Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02753/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02753-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Dewayne Outley, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Paul Penzone, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-02753-PHX-GMS (JFM)

ORDER 

Plaintiff Michael Dewayne Outley, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) brings this pro se civil rights 

action against Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone, Detention Captain Jesse 

Spurgin, and Unknown Vail (collectively “Defendants”) alleging, inter alia, violations of 

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) (Doc. 82). Plaintiff is 

Muslim. He explains that “under Islamic tenets it’s a nudity taboo to be viewed in the nude 

or to bath or shower if others can view you.” (Doc. 82 at 4.) Thus, in Count One of the 

Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that the surveillance cameras in the shower 

areas of Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) jails violate his rights under 

RLUIPA.

Plaintiff, however, is no longer housed in a unit that uses cameras to survey the 

shower areas. Instead, Plaintiff is currently housed in the Special Management Unit 

(“SMU”) where he can shower inside his cell out of view of any cameras. Plaintiff asserts 

that he intends to remain in SMU until he is sentenced, transferred, or released because “at 

Case 2:18-cv-02753-GMS-JFM Document 172 Filed 01/03/20 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

least [in SMU he] can observe [his] religious tenets daily.” (Doc. 82 at 5.) 

Under RLUIPA, a plaintiff cannot sue for monetary damages and may only sue 

defendants in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief. See Oklevueha 

Native Am. Church of Hawaii, Inc. v. Holder, 676 F.3d 829, 840 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding 

that “appropriate relief” provision in Religious Freedom Restoration Act, like RLUIPA, 

“could be read as authorizing only injunctive relief”); see also Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 

277, 285-86 (2011) (holding that “appropriate relief” in RLUIPA was not sufficiently 

specific to abrogate state sovereign immunity with respect to money damages).

Generally, “[o]nce an inmate is removed from the environment in which he is 

subjected to the challenged policy or practice, absent a claim for damages, he no longer 

has a legally cognizable interest in a judicial decision on the merits of his claim.” Jones v. 

Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Alvarez v Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 

1064 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, in light of Plaintiff’s intent to remain in SMU, the Court 

requests that the parties submit additional briefing to address why Plaintiff’s RLUIPA 

claim in Count One of the Second Amended Complaint is not moot. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the parties shall submit simultaneous briefing by

Friday, January 17, 2020 to address whether Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim in Count One of 

the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 82) is moot in light of Plaintiff’s placement in SMU. 

The briefing shall not exceed five pages in length.

Dated this 3rd day of January, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-02753-GMS-JFM Document 172 Filed 01/03/20 Page 2 of 2