Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03352/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03352-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 7, 2016*

Decided September 12, 2016

Before

         DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

         RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

         FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

No. 15‐3352

MATTHEW T. CULLEN,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

MICHELLE R.B. SADDLER, et al.,   

       Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 12‐1032

Sue E. Myerscough,

Judge.

O R D E R

Matthew Cullen brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that when he

was incarcerated prison officials violated his First Amendment rights by requiring him

to participate in a religious substance‐abuse program. The district court granted

summary judgment for Cullen and ordered the individual defendants to pay $350 in

damages—the amount that Cullen had sought in his complaint. On appeal Cullen

argues that the district court erred in dismissing claims against two state agencies,

                                                 

* We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without oral argument because

the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral

argument would not significantly aid the court. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 15-3352 Document: 29 Filed: 09/12/2016 Pages: 5
No. 15‐3352    Page 2

denying his claim for injunctive relief, and awarding him only $350. We affirm because

agencies are not “persons” under § 1983; Cullen, no longer in prison, lacks standing to

enjoin the prison’s program; and Cullen waited too long to enlarge his damages

request.

Cullen pleaded guilty in October 2009 to aggravated driving under the influence

of alcohol, and he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Prison officials told

Cullen that he could earn up to six months of discretionary good‐time credit by

participating in a substance‐abuse treatment program. Cullen wanted to participate in a

treatment program (and have a shot at getting the good‐time credits), but he balked

once he learned that the only available program was based on the 12‐step approach

used by Alcoholics Anonymous. Cullen, who is agnostic, believes that this 12‐step

program burdens non‐theists by requiring them to recognize the existence of a

“higher power.” Despite his reservations, Cullen enrolled in the course and completed

it in May 2010. He didn’t receive any credit for doing so, however, because prison

officials suspended the practice of awarding discretionary good‐time credit before

Cullen finished treatment. He was released from prison in January 2011.

A year later Cullen sued the Illinois Department of Corrections, the Illinois

Department of Human Services, administrators of those agencies, and prison staff.

He contends that the defendants violated his First Amendment rights by requiring him

to choose between forfeiting potential good‐time credit and participating in religiously

based substance‐abuse treatment. Cullen asked the district court to award him $350 in

damages and to enjoin the agencies from promoting any substance‐abuse treatment

programs based on the teachings of Alcoholics Anonymous.   

The district court evaluated the legal sufficiency of these claims. It dismissed

Cullen’s claims against the state agencies because they were not “persons” subject to

suit under § 1983 and sovereign immunity barred the claims. The district court also

concluded that Cullen lacked standing for injunctive relief because he no longer was

required to participate in any objectionable treatment, and taxpayer standing did not

apply. But Cullen’s claims for $350 in damages against the defendants sued in their

individual capacities went forward.

After discovery closed the parties cross‐moved for summary judgment, and the

district court proceeded in two phases. First, on liability, the district court ruled for

Cullen. It reasoned that his claims were indistinguishable from those brought by the

prisoner in Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472, 479–80 (7th Cir. 1996). In Kerr, we concluded that

Case: 15-3352 Document: 29 Filed: 09/12/2016 Pages: 5
No. 15‐3352    Page 3

prison officials violated an inmate’s First Amendment rights by requiring him to attend

Narcotics Anonymous meetings or risk adverse consequence to his security

classification and parole eligibility. Id. Second, the district court considered damages.

The defendants argued that, because Cullen had stated in his amended complaint and

in five separate interrogatory responses that he sought only $350 in compensatory

damages, damages were limited to that amount. Cullen replied, for the first time, that

his relief should include punitive damages of over $2 million. The district court ruled

that Cullen had introduced no evidence to justify more than $350 in compensatory

damages and that granting his belated request to seek punitive damages would unfairly

prejudice the defendants. The court awarded Cullen $350 in compensatory damages

plus costs. No defendant has cross‐appealed from that award.

In this court Cullen first challenges the district court’s conclusion that the two

agencies are entitled to sovereign immunity. But, as the district court properly

observed, these state agencies are not “persons” amenable to suit under § 1983. See Will

v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586, 592

(7th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 321 (2015); Fairley v. Fermaint, 482 F.3d 897, 904 (7th Cir.

2006). It would therefore be inappropriate for us to decide “whether the Constitution

would prevent litigation that Congress has not authorized in the first place.” See Holton

v. Indiana Horse Racing Commʹn, 398 F.3d 928, 929 (7th Cir. 2005).

Next Cullen challenges the district court’s conclusion that he lacks standing to

pursue claims for injunctive relief. He argues that—despite his release from prison—

officials at the Department of Human Services may cause him an “ongoing injury”

based on the following scenario: If he applies for restricted driving privileges, one of the

Department’s providers of substance‐abuse treatment may evaluate him; the provider

may recommend treatment; and Cullen may seek treatment but may not find any

secular providers nearby. To prevent this injury, Cullen argues, the department must

require that “each and every” provider it licenses offer a secular program. But Cullen’s

fear of injury is too hypothetical to establish the immediate risk of future harm required

for standing. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101–02 (1983); Hummel v.

St. Joseph Cnty. Bd. of Commʹrs, 817 F.3d 1010, 1016 (7th Cir. 2016). Cullen hasn’t yet

applied for restricted driving privileges, and if he does in the future it is far from certain

that he’ll be ordered to participate in any substance abuse treatment, much less

treatment that he finds objectionable.

Cullen also argues that as an Illinois taxpayer he has standing to seek an

injunction. In rejecting that argument, the district court relied on Hein v. Freedom from

Case: 15-3352 Document: 29 Filed: 09/12/2016 Pages: 5
No. 15‐3352    Page 4

Religion Foundation, Inc., which held that taxpayers lack standing to challenge a

discretionary decision by the executive branch to use its general‐purpose appropriated

funds to promote religion. 551 U.S. 587, 602–08 (2007) (Alito, J., plurality opinion);

see Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Nicholson, 536 F.3d 730, 738 n.11 (7th Cir. 2008)

(noting that we regard Justice Alito’s opinion in Hein as controlling). Cullen argues that

Hein was wrongly decided, but we are not at liberty to disregard Supreme Court

precedents, and we are not inclined to revisit our cases interpreting Hein. Because no

legislation mandates that the agencies promote religion in treatment programs, the

district court correctly concluded that Cullen lacked taxpayer standing to challenge the

agencies’ actions. See Sherman v. Illinois, 682 F.3d 643, 644–47 (7th Cir. 2012) (concluding

that taxpayer lacked standing to challenge the discretionary grant of funds from a state

executive agency to a non‐profit group seeking to restore a religious display); Nicholson,

536 F.3d at 735, 743–45 (holding that taxpayer lacked standing to challenge federal

agency’s discretionary expenditure that funded religious mental‐health and

substance‐abuse treatment programs).

Finally, Cullen faults the district court for awarding him only $350 in damages.

District courts generally should “grant the relief to which each party is entitled, even if

the party has not demanded that relief in its pleadings,” see FED. R. CIV. P. 54(c), but

they shouldn’t award a plaintiff more relief than he’s requested when doing so would

unfairly prejudice the defendants. See Albemarie Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 424

(1975); Felce v. Fiedler, 974 F.2d 1484, 1501 (7th Cir. 1992). “In particular, a substantial

increase in the defendant’s potential ultimate liability can constitute specific prejudice

barring additional relief under Rule 54(c).” Kaszuk v. Bakery & Confectionery Union &

Indus. Int’l Pension Fund, 791 F.2d 548, 559 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting Atl. Purchasers, Inc. v.

Aircraft Sales, Inc., 705 F.2d 712, 716–17 (4th Cir. 1983)). That has occurred here: Cullen

pleaded in his amended complaint and swore under oath in five separate interrogatory

responses that he sought only $350 in compensatory damages. Only after the parties had

completed discovery, litigating this suit as a low‐stakes dispute, and the district court

had ruled against the defendants on liability did Cullen seek over $2 million in punitive

damages—a more than 5,000‐fold increase in requested relief. Because this belated,

proposed amendment would have radically transformed the case, and Cullen offered

no good reason for his delay, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to

allow it. See Winters v. Fru‐Con, Inc., 498 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 2007) (affirming denial of

belated request to seek punitive damages that would affect “discovery and trial

strategy”); Freeman v. Busch, 349 F.3d 582, 589 (8th Cir. 2003) (same result when plaintiff

offered no good cause for belated request); cf. Atl. Purchasers, Inc., 705 F.2d at 716–17

Case: 15-3352 Document: 29 Filed: 09/12/2016 Pages: 5
No. 15‐3352    Page 5

(recognizing that defendant would be unfairly prejudiced if plaintiff were allowed to

amend complaint after verdict to seek treble damages).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-3352 Document: 29 Filed: 09/12/2016 Pages: 5