A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary16,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT J I M M Y SEA RL ES,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. L . E . B R U C E , W ar den, H ut chi ns on Corr e c t i o n a l Fa c i l i ty ; STEVEN D E C H A N T , D eputyW ar den for K D O C , H ut chi ns on C or r ect i onal Fa c i l i ty ; W I LLI A M CU M M I N G S, D eputySecr et aryof C or r ect i ons for KDO C, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants , and K A R IM K H A L IL G R E E N , C h a p lain forK D O C , H ut chi ns on Co r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i ty ; F NU L NU, U nknow n Secur i t yPer s on,

D efen dan t s. N o. 05- 3031 ( D . C . N o . 0 1 - C V - 3 3 7 9 - J T M)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *B ec au se p lai n ti ff ap p ea rs pro se, w e re v iew h is plead ing s an d o ther p ap ers 1 l i ber al l yand hol d t hem t o a l es s s tr i ngents t andar d than thos e dr aft ed by a tto rn e y s . See Hai nes v. Ker ner , 4 0 4 U .S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 (1 9 7 2 ); Hal lv. B el lm on , 9 3 5 F . 2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 0 & n . 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). T efi l l i n ar e l eatherboxes w i th att ache d l eathers tr aps cont ai ni ng pas s ages 2 fro m the T o rah that are u sed in Je w ish p ray er.

- 2- B efor e O’ BRI EN , HOLL OW AY , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es.

D efen d an ts- A p p ell an ts ap p ea l from the d en ial o f a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ents eeki ng qual i fi ed i m m uni tyand the deni al of a mot i on t o r econs i dert hat ru lin g . F o r th e re a so n s s tate d b e lo w , w e lac k ju risd ictio n a n d d ism iss th e a p p e a l.

I . B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory P l ai nti ff-A pp el l ee Ji m m yS earl es, app eari ng pro se, w as i ncarcerat ed as a 1 s t at e pr i s oneratt he H ut chi ns on C or r ect i onal Faci l i tyi n H ut chi ns on, K ans as , at a l l t i me s r e l e v a n tt o t h e a c t s t h a tfo r m th e b a s i s o f h i s c l a i ms i n t h i s a c t i o n . He fi l ed a c om pl ai ntunder42 U . S. C . § 1983 al l egi ng thatdefe ndant s deni ed hi m t he us e of Tefi l l i n and a meani ngful r el i gi ous obs ervance of the J ew i s h fes t i val of 2 Sukkot h i n 1999 and 2000, bot h i n vi ol at i on of hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtt o fr ee exer ci s e of r el i gi on. D e fe n d a n ts file d a m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s s e rt in g , in tera lia , q u ali fied im m u n ityd u e to lac k o f p erso n al pa rt ici p ati o n an d req u esti n g su m m ary ju d g m e n t o n th e m e ri ts o f p la in tiff ’s c la im s (F ir s t S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t M o tio n ). T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on as t o qual i fi ed i m m uni ty , fi ndi ng thatT he amended compl ai ntw as fi l ed i n M ar ch 2004, near l yfi ve mont hs aft er 3 t he di s t r i ctcour trul ed on the Fi r s tSum m aryJ udgm entM ot i on.

- 3- p la in tiff a d e q u a te ly h a d a lle g e d p e rs o n a l p a rt ic ip a tio n o f e a c h o f th e d e fe n d a n ts . Th e c o u r tg r a n t e d s u mma r yj u d g me n to n th e me r i t s o f a l l o f p l a i n t i ff ’ s c l a i ms exce ptt he deni al of a “ fes t i ve meal ” of a ppl es and honey , s t at i ng that“a factual i s s ue r emai ns conce r ni ng w hetherdefe ndant s pr ovi ded appl es as partof the pl ai nt i ff’ s m eal i n cel ebr at i on of R os h H os hana [ s i c] . ” A pl t . A pp. at37- 38. T he cour tal s o not ed the exi s t ence of a “ l ar geri s s ue, ” namel y , “the author i zat i on for fe stiv e m e a ls w h ile in se g re g a tio n ,” a n d sta ted th a t d e fe n d a n ts “ o ffe r n o ra tio n a le fort he pol i cyof deny i ng i nm at es fes t i ve meal s w hi l e i n s egr egat i on. ” Id . at38. O n t he r ecor d pr ovi ded t o us , i tappea r s thatthe deni al of the fe s t i ve meal w as notr ai s ed i n t he or i gi nal compl ai nt . I ns t ead, i tappea r s i n “C ountI I I ” of pl ai nt i ff’ s amended compl ai nt , appar ent l yi n the al l egat i on thatdefe ndant s deni ed h im a m e a n in g f

u l o b s e rv a n c e o f

R o s h H a s h a n a h in 2 0 0 0 . Id. a t 5 1 . S h o rtly 3 a f ter p lain tiff

filed h is a m e n d e d c o m p lain t, de fe n d a n ts filed a “ su p p lem e n tal” m o tio n fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t in w h ich th e ya rg u e d th a t p lain tiff fa iled to e sta b lish th e ir p e rso n a l p a rticip a tio n in th e d e n ial o f th e fe stiv e m e a l b e c a u se h is cl ai m s w er e mer el yconcl us or yal l egat i ons uns uppor t ed byanyfac t s ( Second Sum m aryJ udgm entM ot i on) . T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed the mot i on, concl udi ng t hatw hetherornotdefe ndant s pr ovi ded pl ai nt i ff w i th a fe s t i ve meal r emai ned a d isp u ted fa c t issu e . T h e c o u rt a lso ru led th a t d e fe n d a n ts’ c itatio n toB e c a u se w e h a v e n o t fo u n d a c o p yo f th is s e c tio n in th e a p p e n d ice s, w e re ly 4 on t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s repr esent at i on of it s content s.

- 4- § 20- 105( I V ) ( A ) of the K ans as D epart m entof I nt ernal M anage m entPol i cyand Pr ocedur e, w hi ch appa r ent l ys t at es thati nm at es i n s egr egat i on s hal l be tr eat ed as near l yas pos s i bl e l i ke anyot heri nm at e i n the gene r al popul at i on of the i ns t i tut i on or fac i l i t y , “does nots et t l e the fa ctual di s put e ati s s ue her e. ” Id. at 4 63. D efen d an ts B ruc e, D eC h an t, an d C u m m ing s (bu t no t G ree n ) (he reina fter, appel l ant s ) t hen fi l ed a thi r d m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , w hi ch w as amended three ti m es (T h ir d S u m m aryJu d g m en t M o ti o n ). T h eyarg u ed that theyare ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t ybeca us e ther e i s no cl ear l yes t abl i s hed r i ghtt o a favor abl e r es ul tfr om t he gr i evanc e pr oces s . T heybas ed thi s ar gum enton the fac tual as s ert i ons s etfor t h i n t he fi nal pr etr i al or der , namel y , t hatdefe ndant G r een de ni ed the fe s t i ve meal and appe l l ant s deni ed pl ai nt i ff’ s gr i evanc es of that d e n ial. T he d i stri ctcou rtden i ed the m oti on , fram i ng plai nti ff’s cl ai m against appel l ant s as a vi ol at i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o have hi s r el i gi ous l ybas ed d ie ta ry re q u ir e m e n ts a c c o m m o d a te d ra th e r t h a n , a s a p p e lla n ts h a d f ra m e d it, a v io latio n o f

h is rig h t to a fa v o ra b le r e su lt fro m th e g rie v a n c e p ro c e ss . C iti n g its ear l i eror derdeny i ng t he Fi r s tSum m aryJ udgm entM ot i on, t he courts t at ed that p lain tiff h a d a lleg e d th a t h e w a s d e n ied a fe stiv e m e a l. T h e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t,- 5-

att he t i m e of the al l eged de ni al , ther e w as a cl ear l yes t abl i s hed cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o acc om m odat i on of r el i gi ous l ybas ed di et aryr equi r ement s , and r ei t er at ed i t s conce r n t hatappel l ant s offe r ed no r at i onal e fora pol i cyof deny i ng fes t i ve m e a ls to in m a te s in s e g re g a tio n . Id . at141- 42. A ppel l ant s fi l ed a mot i on for r econs i der at i on of thator der , w hi ch the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed. I I . D i s cus s i on U ndert he col l at er al or derdoctr i ne, “a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of a c l ai m of q u a lifie d im m u n ity , to th e e x ten t th a t ittu rn s o n a n iss u e o f law , is a n a p p e a lab le

‘ fi nal deci s i on’ w i t hi n t he meani ng of 28 U . S. C . § 1291 not w i ths t andi ng the abs ence of a f

i nal j udgm ent . ” Mitch e ll v. Fo rsy th , 4 7 2 U .S . 5 1 1 , 5 3 0 (1 9 8 5 ). H ow ever , t hi s j ur i s di ct i on i s l i m i t ed t o appea l s chal l engi ng “notw hi ch fa ct s t he p a rties m ig h t b e a b le to p ro v e , b u t, rath e r, w h e th e r o r n o t ce rta in g iv e n fa c ts s how ed a vi ol at i on of ‘ cl ear l yes t abl i s hed’ l aw . ” Johns on v. Jones , 515 U . S. 304, 311 ( 1995) ( quot i ng Mitch e ll , 472 U . S. at528) . A n appel l at e court , t her efor e, gen eral l y“need no tcon si der the co rr ect ness of the pl ai nti ff’s ver si on of the fact s, noreven de t erm i ne w hethert he pl ai nt i ff’ s al l egat i ons actual l ys t at e a c l ai m . ” Mitch e ll , 4 7 2 U .S . a t 5 2 8 . B as ed on Mitch e lland Johns on , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l beca us e appe l l ant s chal l enge the deni al of qual i fi ed i m m uni tyon the fa ct s , nott he l aw . A ppel l ant s do notar gue thatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n rul i ng thatt he deni al o f th e fe stiv e m e a l v io late d p lain tiff ’s c lea rlye sta b lish e d c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t toW e n o te th a t, ev e n if a p p e llan ts h a d ra ise d th is a s a n iss u e , w e w o u ld 5 a ffirm th e o rd e r d e n y in g th e T h ird S u m m a ryJu d g m e n t M o tio n fo r su b sta n tially th e sa m e re a so n s a s th e d istric t co u rt. W e no t e t hat the d i stri ctcou rtexp res sed i t s conclusi on s on ap pell ants ’ 6 per s onal part i ci pat i on i n an ea r l i eror der , al bei tpr i ort o the fi l i ng of the fi nal p re tr ia l o rd e r. A pl t . A pp. at36 ( deny i ng qual i fi ed i m m uni tybeca us e “pl ai nt i ff ad eq u atelyall eg ed the p erso n al pa rt ici p ati o n o f e ac h o f th e d efen d an ts”).

- 6- have hi s r el i gi ous l y bas ed di et ary r equi r ement s acc om m odat ed. I ns t ead, t hey 5 a rg u e th a t, i n th e fin a l p re trial o rd e r, p lain tiff a lleg e s o n lyth a t th e yd e n ied h is gri evan ces, no tthat theyden i ed h i m a fest i ve m eal . T heycon cl ud e t hat, becau se th e fin a l p re trial o rd e r d o e s n o t in c lu d e a c laim th a t ap p e llan ts h a d a p o licyto denyfes t i ve meal s t o i nm at es i n s egr egat i on, t he al l eged pol i cyi s i rr el evantt o t he q u a lifie d im m u n itya n a ly sis , an d th e c o u rt e rre d b yb a sin g its a n a ly sis o n it. I n s ubs t ance , t hi s ar gum entchal l enges t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s t r eatm entof pl ai nt i ff’ s r emai ni ng cl ai m as one “thatdefe ndant s . . . deni ed hi m a fe s t i ve meal i n cel ebr at i on of R os h H as hona [s i c] w hi l e he w as i n s egr egat i on[, ] ” A pl t . A pp. at 138. A ppar ent l y , t he di s t r i ctcourtcons trued thi s cl ai m t o i ncl ude the exi s t ence of a “ pol i cyof deny i ng fes t i ve meal s w hi l e i n s egr egat i on[, ] ” id . a t 1 4 2 . B yth e ir a rg u m e n t, th e re fo re , ap p e llan ts a sk u s to a d d re ss th e n a tu re a n d e x ten t o f th e ir per s onal part i ci pat i on i n t he deni al of the fe s t i ve meal bas ed on the w or di ng of t he fi nal pr etr i al or der . T hi s w oul d r equi r e us t o cons i dert he fa ctual bas i s of 6 p la in tiff ’s c la im ra th e r t h a n a p u re ly le g a l is s u e b a s e d o n c e rt a in g iv e n fa c ts .W e d e c lin e to a d d re ss a p p e llan ts’ a ltern a tiv e a rg u m e n t co n c e rn in g th e ir 7 p ro ffe re d ra tio n a le s fo r a p o lic yto d e n yfe s tiv e m e a ls to in m a te s in s e g re g a tio n . A ppel l ant s r ai s ed thes e ar gum ent s i n the Second Summ aryJ udgm entM ot i on, t he deni al of w hi ch theyhave notappea l ed. I tappea r s t hatm ot i on di d notr el yon t he qual i fi ed i m m uni t ydefe ns e. T her efor e, i ti s unl i kel yt hatappel l ant s coul d have tak e n a n in ter lo c u to rya p p e a l f ro m th e o rd e r d e n y in g it.

- 7- A c c o rd in g ly, w e la c k ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r t h e c o lla te ra l o rd e r d o c tr in e . See Johns on , 515 U . S. at311. 7 C oncl usi on B eca us e w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on, w e D I SM I SS t he appe al and RE M AND th is act i on t o the di stri ctcou rtfor further proceedings.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

T err ence L . O ’ B r i en C i r cui tJ udge