Holland Ramadan Punishment Decision
description
Transcript of Holland Ramadan Punishment Decision
-
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