Gohre v. Hoy

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted defendant Jared Hoy’s motion for summary judgment in Demetrius Gohre’s religious-liberty action. The court held that Gohre’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief under the First Amendment and RLUIPA were moot because prison medical staff offered alternative medications whenever he expressed concern about pork-derived ingredients, and there was no evidence of an ongoing violation or need for the challenged medications. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.

Holdings

1. The claims were moot because the undisputed facts showed no ongoing violation or realistic probability that Gohre would be forced to choose between maintaining his health and consuming medication that might contain pork byproducts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Gohre's First Amendment Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot because prison officials were no longer requiring him to choose between effective medical treatment and consuming possible pork byproducts.
2. Whether summary judgment should be granted where the undisputed facts showed no ongoing religious-liberty violation and no damages claim remained.

Disposition

other