Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02387/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02387-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010.

 United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2387

___________

James Munson, * 

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; Ray Hobbs, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Assistant Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; P. Smith, *

R.S.V.P. Counselor, Tucker Unit, *

ADC; David White, Warden, Tucker *

Unit, ADC; Max Mobley, Director, *

R.S.V.P. Programs, Tucker Unit, *

ADC; Roy Dunlap, R.S.V.P *

Coordinator, Arkansas Department of *

Correction; Stephen Clark, Dr., *

Tucker Unit, ADC (originally sued as *

Clark), *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 11, 2010

Filed: May 3, 2010

___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge,1

 SMITH and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 08-2387 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2010 Entry ID: 3660573
2

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

3

In Munson II, we were reviewing the district court’s grant of the ADC’s

motion to dismiss and were required to take all the facts alleged in Munson’s

-2-

In this case, before us for a third time, James Munson appeals an adverse jury

finding that he was not coerced by the appellees, officers and employees of the

Arkansas Department of Corrections (“ADC”), to recite a prayer. Based on the jury’s

verdict, the district court2

 concluded that the appellees had not violated the

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

As we have explained the facts and history of Munson’s prior proceedings in

our earlier opinions, we need not recite them in detail here. See Munson v. Norris

(Munson I), 67 F. App’x 383 (8th Cir. 2003) (unpublished per curiam); Munson v.

Norris (Munson II), 435 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). In brief, this case

arises from an ADC parole condition which required Munson to attend a treatment

program, the Reduction of Sexual Victimization Program (“RSVP”), for inmates who

exhibited sexual deviancy. The RSVP included weekly meetings that followed “The

Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous Adapted for Sexual Addicts” in their

discussions. While enrolled in the RSVP, Munson refused to recite the serenity prayer

at the conclusion of the group meetings. Munson was eventually terminated from the

program and filed suit, alleging, among other claims, a violation of the Establishment

Clause. 

In Munson II we remanded, holding that the district court had “wrongly

analyzed the First Amendment claim under the Free Exercise Clause instead of the

Establishment Clause” and instructing the district court to “decide whether requiring

Mr. Munson at the RSVP meetings to recite the serenity prayer was in violation of the

Establishment Clause.”3

 435 F.3d at 880-81 (citing Warner v. Orange County Dep’t

Appellate Case: 08-2387 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2010 Entry ID: 3660573
complaint as true. See Zoltek Corp. v. Structural Polymer Group, 592 F.3d 893, 895

(8th Cir. 2010). Therefore, the determination of whether Munson was required to

recite the prayer remained a question of fact for resolution in later proceedings. 

-3-

of Prob., 115 F.3d 1068, 1074-76 (2d Cir. 1996); Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472, 476-80

(7th Cir. 1996); Griffin v. Coughlin, 673 N.E.2d 98, 101-05 (N.Y. 1996)).

On remand, the district court instructed the jury to find that Munson had been

coerced to recite the serenity prayer, in violation of Munson’s Establishment Clause

rights, if the following was proven by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the ADC

required RSVP participants to recite the serenity prayer; (2) the ADC required

Munson to recite the serenity prayer; (3) the ADC punished or threatened to punish

Munson for refusing to recite the serenity prayer; and (4) Munson was damaged as a

result. Munson’s counsel did not object to these instructions, proffer any additional

instructions, or argue that the district court had not complied with our mandate in

Munson II. 

The issue now before us is whether the district court’s instruction to the jury

complied with our mandate and direction in Munson II. Munson claims that whether

the district court complied with our mandate is a question of law, subject to de novo

review. However, Munson’s failure to raise an objection to this instruction at trial

“results in a waiver of that objection, absent a showing of plain error.” Niemiec v.

Union Pac. R.R., 449 F.3d 854, 857-58 (8th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added).

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] court may consider a plain

error in the instructions that has not been preserved [by a proper objection under Rule

Appellate Case: 08-2387 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/03/2010 Entry ID: 3660573
4

“A party may assign as error: [1] an error in an instruction actually given, if

that party properly objected; or [2] a failure to give an instruction, if that party

properly requested it and—unless the court rejected the request in a definitive ruling

on the record—also properly objected.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1).

5

“Many circuits have recognized that an error not preserved under Rule 51 may

be reviewed in exceptional circumstances. The language adopted to capture these

decisions in subdivision (d)(2) is borrowed from Criminal Rule 52. Although the

language is the same, the context of civil litigation often differs from the context of

criminal prosecution; actual application of the plain-error standard takes account of

the differences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d) advisory committee’s note; see United States

v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 (1936) (“In exceptional circumstances, especially in

criminal cases, appellate courts, in the public interest, may, of their own motion,

notice errors to which no exception has been taken, if the errors are obvious, or if they

otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial

proceedings.” (emphasis added)). 

6

Munson also argues that this court should “decide as a matter of law that the

RSVP program violates the Establishment Clause.” (Appellant Br. 37.) This court

has yet to decide an Establishment Clause case involving facts such as these—where

-4-

51(d)(1)4] if the error affects substantial rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(2).5 “Plain

error is a stringently limited standard of review, especially in the civil context, and

must result in a miscarriage of justice in order to compel reversal.” Niemiec, 449 F.3d

at 858 (quotation omitted). “‘Plain error review is narrow and confined to the

exceptional case where error has seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of the judicial proceedings,’” BBSerCo, Inc. v. Metrix Co., 324 F.3d 955,

960 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Chem-Trend, Inv. v. Newport Indus., Inc., 279 F.3d 625,

629 (8th Cir. 2002)), and we will “order a new trial only if the error ‘misled the jury

or had a probable effect on its verdict,’” Burry v. Eustis Plumbing & Heating, Inc.,

243 F.3d 432, 434 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Berkley

& Co., 620 F.2d 1247, 1257 (8th Cir. 1980)); see also Brown v. Frey, 889 F.2d 159,

169-70 (8th Cir. 1989) (finding plain error in a jury instruction where “the instruction

allowed the jury to find a constitutional violation based wholly upon conduct which

could not possibly violate the Constitution”).6

Appellate Case: 08-2387 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/03/2010 Entry ID: 3660573
a prisoner alleges Establishment Clause violations based on a parole condition

requiring attendance in a program modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous. However,

our mandate instructed the district court to make this determination, see Munson II,

435 F.3d at 880-81. Therefore, the case at hand only involves the question of whether

the district court adequately complied with our mandate.

-5-

Regarding the first three elements of the district court’s instruction, we

conclude that the district court adequately complied with our mandate because

determinations concerning whether (1) Munson and other RSVP participants were

actually required to recite the prayer and (2) Munson was punished for refusing to

recite the prayer, were necessary to the question of whether Munson’s Establishment

Clause rights were violated. See Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992) (“It is

beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may

not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise . . . .”); see also

Kerr, 95 F.3d at 479 (finding coercion when inmates were “required” to attend a

treatment program and were “subject[ed] to significant penalties” upon refusal).

Moreover, our instruction to the district court in Munson II required a fact

determination regarding whether the ADC actually “required” Munson to recite the

prayer. In explaining the reasoning behind its instruction, the district court stated:

 

I’m essentially relying on the Eighth Circuit opinion here, which says

that “We instruct the district court to decide whether requiring Mr.

Munson to recite the serenity prayer was a violation of the Establishment

Clause.” So I think it ultimately will be my decision based on the

finding of the jury as to whether there was coercion or a violation of the

constitutional rights. But I do think that the jury’s deliberations will turn

on whether he was required to do that. And in the context of this case,

I think the terms [coerced and required] are probably synonymous. I

mean, if he was required to do it and there was a consequence if he

didn’t do it, then he’s been coerced into doing it. I don’t think it is a

question of whether the requirement was reasonable or not. I mean, it’s

a question of was he or was he not required to do it. 

Appellate Case: 08-2387 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/03/2010 Entry ID: 3660573
-6-

(Trial Tr. vol. 2, 258-59.) Under plain error review, we conclude that the district

court’s first three elements of the instruction adequately complied with our mandate.

We are, however, somewhat troubled by the element in the district court’s

instruction which requires a finding that Munson was “damaged.” A plaintiff must

allege some form of injury to have standing for an Establishment Clause claim. See

Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams United for Separation of Church & State, Inc.,

454 U.S. 464, 488 (1982) (finding that “enforcement of the Establishment Clause

[does not demand] special exceptions from the requirement that a plaintiff allege

distinct and palpable injury to himself, that is likely to be redressed if the requested

relief is granted” (quotation omitted)); see also Patel v. United States Bureau of

Prisons, 515 F.3d 807, 817 (8th Cir. 2008) (“Absent an alleged injury, Patel does not

have standing for his Establishment Clause claim.”). Damages are a different legal

concept than injury, and a plaintiff is entitled to damages, whether nominal or

compensatory, only after it is determined that the Establishment Clause has been

violated. See Pelphrey v. Cobb County, 547 F.3d 1263, 1282 (11th Cir. 2008)

(“Nominal damages are appropriate if a plaintiff establishes a violation of a

fundamental constitutional right, even if he cannot prove actual injury sufficient to

entitle him to compensatory damages. This Court has found that nominal damages are

similarly appropriate in the context of a First Amendment violation.” (quotations

omitted)); Bats v. Cobb County, 495 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 1319 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (“[A]

plaintiff who vindicates a right under the Establishment Clause, but does not

demonstrate actual injury, is entitled to an award of nominal damages.”). Therefore,

we find that combining the “damage” element with the other three elements of the

instruction, without providing any definition or explanation for the term, was error.

However, based on Munson’s inaction at the trial court level and his failure to

provide the court with correct jury instructions, we conclude that the district court’s

instruction did not rise to the level of plain error. See Swipies v. Kofka, 419 F.3d 709,

717 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding no plain error); but see Risdal v. Halford, 209 F.3d 1071,

1072 (8th Cir. 2000) (finding plain error when “the trial court was presented with the

Appellate Case: 08-2387 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/03/2010 Entry ID: 3660573
-7-

correct instruction, but for some reason consciously rejected it and substituted an

incorrect version);. In Swipies, we stated:

[T]he amount of [the defendant’s] inaction in this case is too much for us to

brook. To correct the error, we would have to notice sua sponte that the district

court did not act sua sponte to provide a jury instruction that the defendant

should have provided, and then we would have to remedy the problem in the

face of the defendant’s relative indifference to it. We have an adversarial

system of justice, not an inquisitorial one, and to [correct the error despite the

defendant’s inaction] would be to blur the line between the two systems. We

decline to do so.

419 F.3d at 717 (emphasis added). Here, not only did Munson fail to object to the

jury instructions when the district court inquired as to whether he had any additional

or different instructions to proffer, Munson declined, exhibiting his “relative

indifference” to the instruction. See id. Accordingly, despite our finding that the

damage element of the instruction was in error, we cannot say that the fairness,

integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings was seriously offended or that the

alleged error misled the jury or had a probable effect on the verdict. BBSerCo, 324

F.3d at 960. Under plain error review, we conclude that the district court complied

with our mandate in Munson II in its coercion jury instruction.

III.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-2387 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/03/2010 Entry ID: 3660573