Summary
The Eighth Circuit reviewed summary judgment against Lawrence Hamby, an incarcerated practitioner of Hasidic Judaism, concerning claims under RLUIPA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court held that Iowa had consented to RLUIPA suits for prospective relief, that factual issues existed regarding exhaustion and the availability of administrative remedies, and that certain prospective-relief claims were not moot. The court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of qualified immunity.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether sovereign immunity barred Hamby's RLUIPA claims for prospective relief against IDOC.
- Whether the district court improperly granted summary judgment on failure-to-exhaust grounds by discounting Hamby's declaration regarding his efforts to appeal his grievances and accommodation request.
- Whether Hamby's transfer to another correctional facility mooted his claims for prospective relief against IDOC officials with statewide authority.
- Whether Hamby's § 1983 damages claims based on Grievance Nos. 188 and 241 were barred by the statute of limitations, including whether the continuing-violation theory applied.
- Whether the Eighth Circuit should affirm on qualified-immunity grounds when the district court had not addressed that defense.
Holdings
- Sovereign immunity did not bar Hamby's RLUIPA claims for prospective relief against IDOC because Iowa consented to suit under RLUIPA as a condition of receiving federal prison funds.
- The district court erred by discounting Hamby's declaration and granting summary judgment for failure to exhaust because the declaration was sufficiently specific and created a genuine issue concerning whether IDOC's grievance process was available and whether Hamby was thwarted from using it.
- Hamby's transfer did not moot his prospective-relief claims against Pirc and Skinner to the extent the challenged conditions allegedly persisted at Newton and those officials had statewide authority; however, claims concerning the changed candle policy, the past theft of cottage cheese, and the merits-deficient religious-funds grievance were properly dismissed.
- The claims based on Grievance No. 188 were time barred, but the claims based on Grievance No. 241 were not necessarily time barred because the alleged denial of a mikveh could constitute a continuing violation.
- The Eighth Circuit declined to resolve the IDOC officials' qualified-immunity defense because the district court had not addressed it and the appellate court is a court of review rather than first view.
Key quotations
“If true, Hamby's declaration would excuse Hamby's 15 grievances from the exhaustion requirement because either IDOC's religious grievance process was operating as a dead end or Hamby was thwarted from using it.” (at 6)
“In doing so, it “credited the evidence of the party seeking summary judgment and failed properly to acknowledge key evidence offered by the party opposing that motion.”” (at 7)
“A record keeper's declaration that a prisoner did not exhaust a grievance is insufficient to establish non-exhaustion as a matter of law when the prisoner makes sworn assertions that he took the necessary steps to exhaust.” (at 8)
“The “heavy” burden of proving mootness falls on the” prison officials asserting that a transfer has mooted a prisoner's claims.” (at 9)
“Upon remand, we direct the district court to further evaluate all claims and defenses consistent with this opinion.” (at 12)
Factual background
Lawrence Hamby, an adherent of Hasidic Judaism, was incarcerated at the Iowa State Penitentiary from June 2009 until his transfer to Newton Correctional Facility in February 2023. Between October 2017 and December 2021, he submitted twenty religious grievances and a religious accommodation request concerning IDOC's alleged interference with his religious exercise, including restrictions on open-flame candles and access to a mikveh. IDOC's religious coordinator denied ten grievances and the accommodation request, while marking ten grievances as untimely, improper, or incomplete. Hamby asserted that he appealed or attempted to appeal the grievances and accommodation request, but IDOC personnel failed to process or forward some appeals.
Procedural history
Hamby filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa asserting RLUIPA claims against IDOC and First and Fourteenth Amendment claims under § 1983 against Iowa, IDOC, and IDOC officials. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended judgment for defendants based on sovereign immunity, failure to exhaust, mootness, statute of limitations, and lack of merit; the district court reviewed the recommendation de novo, adopted it, and entered summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The district court must further evaluate the surviving RLUIPA and § 1983 claims and all defenses, including qualified immunity, consistent with the opinion. The court must address the genuine factual dispute concerning exhaustion, the claim-specific mootness issues, and the continuing-violation statute-of-limitations issue concerning Grievance No. 241.