132694pr

Hollandv.Goord
UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS 1
FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT 2
AugustTerm2013 3
(Argued:April10,2014Decided:July10,2014) 4
5
No.132694pr 6
_____________________________________ 7
8
DARRYLHOLLAND, 9
10
PlaintiffAppellant, 11
v 12
GLENNS.GOORD,inhisindividualcapacity,ANTHONYJ.ANNUCI,inhisofficial 13
capacityasActingCommissioneroftheDepartmentofCorrectionsand 14
CommunitySupervision,ANTHONYF.ZON,inhisindividualcapacityandofficial 15
capacityasFormerSuperintendent,WendeCorrectionalFacility,THOMAS 16
SCHOELLKOPF,inhisindividualcapacityandofficialcapacityasHearingOfficer, 17
WendeCorrectionalFacility,JOHNBARBERA,inhisindividualcapacityand 18
officialcapacityasCorrectionalOfficer,WendeCorrectionalFacility,MARTIN 19
KEARNEY,inhisindividualcapacityandofficialcapacityasCaptain,Wende 20
CorrectionalFacility, 21
22
DefendantsAppellees, 23
JAYWYNKOOP,inhisindividualcapacityandofficialcapacityastheWatch 24
Commanderand/orKeeplockReviewOfficer,WendeCorrectionalFacility, 25
26
Defendant.
*
27
_____________________________________ 28
*
Acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annuci has been substituted in place of former
CommissionerBrianFischer,pursuanttoFederalRuleofAppellateProcedure43(c)(2).The
ClerkoftheCourtisdirectedtoamendthecaptiontoreflectthealterationssetoutabove.
1
Before: JACOBS,CALABRESI,andLIVINGSTON,CircuitJudges. 2
3
AppealfromthejudgmentoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheWestern 4
DistrictofNewYork(Telesca, J.),grantingthedefendantsmotionforsummary 5
judgmentanddenyingtheplaintiffscrossmotionforsummaryjudgmentastothe 6
plaintiffsfreeexercise,retaliation,anddueprocessclaimsbroughtpursuantto42 7
U.S.C. 1983, and his claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 8
PersonsAct(RLUIPA),42U.S.C.2000ccetseq.Evenassumingarguendothatthe 9
substantialburdenrequirementremainsanecessarycomponentofaplaintiffsfree 10
exerciseclaim,weconcludethatthedefendantsconductplacedsuchaburdenon 11
theplaintiffsfreeexerciserights.Accordingly,wevacatethedistrictcourtsgrant 12
of summary judgment in the defendants favor, based on its conclusion that the 13
burdenimposedherewasdeminimis,andweremandtheplaintiffs1983claimfor 14
damages under the First Amendment for further consideration of this claim. 15
BecausewealsoconcludethattheplaintiffsclaimfordamagesunderRLUIPAis 16
barred,thathisclaimsforinjunctivereliefunderRLUIPAandtheFirstAmendment 17
aremoot,andthathehasfailedtostateaclaimforeitheradenialofdueprocessor 18
First Amendment retaliation, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in the 19
defendantsfavoronthoseclaims. 20
21
VACATEDANDREMANDEDINPARTANDAFFIRMEDINPART. 22
23
JEFFREYA.WADSWORTH(CandaceM.Curran,onthe 24
brief),HarterSecrest&EmeryLLP,Rochester,N.Y., 25
forPlaintiffAppellant. 26
27
KATE H. NEPVEU, Assistant Solicitor General 28
(Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, and 29
AndrewD.Bing,Deputy SolicitorGeneral,onthe 30
brief),forEricT.Schneiderman,AttorneyGeneralof 31
the State of New York, New York, N.Y., for 32
DefendantsAppellees. 33
34
35
2
DEBRAANNLIVINGSTON,CircuitJudge: 1
PlaintiffAppellant Darryl Holland (Holland), an inmate and practicing 2
Muslim,assertsthatdefendantprisonofficialsGlennGoord,AnthonyJ.Annuci, 3
Anthony F. Zon, Thomas Schoellkopf, John Barbera, and Martin Kearney 4
(collectively,Appellees)
1
unconstitutionallyburdenedhisreligiousexercisewhen 5
theyorderedhimtoprovideaurinesamplewithinathreehourwindowthetime 6
limitthenpermittedbyprisonregulationswhileHollandfastedinobservanceof 7
Ramadan,theholymonthduringwhichMuslimsrefrainfromingestingfoodand 8
drinkduringdaylighthours.ThoughHollandcitedhisfasttoexplainwhyhecould 9
notcomplywiththeorderordrinkwatertoaidhiscompliance,Appelleesdidnot 10
permitHollandanopportunitytoprovideaurinesampleaftersunsetwhenhisfast 11
had ended. Instead, when Holland failed timely to produce a sample, he was 12
ordered confined in keeplock.
2
In this ensuing lawsuit, Holland asserts that 13
1
HollandalsonamedLieutenantJayWynkoopinhissecondamendedcomplaint,butthe
recordreflectsthathewasneverserved,isnotrepresentedbycounsel,andisnotaparty
tothisappeal.
2
Keeplockisaformofadministrativesegregationinwhichtheinmateisconfinedtohis
cell, deprived of participation in normal prison routine, and denied contact with other
inmates.Peraltav.Vasquez,467F.3d98,103n.6(2dCir.2006)(internalquotationmarks
omitted).WenotethespecificsofHollandskeeplockstatusbelow.
3
AppelleesorderanddisciplinaryactioninfringedhisrightsundertheFreeExercise 1
ClauseoftheFirstAmendmentandtheReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalized 2
Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. Holland also asserts that his 3
inability to call a witness during a subsequent disciplinary hearing resulted in a 4
denialofdueprocessundertheFourteenthAmendment,andthathisconfinement 5
inkeeplockamountedtoFirstAmendmentretaliation.Hollandseeksdamagesand 6
injunctiverelief. 7
Followingcrossmotionsforsummaryjudgment,thedistrictcourt(Telesca, 8
J.)enteredjudgmentinfavorofAppellees.Significantly,thedistrictcourtheldthat 9
HollandcouldnotprevailonhisFirstAmendmentfreeexerciseandRLUIPAclaims 10
because Appellees conduct had placed only a de minimis burden on Hollands 11
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 the 13
alternative, Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity as to Hollands free 14
exerciseclaimsbecauseHollandsrighttoanexceptionfromthethreehourlimit 15
had not been clearly established at the time the order was given. Id. at *810. 16
Further,thedistrictcourtnotedthatRLUIPAdoesnotsupportHollandsclaimfor 17
4
moneydamages,id.at*7;itdismissedHollandsdueprocessclaimontheground 1
thatHollandlackedalibertyinterestinavoidingkeeplock,id.at*56;and,finally, 2
thecourtconcludedthatHollandsFirstAmendmentretaliationclaimwasproperly 3
dismissed because Holland failed to raise any issue as to a retaliatory motive 4
underlyinghiskeeplockconfinement,id.at*1314. 5
Onappeal,weconcludethatthechoiceeithertoprovideaurinesampleby 6
drinking water during his fast or to face disciplinary action placed a substantial 7
burdenonHollandsreligiousexercise.Accordingly,wevacatethedistrictcourts 8
judgment insofar as it concerns Hollands claim for damages under the First 9
AmendmentsFreeExerciseClauseandremandforfurtherconsiderationofthis 10
claim.Weaffirmtheremainderofthejudgment,albeitlargelyonalternategrounds. 11
BACKGROUND 12
A. Facts 13
Holland was incarcerated in Wende Correctional Facility (Wende) from 14
1999until2005,duringwhichtimeheconvertedtoIslam.OnNovember20,2003, 15
MartinKearney,acaptainatWende,purportedlyreceivedinformationthatHolland 16
was using drugs and directed John Barbera, a correctional officer at Wende, to 17
5
obtain a urine sample from him. At the time, New York State Department of 1
CorrectionalServices(DOCS)Directive4937requiredthatinmatesprovideaurine 2
sample within three hours of being ordered to do so, without exception. The 3
Directivealsoprovidedthatinmatescouldbegivenuptoeightouncesofwaterper 4
hourduringthethreehourtimespantoassistintheirproduction.OnKearneys 5
order, Barbera directed Holland to provide a urine sample. However, Holland 6
stated that he was unable to do so, citing his fast in observance of Ramadan. 7
Hollandalsorefusedwateronthosegrounds.ThoughHollandofferedtodrink 8
waterandprovideasampleaftersunset,whenhisfasthadended,Barberadeclined 9
topermitanexceptiontotheDirective.AfterthreehourshadelapsedandHolland 10
hadfailedtocomplywiththeorder,Barberaissuedamisbehaviorreportcharging 11
Hollandwithviolatingtheurinalysisguidelinesanddefyingadirectorder.Holland 12
wasthenplacedinkeeplockpendingadisciplinaryhearingonthematter. 13
Atthathearing,Hollandtestifiedthathehadbeenunabletoprovideasample 14
whenhewasordered to do sobecausehecouldnotdrinkwaterpriortosunset 15
duringRamadan.Hollandalsorequestedthathisimambepermittedtoattestto 16
thesebeliefs;however,ThomasSchoellkopf,ahearingofficeratWende,refusedto 17
6
permitthewitness,statingthatitwasunnecessarytocalltheimamgiventhathe 1
hadnotbeenpresentattheincidentandthathistestimonyregardingthepractice 2
of Muslims observing the Ramadan fast would be duplicative of Hollands. 3
Following this exchange, Schoellkopf found Holland guilty of violating the 4
urinalysis guidelines,statingthathewasnotawareofanyreligiousexceptions 5
suchasRamadanthatexcuse[]...participationindrugtesting.Schoellkopfalso 6
foundHollandnotguiltyofthechargethathefailedtocomplywithadirectorder, 7
statingthathismorelenientdispositionwasanattempttoencourage[Holland] 8
tofollowtheurinalysisguidelinesinthefuture.Inlightoftheguiltydisposition 9
ontheurinalysischarge,SchoellkopfsentencedHollandto90daysinkeeplock,as 10
wellas90daysoflostprivileges. 11
Hollandinitiatedseveraladministrativeappealsoftheverdictfromkeeplock 12
andsentalettertoAnthonyF.Zon,thethenSuperintendentofWende,informing 13
him of the sentence. Hollands imam also sent a memorandum to Kearney, 14
reaffirmingHollandsbeliefs,questioningwhyHollandhadnotbeenpermittedto 15
provideasampleaftersunset,andaskingKearneytolookintothematter.While 16
Hollands initial appeals were resolved in his favor with Zon determining on 17
7
January21,2004that[u]rinalysistestingcouldbetakenaftersunsetHollandwas 1
not immediately released from keeplock. Instead, Holland further appealed his 2
claimsuntil,onFebruary5,2004,theDirectorofSpecialHousing/InmateDiscipline 3
workingunderthenDOCSCommissionerGlennGoordreversedandexpungedthe 4
disciplinary action, citing Schoellkopfs failure to elicit relevant testimony from 5
Hollandsimam.Hollandwasreleasedfromkeeplockthatday,afterserving77 6
daysindetention.Whileinkeeplock,Hollandwasconfinedtohiscellfor23hours 7
eachday,wasbarredfromattendingIslamicservices,includingtheEidulFitrfeast 8
celebratingtheendofRamadan,allegedlyreceivedpunishmenttrayscontaining 9
meagerportions,andlosthisseniorityandhigherwagejobatWende. 10
B. ProceduralHistory 11
HollandfiledtheunderlyingactionproseinJune2005.Afterhiscomplaint 12
survivedtwomotionstodismiss,seeHollandv.Goord,No.05Civ.6295(CJS),2007 13
WL2789837(W.D.N.Y.Sept.24,2007);Hollandv.Goord,No.05Civ.6295(CJS),2006 14
WL1983382(W.D.N.Y.July13,2006),Hollandwasappointedcounselandfileda 15
secondamendedcomplaint,assertingunder42U.S.C.1983andRLUIPAthatthe 16
ordertoprovideaurinesampleandhisresultantconfinementinkeeplockviolated 17
8
hisrighttofreeexerciseofreligion.Hollandalsoassertedunder42U.S.C.1983 1
that Schoellkopfs refusal to call his imam as a witness denied him due process 2
undertheFourteenthAmendment,andthathisconfinementinkeeplockamounted 3
to retaliation for his religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment. As 4
relevanthere,Hollandsoughtdamagesandinjunctiverelief.AspartofHollands 5
requestedinjunctiverelief,hesoughtanorderrequiringDOCStoamendDirective 6
4937toincludeexpressprotectionforinmatesfastingduringRamadan. 7
InJuneandJuly2010,thepartiescrossmovedforsummaryjudgment.In 8
May2012,aftersevenyearsoflitigationandwhilethepartiesmotionswerefully 9
briefed,DOCSaddedaNotetoDirective4937advisingthat 10
[i]nmates participating in an approved religious fast should not be 11
required to provide a urine sample during fasting periods since 12
consumptionofwatermaybenecessary.Samplerequestsshouldbe 13
scheduled during other periods of the day and normal urinalysis 14
testingproceduresshouldthenapply,includingofferingwatertothose 15
inmatesunabletoprovideaurinesample. 16
17
AppelleesdidnotnotifyeitherthedistrictcourtorHollandthatthisnotehadbeen 18
added. 19
OnJune18,2013,thedistrictcourtgrantedAppelleesmotionforsummary 20
judgmentanddeniedHollandscrossmotion.Initsdecision,thedistrictcourtheld 21
9
that the order to provide a urine sample placed only a de minimis burden on 1
Hollandsreligiousexercise,defeatingHollandsFirstAmendmentfreeexerciseand 2
RLUIPAclaims.Holland,2013WL3148324,at*12.Inreachingthatconclusion,the 3
courtcreditedHollandsimamstestimonythatHollandcouldhavefastedforone 4
additionaldaytoatonefortakingadrinkofwatertoaidcompliancewiththeorder. 5
Id. In addition, the district court held that Appellees were entitled to qualified 6
immunityfromHollandsfreeexerciseclaimsbecausetherighttoanexceptionfrom 7
Directive4937hadnotbeenclearlyestablishedinNovember2003.Id.at*810.The 8
courtalsonotedthatRLUIPAdidnotsupportHollandsclaimformoneydamages. 9
Id.at*7.Finally,thedistrictcourtconcludedthatHollandlackedaprotectedliberty 10
interestinremainingfreefromkeeplock,precludinghisdueprocessclaim,andthat 11
Holland had not drawn a causal connection between his religious exercise and 12
Appelleesdisciplinaryaction,precludingtheFirstAmendmentretaliationclaim. 13
Id.at*56,*1314.Hollandappealed. 14
DISCUSSION 15
Wereviewadistrictcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentdenovo,construing 16
allfactsinfavorofthenonmovingparty.SeeJeffreysv.CityofNewYork,426F.3d 17
10
549, 553 (2d Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is proper only when there is no 1
genuinedisputeastoanymaterialfactandthemovantisentitledtojudgmentasa 2
matteroflaw.Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a);seeJeffreys,426F.3dat553. 3
A.FirstAmendmentFreeExerciseClaim 4
IthasnotbeendecidedinthisCircuitwhether,tostateaclaimundertheFirst 5
AmendmentsFreeExerciseClause,aprisonermustshowatthethresholdthatthe 6
disputed conduct substantially burdens his sincerely held religious beliefs. 7
Salahuddinv.Goord,467F.3d263,27475(2dCir.2006);seeFordv.McGinnis,352F.3d 8
582, 592 (2d Cir. 2003) (assuming without deciding that substantial burden 9
requirementapplies).Hollandchallengesthecontinuedviabilityofthesubstantial 10
burdentestinlightoftheSupremeCourtsstatementinEmploymentDivisionv. 11
Smiththatapplicationofthetestembroilscourtsintheunacceptablebusinessof 12
evaluatingtherelativemeritsofdifferingreligiousclaims.Ford,352F.3dat592 13
(quoting Empt Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 887 (1990)) (internal quotation marks 14
omitted);seealsoWilliamsv.Morton,343F.3d212,217(3dCir.2003)(decliningto 15
applythesubstantialburdentesttoa1983claimregardingtheavailabilityofmeals 16
conformingtoreligiousdictatesinprison).However,weneednotdecidetheissue 17
11
here,asevenassumingthecontinuedvitalityofthesubstantialburdenrequirement, 1
our precedent squarely dictates that Hollands religious exercise was 2
unconstitutionallyburdenedapoint,moreover,thatAppelleesdonotconteston 3
appeal.SeeSalahuddin,467F.3dat275n.5(decliningtoaddresscontinuedviability 4
of substantial burden test when the defendants failed to argue that the inmates 5
burdenedreligiouspracticewasperipheralortangentialto[his]religion);seealso 6
Jollyv.Coughlin,76F.3d468,477(2dCir.1996)(notingthatasubstantialburden 7
exists when the state puts substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his 8
behavior and to violate his beliefs (internal quotation marks and alterations 9
omitted)). 10
Inoneofseveralcasesconcerningthisissue,weheldinFordv.McGinnisthat 11
aMusliminmatesfreeexerciserightswouldbesubstantiallyburdenedifprison 12
officialsdeniedhisrequestforamealtocelebratetheEidulFitrfeast.352F.3dat 13
59394.Thoughaquestionoffactremainedastowhetherthemealhad,infact,been 14
denied,invacatingsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendants,weemphasized 15
both that the inmate had credibly claimed that the meal was critical to his 16
observanceasapracticingMuslimandthatinmateshaveaclearlyestablished 17
12
righttoadietconsistentwith[their]religiousscruples.Id.at594,597(internal 1
quotationmarksomitted).Then,inMcEachinv.McGuinnis,wecitedthislanguage 2
toholdthataninmatestatedafreeexerciseclaimbasedonhisassertionthatprison 3
officialshaddeniedhimproperlyblessedfoodtobreakhisfastsduringRamadan. 4
357 F.3d 197, 20103 (2d Cir. 2004). Though the Court declined to address the 5
substantialburdenstandardonamotiontodismiss,weemphasizedthatcourts 6
havegenerallyfoundthattodenyprisoninmatestheprovisionoffoodthatsatisfies 7
thedictatesoftheirfaithdoesunconstitutionallyburdentheirfreeexerciserights, 8
notingthatthisCourthadrecognizedsuchaprinciplesinceatleastasearlyas 9
1975. Id. at 203 (citing Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1975) 10
(determiningthatOrthodoxJewishinmatehadrighttoprovisionofkoshermeals)). 11
Finally,inJollyv.Coughlin,weheldthatforcinganinmatetochoosebetweenhis 12
religiousbeliefswhichforbadethemedicaltestingprisonofficialsattemptedto 13
imposeuponhimorconfinementinkeeplockitselfconstitute[d]asubstantial 14
burden.76F.3dat477. 15
Taken together, these cases clearly support the conclusion that ordering 16
Hollandtoprovideaurinesampleanddrinkwaterinviolationofhisfastorface 17
13
confinementinkeeplocksubstantiallyburdenedHollandsfreeexerciseright.First, 1
itisundisputedthatHollandisapracticingMuslimandthatfastinginobservance 2
ofRamadanisacoretenetofhisfaith.SeeHolland,2013WL3148324,at*11.Thus, 3
therecanbenodebatethatdirectlyorderingHollandtodrinkwaterinviolationof 4
hisfastwouldsubstantiallyburdenhisfreeexerciserights.AswestatedinFordand 5
reiterated in McEachin, inmates have a clearly established right to a diet 6
consistentwiththeirreligiousscruples.SeeMcEachin,357F.3dat203(quoting 7
Ford,352F.3dat597)(bracketsomitted).Thedifferencebetweenthedenialofameal 8
andtheimpositionofadrinkisofnoconstitutionalsignificance.Seeid.at20405 9
(stating,inlightoftheinmatesclaimthatanofficerdeliberatelyorderedhimtoact 10
incontraventionofhisbeliefs,that[p]recedentsuggeststhatinmateshavearight 11
not to be disciplined for refusing to perform tasks that violate their religious 12
beliefs).Bycontrast,thedistrictcourtsconclusionthattheordertoprovideaurine 13
sampleplacedonlyademinimisburdenonHollandsfreeexercisebecausehe 14
couldmakeupaprematuredrinkofwaterwithoneextradayoffasting,see 15
Holland,2013WL3148324,at*1112(quotingHollandsandhisimamstestimony), 16
findsnosupportinourcaselaw.WhilethisCourthassuggestedthat[t]heremay 17
14
beinconveniencessotrivialthattheyaremostproperlyignored,McEachin,357 1
F.3dat203n.6,theuncontradictedevidencesubmittedbyHollandthatbreakinghis 2
fastpriortosunsetwouldhavebeenagravesinregardlesswhetheratonement 3
waspossiblepreventedsuchaconclusioninthiscase. 4
The closer question identified but not determined by the district court is 5
whether,inthedistrictcourtswords,anissueastocausationbarredHollands 6
claim.SeeHolland,2013WL3148324,at*10.Thatis,whilethedenialofareligious 7
mealplainlyburdenstheinmatesrighttoeatthatmeal,asinFordandMcEachin,it 8
isnotselfevidentthataninmatesinabilityorrefusaltoprovideaurinesample 9
followedfromhisfastrelatedforbearancefromdrinkingwater.However,nosuch 10
question of fact exists in this case. Holland explained to Schoellkopf at his 11
disciplinaryhearingthathehadnotcompliedwiththeorderbecausehewasfasting 12
duringRamadanand,asaresult,wasnotabletogotothebathroomdueto[his] 13
notbeingabletodrinkanywater.And,inhisdeposition,Schoellkopfstatedthat 14
hebelievedHollandsstatement,thoughhenonethelesssentencedhimto90days 15
inkeeplockbecausetherewasnoexceptiontotheDOCSrule. 16
If Appellees were able to counter these facts, they have failed to do so. 17
15
Instead,AppelleesarguedbroadlybelowthatHollandcouldnotestablishalink 1
betweenhisfastandfailuretocomplywiththeorder,whileneglectingtociterecord 2
evidencecounteringtheforegoingmaterial.See,e.g.,Mem.inSupportofSummary 3
Judgment,Hollandv.Goord,No.05Civ.6295,Doc.No.75,at19(W.D.N.Y.June16, 4
2010)(Itiscommonknowledgethatpeoplethatdonoteatordrinkforadayare 5
stillabletoproduceurine.).Butnosuchargumenthasbeenadvancedonappeal. 6
Thus, it is now uncontested that Holland, a practicing Muslim, was unable to 7
complywiththeordertoprovideaurinesamplewithinthreehoursbecausehewas 8
fastinginobservanceofRamadan.WhileAppelleespermittedHollandachoice 9
between prematurely breaking his fast or facing confinement in keeplock, that 10
choice as has been clearly established by our precedent for decades placed a 11
substantialburdenonthefreeexerciseofhisreligion.SeeJolly,76F.3dat477. 12
Of course, this conclusion does not end the inquiry into Hollands First 13
Amendmentfreeexerciseclaim.Giventhedifficultjudgmentsattendanttoprison 14
operation,Turnerv.Safley,482U.S.78,89(1987),agenerallyapplicablepolicy 15
even one that burdens an inmates free exercise will not be held to violate a 16
plaintiffs right to free exercise of religion if that policy is reasonably related to 17
16
legitimatepenologicalinterests,Reddv.Wright,597F.3d532,536(2dCir.2010) 1
(quoting OLone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349 (1987)). To make this 2
determination,acourtmustconsider: 3
whetherthechallengedregulationorofficialactionhasavalid,rational 4
connectiontoalegitimategovernmentalobjective;whetherprisoners 5
havealternativemeansofexercisingtheburdenedright;theimpacton 6
guards,inmates,andprisonresourcesofaccommodatingtheright;and 7
theexistenceofalternativemeansoffacilitatingexerciseoftheright 8
that have only a de minimis adverse effect on valid penological 9
interests. 10
11
Salahuddin,467F.3dat274(footnoteomitted)(citingTurner,482U.S.at9091).Zons 12
determination that the urinalysis could have been conducted after sunset and 13
DOCSssubsequentamendmentofDirective4937(nottomentionAppelleesfailure 14
to address these points on appeal) give us pause as to whether Appellees can 15
demonstrateavalidpenologicalinterestpursuanttothisstandard.Nevertheless, 16
becausethedistrictcourtdidnotreachthisquestionbelow,wedeclinetoaddress 17
itforthefirsttimeonappeal.SeeDardanaLtd.v.Yuganskneftegaz,317F.3d202,208 18
(2dCir.2003)(ItisthisCourtsusualpracticetoallowthedistrictcourttoaddress 19
argumentsinthefirstinstance.). 20
Inaddition,wedeclinetoaddressinthefirstinstancetheissueofqualified 21
17
immunityasregardsthestatespenologicalinterestinthepreviouspolicy.Toassess 1
adefendantsentitlementtoqualifiedimmunity,acourtmustconsiderboththe 2
clarity of the law establishing the right allegedly violated as well as whether a 3
reasonableperson,actingunderthecircumstancesthenconfrontingadefendant, 4
wouldhaveunderstoodthathisactionswereunlawful.Hanrahanv.Doling,331 5
F.3d 93, 98 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). The 6
districtcourtruledthatithadnotbeenclearlyestablishedatthetimeoftheorder 7
that Directive # 4937, or a substantially equivalent policy, placed a substantial 8
burden on an inmates religious liberty, Holland, 2013 WL 3148324, at *9, a 9
conclusionthatwerejectbyourholdingtoday.SeeFord,352F.3dat597([C]ourts 10
need not have ruled in favor of a prisoner under precisely the same factual 11
circumstanceinorderfor[a]righttobeclearlyestablished.).However,thedistrict 12
court did not address other aspects of Appellees qualified immunity claim, 13
includingthequestionwhetherareasonableofficermighthavebelievedthatthe 14
challengedorderwaslawfulinlightoflegitimatepenalogicalinterestssupporting 15
Directive4937,asitexistedatthetime.Norhasthedistrictcourtexaminedwhether 16
certain Appellees should be dismissed from this suit for a lack of personal 17
18
involvementintheclaimedconstitutionaldeprivations.SeeGrullonv.CityofNew 1
Haven,720F.3d133,138(2dCir.2013).Weleavetheseissuestothedistrictcourtfor 2
considerationonremand. 3
We do not, however, require that the district court assess Hollands 4
entitlement to all of the relief he seeks on remand. In his second amended 5
complaint,Hollandsoughtbothdamagesandinjunctivereliefpursuanttohisfree 6
exerciseclaim.Sincethefilingofthatcomplaint,DOCShasamendedDirective4937 7
to include the express protection for inmates fasting during Ramadan that 8
Hollands complaint seeks. While a defendants voluntary cessation of a 9
challengedpracticedoesnotdepriveafederalcourtofitspowertodeterminethe 10
legality of the practice, it is nonetheless an important factor bearing on the 11
question whether a court should exercise its power to entertain a request for 12
injunctivereliefordeclareitmoot.CityofMesquitev.AladdinsCastle,Inc.,455U.S. 13
283, 289 (1982). Of course, a defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance 14
mootsacasebearstheformidableburdenofshowingthatitisabsolutelyclearthe 15
allegedlywrongfulbehaviorcouldnotreasonablybeexpectedtorecur.Already, 16
LLCv.Nike,Inc.,133S.Ct.721,727(2013)(internalquotationmarksomitted). 17
19
WeconcludethatAppelleeshavesatisfiedthatburdenhere.First,DOCShas 1
amended Directive 4937 specifically to prohibit the conduct of which Holland 2
complains, an act meriting some deference. See Harrison & Burrowes Bridge 3
Constructors, Inc. v. Cuomo, 981 F.2d 50, 59 (2d Cir. 1992) (dismissing as moot an 4
appeal concerning a minority setaside program after the state administratively 5
suspendedtheprogram,inpart,because[s]omedeferencemustbeaccordedtoa 6
states representations that certain conduct has been discontinued); see also 7
Massachusettsv.Oakes,491U.S.576,582(1989)(deemingoverbreadthchallengemoot 8
due to the states amendment of the challenged statute). Moreover, Holland 9
succeededinhisadministrativeappealelicitingadeterminationfromZonthat 10
Hollandshouldhavebeenpermittedtoprovideaurinesampleaftersunsetinlight 11
ofhisreligiousfastandAppelleeshaveabandonedonappealtheirargumentthat 12
theconductatissuewasconstitutional.Cf.Nike,133S.Ct.at728(Whereaparty 13
assumesacertainpositioninalegalproceeding,andsucceedsinmaintainingthat 14
position,hemaynotthereafter,simplybecausehisinterestshavechanged,assume 15
a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has 16
acquiescedinthepositionformerlytakenbyhim.(quotingDavisv.Wakelee,156 17
20
U.S.680,689(1895)(internalquotationmarksandbracketsomitted)).Giventhese 1
circumstances(aswellasthefurtherassuranceprovidedbyourdecisiontoday)we 2
deem it clear that the allegedly wrongful policy is not likely to be reinstated. 3
Accordingly,wedismissasmootHollandsrequestforinjunctivereliefpursuantto 4
hisFirstAmendmentfreeexerciseclaim,andremandonlyhisrequestfordamages. 5
B.RLUIPAClaim 6
RLUIPAprovidesamorestringentstandardthandoestheFirstAmendment, 7
barringthegovernmentfromimposingasubstantialburdenonaprisonersfree 8
exercise unless the challenged conduct or regulation further[s] a compelling 9
governmentalinterestand[is]theleastrestrictivemeansoffurtheringthatinterest. 10
Redd,597F.3dat536(citingRLUIPA,42U.S.C.2000cc1(a)).Undertheforegoing 11
analysis, Holland would likely prevail on the substance of his RLUIPA claim. 12
Nevertheless,Hollandisnotentitledtoeitherdamagesorinjunctivereliefunderthe 13
statute. First, as the district court held below and Holland concedes on appeal, 14
RLUIPAdoesnotauthorizeclaimsformonetarydamagesagainststateofficersin 15
eithertheirofficialorindividualcapacities.SeeWashingtonv.Gonyea,731F.3d143, 16
14546 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citing Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651, 1663 17
21
(2011)).Thus,HollandsclaimfordamagesagainstAppelleesisbarred.Second,we 1
deemHollandsclaimforinjunctivereliefunderRLUIPAmootforthesamereasons 2
discussedaboveregardingtheinjunctivereliefrequestedaspartofhisfreeexercise 3
claim. Thus, we affirm the district courts judgment in favor of Appellees on 4
HollandsRLUIPAclaims. 5
C.FourteenthAmendmentDueProcessClaim 6
Ordinarily,aninmatefacingdisciplinaryproceedingsshouldbeallowedto 7
callwitnessesandpresentdocumentaryevidenceinhisdefensewhenpermitting 8
himtodosowillnotbeundulyhazardoustoinstitutionalsafetyorcorrectional 9
goals.Wolffv.McDonnell,418U.S.539,566(1974).Therighttocallwitnessesis 10
limitedintheprisoncontext,however,bythepenologicalneedtoprovideswift 11
disciplineinindividualcasesandbytheveryrealdangersinprisonlifewhich 12
mayresultfromviolenceorintimidationdirectedateitherotherinmatesorstaff. 13
Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491, 495 (1985). Thus, [p]rison officials must have the 14
necessarydiscretiontokeepthehearingwithinreasonablelimitsandtorefusetocall 15
witnessesthatmaycreateariskofreprisalorundermineauthority,aswellasto 16
limitaccesstootherinmatestocollectstatementsortocompileotherdocumentary 17
22
evidence.Id.at496(quotingWolff,418U.S.at566).CitingPonte,wehavestated 1
that[t]heSupremeCourt...hassuggestedthataprisonersrequestforawitness 2
canbedeniedonthebasisofirrelevanceorlackofnecessity.Kingsleyv.Bureauof 3
Prisons,937F.2d26,3031(2dCir.1991)(citingPonte,471U.S.at496).Therefusal 4
to call witnesses whose testimony would be redundant is not a violation of any 5
establisheddueprocessright.SeeRussellv.Selsky,35F.3d55,5859(2dCir.1994) 6
(holding that a prison hearing officer did not violate any clearly established 7
constitutionalorstatutoryrightforrefusingtocallinmatessuggestedwitnesses, 8
whowouldhavegivenduplicativeornonprobativetestimony). 9
Hollandsoughttocallhisimamasawitnessathisdisciplinaryhearingto 10
establishthat,asapracticingMuslim,Hollandwasunabletodrinkwateratthetime 11
hewasorderedtoprovideaurinesample.However,Hollandhadalreadytestified 12
tothisfactandSchoellkopfdidnotdiscredithisstatement.Instead,Schoellkopf 13
determinedthattherewerenoreligiousexceptionssuchasRamadantoexcuse 14
HollandsnoncompliancewithDirective4937.BecauseHollandsimamwouldhave 15
corroboratedanestablishedfact,andanyadditionaltestimonythathemighthave 16
givendidnotgotothebasisofSchoellkopfsdecision,Schoellkopfdidnoterrin 17
23
characterizing the imams proposed testimony as unnecessary and redundant. 1
WhileHollandassertsthatheshouldhavenonethelessbeenpermittedtocallhis 2
imambecausetherewasnoriskthathisfiveminutedisciplinaryhearingwould 3
dragonadinfinitum,Russell,35F.3dat59,thisCourthasneverannouncedsuch 4
a limitation on prison officials discretion. Accordingly, we conclude that 5
SchoellkopfactedwithinhisdiscretionwhenherefusedtocallHollandsimamas 6
awitness,andweaffirmtheentryofjudgmentinAppelleesfavoronthisclaim.
3
7
D.FirstAmendmentRetaliationClaim 8
ToprevailonaFirstAmendmentretaliationclaim,aninmatemustestablish 9
(1)thatthespeechorconductatissuewasprotected,(2)thatthedefendanttook 10
adverse action against the plaintiff, and (3) that there was a causal connection 11
betweentheprotected[conduct]andtheadverseaction.Espinalv.Goord,558F.3d 12
119, 128 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). An inmate bears the 13
burden of showing that the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating 14
factorintheprisonofficialsdisciplinarydecision.Grahamv.Henderson,89F.3d75, 15
3
WhiletheDirectorofSpecialHousing/InmateDisciplinereversedHollandskeeplock
sentenceontheproceduralgroundthatSchoellkopfhaderredinfailingtocalltheimam,
asourearlierdiscussionindicates,thatkeeplockreversalwascorrectonthemerits.
24
79(2dCir.1996).Thedefendantofficialthenbearstheburdenofestablishingthat 1
the disciplinary action would have occurred even absent the retaliatory 2
motivation,whichhemaysatisfybyshowingthattheinmatecommittedthe... 3
prohibitedconductchargedinthemisbehaviorreport.Gaylev.Gonyea,313F.3d 4
677,682(2dCir.2002)(internalquotationmarksomitted). 5
HollandhasnotprofferedanyevidencesupportinghisclaimthatAppellees 6
took disciplinary action against him because of his religion. While Hollands 7
religiousobservationcausedhimtodeclinetoprovideaurinesample,whichinturn 8
promptedthedisciplinaryaction,Hollandcitesnocaselawholdingthatsuchan 9
attenuatedlinkcanconstituteasubstantialormotivatingfactorforretaliation. 10
Nor has Holland rebutted Appellees evidence that they would not have acted 11
differentlyifhehaddeclinedtocomplyforreasonsotherthanreligion,giventhat 12
Directive 4937 did not permit exceptions for religious exercise at the time of the 13
order. Though Holland notes that other exceptions to the Directive had been 14
permitted,thoseexceptionswenttoinmateswithamedicallyrecognizedinability 15
toprovideasample,suchasinmatesondialysis.Hollandcitesnootherexceptions 16
to support his otherwise conclusory assertion that Appellees disciplined him 17
25
becauseofhisreligion.Thus,thedistrictcourtsjudgmentinfavorofAppelleeson 1
thisclaimisaffirmed. 2
CONCLUSION 3
Fortheforegoingreasons,wevacatethejudgmentonHollandsfreeexercise 4
claimandremandforfurtherproceedingsastothisclaim,totheextentthatHolland 5
seeksdamages.WeaffirmthejudgmentinfavorofAppelleesonHollandsRLUIPA 6
claim,hisFourteenthAmendmentclaim,hisFirstAmendmentretaliationclaim,and 7
hisfreeexerciseclaimforaninjunction.Therefore,thejudgmentofthedistrictcourt 8
enteredJune18,2013,isVACATEDANDREMANDEDINPARTANDAFFIRMEDINPART. 9
10
26