

Hollandsreligiousexercise,defeatingHollandsFirstAmendmentfreeexerciseand2

RLUIPAclaims.Holland,2013WL3148324,at*12.Inreachingthatconclusion,the3

courtcreditedHollandsimamstestimonythatHollandcouldhavefastedforone4

additionaldaytoatonefortakingadrinkofwatertoaidcompliancewiththeorder.5

Id. Inaddition, thedistrictcourtheld thatAppelleeswereentitled toqualified6

immunityfromHollandsfreeexerciseclaimsbecausetherighttoanexceptionfrom7

Directive4937hadnotbeenclearlyestablishedinNovember2003.Id.at*810.The8

courtalsonotedthatRLUIPAdidnotsupportHollandsclaimformoneydamages.9

Id.at*7.Finally,thedistrictcourtconcludedthatHollandlackedaprotectedliberty10

interestinremainingfreefromkeeplock,precludinghisdueprocessclaim,andthat11

Hollandhadnotdrawnacausal connectionbetweenhis religiousexerciseand12

Appelleesdisciplinaryaction,precludingtheFirstAmendmentretaliationclaim.13

Id.at*56,*1314.Hollandappealed.14

DISCUSSION15

Wereviewadistrictcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentdenovo,construing16

allfactsinfavorofthenonmovingparty.SeeJeffreysv.CityofNewYork,426F.3d17

10

549, 553 (2dCir. 2005). Summary judgment isproperonlywhen there isno1

genuinedisputeastoanymaterialfactandthemovantisentitledtojudgmentasa2

matteroflaw.Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a);seeJeffreys,426F.3dat553.3

A.FirstAmendmentFreeExerciseClaim4

IthasnotbeendecidedinthisCircuitwhether,tostateaclaimundertheFirst5

AmendmentsFreeExerciseClause,aprisonermustshowatthethresholdthatthe6

disputed conduct substantially burdens his sincerely held religious beliefs.7

Salahuddinv.Goord,467F.3d263,27475(2dCir.2006);seeFordv.McGinnis,352F.3d8

582, 592 (2d Cir. 2003) (assuming without deciding that substantial burden9

requirementapplies).Hollandchallengesthecontinuedviabilityofthesubstantial10

burdentestinlightoftheSupremeCourtsstatementinEmploymentDivisionv.11

Smiththatapplicationofthetestembroilscourtsintheunacceptablebusinessof12

evaluatingtherelativemeritsofdifferingreligiousclaims.Ford,352F.3dat59213

(quotingEmptDiv.v.Smith,494U.S.872,887(1990))(internalquotationmarks14

omitted);seealsoWilliamsv.Morton,343F.3d212,217(3dCir.2003)(decliningto15

applythesubstantialburdentesttoa1983claimregardingtheavailabilityofmeals16

conformingtoreligiousdictatesinprison).However,weneednotdecidetheissue17

11

here,asevenassumingthecontinuedvitalityofthesubstantialburdenrequirement,1

our precedent squarely dictates that Hollands religious exercise was2

unconstitutionallyburdenedapoint,moreover,thatAppelleesdonotconteston3

appeal.SeeSalahuddin,467F.3dat275n.5(decliningtoaddresscontinuedviability4

ofsubstantialburdentestwhenthedefendantsfailedtoarguethatthe inmates5

burdenedreligiouspracticewasperipheralortangentialto[his]religion);seealso6

Jollyv.Coughlin,76F.3d468,477(2dCir.1996)(notingthatasubstantialburden7

existswhen the stateputs substantialpressure on an adherent tomodify his8

behavior and to violate his beliefs (internal quotation marks and alterations9

omitted)).10

Inoneofseveralcasesconcerningthisissue,weheldinFordv.McGinnisthat11

aMusliminmatesfreeexerciserightswouldbesubstantiallyburdenedifprison12

officialsdeniedhisrequestforamealtocelebratetheEidulFitrfeast.352F.3dat13

59394.Thoughaquestionoffactremainedastowhetherthemealhad,infact,been14

denied,invacatingsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendants,weemphasized15

both that the inmate had credibly claimed that the meal was critical to his16

observanceasapracticingMuslimandthatinmateshaveaclearlyestablished17

12

righttoadietconsistentwith[their]religiousscruples.Id.at594,597(internal1

quotationmarksomitted).Then,inMcEachinv.McGuinnis,wecitedthislanguage2

toholdthataninmatestatedafreeexerciseclaimbasedonhisassertionthatprison3

officialshaddeniedhimproperlyblessedfoodtobreakhisfastsduringRamadan.4

357F.3d197,20103 (2dCir.2004). Though theCourtdeclined toaddress the5

substantialburdenstandardonamotiontodismiss,weemphasizedthatcourts6

havegenerallyfoundthattodenyprisoninmatestheprovisionoffoodthatsatisfies7

thedictatesoftheirfaithdoesunconstitutionallyburdentheirfreeexerciserights,8

notingthatthisCourthadrecognizedsuchaprinciplesinceatleastasearlyas9

1975. Id. at 203 (citing Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1975)10

(determiningthatOrthodoxJewishinmatehadrighttoprovisionofkoshermeals)).11

Finally,inJollyv.Coughlin,weheldthatforcinganinmatetochoosebetweenhis12

religiousbeliefswhichforbadethemedicaltestingprisonofficialsattemptedto13

imposeuponhimorconfinementinkeeplockitselfconstitute[d]asubstantial14

burden.76F.3dat477.15

Taken together, these cases clearly support the conclusion thatordering16

Hollandtoprovideaurinesampleanddrinkwaterinviolationofhisfastorface17

13

confinementinkeeplocksubstantiallyburdenedHollandsfreeexerciseright.First,1

itisundisputedthatHollandisapracticingMuslimandthatfastinginobservance2

ofRamadanisacoretenetofhisfaith.SeeHolland,2013WL3148324,at*11.Thus,3

therecanbenodebatethatdirectlyorderingHollandtodrinkwaterinviolationof4

hisfastwouldsubstantiallyburdenhisfreeexerciserights.AswestatedinFordand5

reiterated in McEachin, inmates have a clearly established right to a diet6

consistentwiththeirreligiousscruples.SeeMcEachin,357F.3dat203(quoting7

Ford,352F.3dat597)(bracketsomitted).Thedifferencebetweenthedenialofameal8

andtheimpositionofadrinkisofnoconstitutionalsignificance.Seeid.at204059

(stating,inlightoftheinmatesclaimthatanofficerdeliberatelyorderedhimtoact10

incontraventionofhisbeliefs,that[p]recedentsuggeststhatinmateshavearight11

not to be disciplined for refusing to perform tasks that violate their religious12

beliefs).Bycontrast,thedistrictcourtsconclusionthattheordertoprovideaurine13

sampleplacedonlyademinimisburdenonHollandsfreeexercisebecausehe14

couldmakeupaprematuredrinkofwaterwithoneextradayoffasting,see15

Holland,2013WL3148324,at*1112(quotingHollandsandhisimamstestimony),16

findsnosupportinourcaselaw.WhilethisCourthassuggestedthat[t]heremay17

14

beinconveniencessotrivialthattheyaremostproperlyignored,McEachin,3571

F.3dat203n.6,theuncontradictedevidencesubmittedbyHollandthatbreakinghis2

fastpriortosunsetwouldhavebeenagravesinregardlesswhetheratonement3

waspossiblepreventedsuchaconclusioninthiscase.4

The closerquestion identifiedbutnotdeterminedby thedistrict court is5

whether,inthedistrictcourtswords,anissueastocausationbarredHollands6

claim.SeeHolland,2013WL3148324,at*10.Thatis,whilethedenialofareligious7

mealplainlyburdenstheinmatesrighttoeatthatmeal,asinFordandMcEachin,it8

isnotselfevidentthataninmatesinabilityorrefusaltoprovideaurinesample9

followedfromhisfastrelatedforbearancefromdrinkingwater.However,nosuch10

question of fact exists in this case. Holland explained to Schoellkopf at his11

disciplinaryhearingthathehadnotcompliedwiththeorderbecausehewasfasting12

duringRamadanand,asaresult,wasnotabletogotothebathroomdueto[his]13

notbeingabletodrinkanywater.And,inhisdeposition,Schoellkopfstatedthat14

hebelievedHollandsstatement,thoughhenonethelesssentencedhimto90days15

inkeeplockbecausetherewasnoexceptiontotheDOCSrule.16

IfAppelleeswere able to counter these facts, they have failed todo so.17

15

Instead,AppelleesarguedbroadlybelowthatHollandcouldnotestablishalink1

betweenhisfastandfailuretocomplywiththeorder,whileneglectingtociterecord2

evidencecounteringtheforegoingmaterial.See,e.g.,Mem.inSupportofSummary3

Judgment,Hollandv.Goord,No.05Civ.6295,Doc.No.75,at19(W.D.N.Y.June16,4

2010)(Itiscommonknowledgethatpeoplethatdonoteatordrinkforadayare5

stillabletoproduceurine.).Butnosuchargumenthasbeenadvancedonappeal.6

Thus, it isnowuncontested thatHolland, apracticingMuslim,wasunable to7

complywiththeordertoprovideaurinesamplewithinthreehoursbecausehewas8

fastinginobservanceofRamadan.WhileAppelleespermittedHollandachoice9

betweenprematurelybreakinghis fastor facing confinement inkeeplock, that10

choiceashasbeenclearlyestablishedbyourprecedentfordecadesplaceda11

substantialburdenonthefreeexerciseofhisreligion.SeeJolly,76F.3dat477.12

Of course, this conclusiondoes not end the inquiry intoHollands First13

Amendmentfreeexerciseclaim.Giventhedifficultjudgmentsattendanttoprison14

operation,Turnerv.Safley,482U.S.78,89(1987),agenerallyapplicablepolicy15

evenone thatburdensan inmates freeexercisewillnotbeheld toviolatea16

plaintiffsrighttofreeexerciseofreligion ifthatpolicy isreasonablyrelatedto17

16

legitimatepenologicalinterests,Reddv.Wright,597F.3d532,536(2dCir.2010)1

(quotingOLone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349 (1987)). To make this2

determination,acourtmustconsider:3

whetherthechallengedregulationorofficialactionhasavalid,rational4connectiontoalegitimategovernmentalobjective;whetherprisoners5havealternativemeansofexercisingtheburdenedright;theimpacton6guards,inmates,andprisonresourcesofaccommodatingtheright;and7theexistenceofalternativemeansoffacilitatingexerciseoftheright8that have only a de minimis adverse effect on valid penological9interests.10

11

Salahuddin,467F.3dat274(footnoteomitted)(citingTurner,482U.S.at9091).Zons12

determination that the urinalysis could have been conducted after sunset and13

DOCSssubsequentamendmentofDirective4937(nottomentionAppelleesfailure14

to address thesepointson appeal)giveuspause as towhetherAppellees can15

demonstrateavalidpenologicalinterestpursuanttothisstandard.Nevertheless,16

becausethedistrictcourtdidnotreachthisquestionbelow,wedeclinetoaddress17

itforthefirsttimeonappeal.SeeDardanaLtd.v.Yuganskneftegaz,317F.3d202,20818

(2dCir.2003)(ItisthisCourtsusualpracticetoallowthedistrictcourttoaddress19

argumentsinthefirstinstance.).20

Inaddition,wedeclinetoaddressinthefirstinstancetheissueofqualified21

17

immunityasregardsthestatespenologicalinterestinthepreviouspolicy.Toassess1

adefendantsentitlementtoqualifiedimmunity,acourtmustconsiderboththe2

clarityof the lawestablishing the rightallegedlyviolatedaswellaswhethera3

reasonableperson,actingunderthecircumstancesthenconfrontingadefendant,4

wouldhaveunderstoodthathisactionswereunlawful.Hanrahanv.Doling,3315

F.3d93,98 (2dCir.2003) (percuriam) (internalquotationmarksomitted). The6

districtcourtruledthatithadnotbeenclearlyestablishedatthetimeoftheorder7

thatDirective#4937,orasubstantiallyequivalentpolicy,placedasubstantial8

burden on an inmates religious liberty, Holland, 2013 WL 3148324, at *9, a9

conclusionthatwerejectbyourholdingtoday.SeeFord,352F.3dat597([C]ourts10

need not have ruled in favor of a prisoner under precisely the same factual11

circumstanceinorderfor[a]righttobeclearlyestablished.).However,thedistrict12

court did not address other aspects of Appellees qualified immunity claim,13

includingthequestionwhetherareasonableofficermighthavebelievedthatthe14

challengedorderwaslawfulinlightoflegitimatepenalogicalinterestssupporting15

Directive4937,asitexistedatthetime.Norhasthedistrictcourtexaminedwhether16

certain Appellees should be dismissed from this suit for a lack of personal17

18

involvementintheclaimedconstitutionaldeprivations.SeeGrullonv.CityofNew1

Haven,720F.3d133,138(2dCir.2013).Weleavetheseissuestothedistrictcourtfor2

considerationonremand.3

We do not, however, require that the district court assess Hollands4

entitlement to all of the relief he seeks on remand. In his second amended5

complaint,Hollandsoughtbothdamagesandinjunctivereliefpursuanttohisfree6

exerciseclaim.Sincethefilingofthatcomplaint,DOCShasamendedDirective49377

to include the express protection for inmates fasting during Ramadan that8

Hollands complaint seeks. While a defendants voluntary cessation of a9

challengedpracticedoesnotdepriveafederalcourtofitspowertodeterminethe10

legality of the practice, it is nonetheless an important factor bearing on the11

questionwhether a court should exercise itspower to entertain a request for12

injunctivereliefordeclareitmoot.CityofMesquitev.AladdinsCastle,Inc.,455U.S.13

283,289(1982). Ofcourse,adefendantclaimingthat itsvoluntarycompliance14

mootsacasebearstheformidableburdenofshowingthatitisabsolutelyclearthe15

allegedlywrongfulbehaviorcouldnotreasonablybeexpectedtorecur.Already,16

LLCv.Nike,Inc.,133S.Ct.721,727(2013)(internalquotationmarksomitted).17

19

WeconcludethatAppelleeshavesatisfiedthatburdenhere.First,DOCShas1

amendedDirective 4937 specifically to prohibit the conduct ofwhichHolland2

complains, an act meriting some deference. See Harrison & Burrowes Bridge3

Constructors,Inc.v.Cuomo,981F.2d50,59(2dCir.1992)(dismissingasmootan4

appealconcerningaminoritysetasideprogramafter thestateadministratively5

suspendedtheprogram,inpart,because[s]omedeferencemustbeaccordedtoa6

states representations that certain conduct has been discontinued); see also7

Massachusettsv.Oakes,491U.S.576,582(1989)(deemingoverbreadthchallengemoot8

due to the states amendment of the challenged statute). Moreover, Holland9

succeededinhisadministrativeappealelicitingadeterminationfromZonthat10

Hollandshouldhavebeenpermittedtoprovideaurinesampleaftersunsetinlight11

ofhisreligiousfastandAppelleeshaveabandonedonappealtheirargumentthat12

theconductatissuewasconstitutional.Cf.Nike,133S.Ct.at728(Whereaparty13

assumesacertainpositioninalegalproceeding,andsucceedsinmaintainingthat14

position,hemaynotthereafter,simplybecausehisinterestshavechanged,assume15

a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has16

acquiescedinthepositionformerlytakenbyhim.(quotingDavisv.Wakelee,15617

20

U.S.680,689(1895)(internalquotationmarksandbracketsomitted)).Giventhese1

circumstances(aswellasthefurtherassuranceprovidedbyourdecisiontoday)we2

deem it clear that the allegedlywrongful policy is not likely to be reinstated.3

Accordingly,wedismissasmootHollandsrequestforinjunctivereliefpursuantto4

hisFirstAmendmentfreeexerciseclaim,andremandonlyhisrequestfordamages.5

B.RLUIPAClaim6

RLUIPAprovidesamorestringentstandardthandoestheFirstAmendment,7

barringthegovernmentfromimposingasubstantialburdenonaprisonersfree8

exercise unless the challenged conduct or regulation further[s] a compelling9

governmentalinterestand[is]theleastrestrictivemeansoffurtheringthatinterest.10

Redd,597F.3dat536(citingRLUIPA,42U.S.C.2000cc1(a)).Undertheforegoing11

analysis,Hollandwould likely prevail on the substance of hisRLUIPA claim.12

Nevertheless,Hollandisnotentitledtoeitherdamagesorinjunctivereliefunderthe13

statute. First,asthedistrictcourtheldbelowandHollandconcedesonappeal,14

RLUIPAdoesnotauthorizeclaimsformonetarydamagesagainststateofficersin15

eithertheirofficialorindividualcapacities.SeeWashingtonv.Gonyea,731F.3d143,16

14546(2dCir.2013)(percuriam)(citingSossamonv.Texas,131S.Ct.1651,166317

21

(2011)).Thus,HollandsclaimfordamagesagainstAppelleesisbarred.Second,we1

deemHollandsclaimforinjunctivereliefunderRLUIPAmootforthesamereasons2

discussedaboveregardingtheinjunctivereliefrequestedaspartofhisfreeexercise3

claim. Thus,we affirm thedistrict courts judgment in favor ofAppellees on4

HollandsRLUIPAclaims.5

C.FourteenthAmendmentDueProcessClaim6

Ordinarily,aninmatefacingdisciplinaryproceedingsshouldbeallowedto7

callwitnessesandpresentdocumentaryevidenceinhisdefensewhenpermitting8

himtodosowillnotbeundulyhazardoustoinstitutionalsafetyorcorrectional9

goals.Wolffv.McDonnell,418U.S.539,566(1974).Therighttocallwitnessesis10

limitedintheprisoncontext,however,bythepenologicalneedtoprovideswift11

disciplineinindividualcasesandbytheveryrealdangersinprisonlifewhich12

mayresultfromviolenceorintimidationdirectedateitherotherinmatesorstaff.13

Ponte v.Real, 471U.S. 491, 495 (1985). Thus, [p]rison officialsmusthave the14

necessarydiscretiontokeepthehearingwithinreasonablelimitsandtorefusetocall15

witnessesthatmaycreateariskofreprisalorundermineauthority,aswellasto16

limitaccesstootherinmatestocollectstatementsortocompileotherdocumentary17

22

evidence.Id.at496(quotingWolff,418U.S.at566).CitingPonte,wehavestated1

that[t]heSupremeCourt...hassuggestedthataprisonersrequestforawitness2

canbedeniedonthebasisofirrelevanceorlackofnecessity.Kingsleyv.Bureauof3

Prisons,937F.2d26,3031(2dCir.1991)(citingPonte,471U.S.at496).Therefusal4

tocallwitnesseswhosetestimonywouldberedundant isnotaviolationofany5

establisheddueprocessright.SeeRussellv.Selsky,35F.3d55,5859(2dCir.1994)6

(holding that a prison hearing officer did not violate any clearly established7

constitutionalorstatutoryrightforrefusingtocallinmatessuggestedwitnesses,8

whowouldhavegivenduplicativeornonprobativetestimony).9

Hollandsoughttocallhisimamasawitnessathisdisciplinaryhearingto10

establishthat,asapracticingMuslim,Hollandwasunabletodrinkwateratthetime11

hewasorderedtoprovideaurinesample.However,Hollandhadalreadytestified12

tothisfactandSchoellkopfdidnotdiscredithisstatement.Instead,Schoellkopf13

determinedthattherewerenoreligiousexceptionssuchasRamadantoexcuse14

HollandsnoncompliancewithDirective4937.BecauseHollandsimamwouldhave15

corroboratedanestablishedfact,andanyadditionaltestimonythathemighthave16

givendidnotgotothebasisofSchoellkopfsdecision,Schoellkopfdidnoterrin17

23

characterizing the imams proposed testimony as unnecessary and redundant.1

WhileHollandassertsthatheshouldhavenonethelessbeenpermittedtocallhis2

imambecausetherewasnoriskthathisfiveminutedisciplinaryhearingwould3

dragonadinfinitum,Russell,35F.3dat59,thisCourthasneverannouncedsuch4

a limitation on prison officials discretion. Accordingly, we conclude that5

SchoellkopfactedwithinhisdiscretionwhenherefusedtocallHollandsimamas6

awitness,andweaffirmtheentryofjudgmentinAppelleesfavoronthisclaim.37

D.FirstAmendmentRetaliationClaim8

ToprevailonaFirstAmendmentretaliationclaim,aninmatemustestablish9

(1)thatthespeechorconductatissuewasprotected,(2)thatthedefendanttook10

adverse action against theplaintiff, and (3) that therewas a causal connection11

betweentheprotected[conduct]andtheadverseaction.Espinalv.Goord,558F.3d12

119,128(2dCir.2009)(internalquotationmarksomitted). An inmatebearsthe13

burdenofshowing thattheprotectedconductwasasubstantialormotivating14

factorintheprisonofficialsdisciplinarydecision.Grahamv.Henderson,89F.3d75,15

3WhiletheDirectorofSpecialHousing/InmateDisciplinereversedHollandskeeplocksentenceontheproceduralgroundthatSchoellkopfhaderredinfailingtocalltheimam,asourearlierdiscussionindicates,thatkeeplockreversalwascorrectonthemerits.

24

79(2dCir.1996).Thedefendantofficialthenbearstheburdenofestablishingthat1

the disciplinary action would have occurred even absent the retaliatory2

motivation,whichhemaysatisfybyshowingthattheinmatecommittedthe...3

prohibitedconductchargedinthemisbehaviorreport.Gaylev.Gonyea,313F.3d4

677,682(2dCir.2002)(internalquotationmarksomitted).5

HollandhasnotprofferedanyevidencesupportinghisclaimthatAppellees6

took disciplinary action against him because of his religion. WhileHollands7

religiousobservationcausedhimtodeclinetoprovideaurinesample,whichinturn8

promptedthedisciplinaryaction,Hollandcitesnocaselawholdingthatsuchan9

attenuatedlinkcanconstituteasubstantialormotivatingfactorforretaliation.10

NorhasHolland rebuttedAppelleesevidence that theywouldnothaveacted11

differentlyifhehaddeclinedtocomplyforreasonsotherthanreligion,giventhat12

Directive4937didnotpermitexceptionsforreligiousexerciseatthetimeofthe13

order. ThoughHolland notes that other exceptions to theDirective had been14

permitted,thoseexceptionswenttoinmateswithamedicallyrecognizedinability15

toprovideasample,suchasinmatesondialysis.Hollandcitesnootherexceptions16

to support his otherwise conclusory assertion that Appellees disciplined him17

25

becauseofhisreligion.Thus,thedistrictcourtsjudgmentinfavorofAppelleeson1

thisclaimisaffirmed.2

CONCLUSION3

Fortheforegoingreasons,wevacatethejudgmentonHollandsfreeexercise4

claimandremandforfurtherproceedingsastothisclaim,totheextentthatHolland5

seeksdamages.WeaffirmthejudgmentinfavorofAppelleesonHollandsRLUIPA6

claim,hisFourteenthAmendmentclaim,hisFirstAmendmentretaliationclaim,and7

hisfreeexerciseclaimforaninjunction.Therefore,thejudgmentofthedistrictcourt8

enteredJune18,2013,isVACATEDANDREMANDEDINPARTANDAFFIRMEDINPART.910

26