T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT J AME S S HI L L I NG P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. J A C K I E C R A W F O R D , e t a l. D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 16494 D . C. N o s . 2 : 0 5 - CV - 0 0 8 8 9 - PM PG WF ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da P hi l i p M . P r o, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry15, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: W A L L A C E , H U G an d C L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F o rm erN ev ad a p riso n erJa m es S h il li n g ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s s um m a ryj udgm e ntof

hi s a c t i on a l l e gi ng vi ol a t i ons of 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a nd the R e lig io u s L a n dU s e a n d I n s titu tio n a liz e d P e r s o n s A c t o f 2 0 0 0 ( “R L U I P A ” ) . W e h av e ju risd icti o n p u rs u an t t o 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s 

# FI LED APR28 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

g r a n t o f s u m m a ryju d g m e n t d e n o v o . B ro w n v. Ca l. D ep ’t o f C o rr. , 554 F . 3d 747, 7 4 9 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). W e m u std et erm i n e, v i ew i n g th e ev i d en ce i n th e l i g h tm o st f a vor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng pa rty , w he the rthe r e a r e a nyge nui ne i s s ue s of m a te r ia l f

a c t a n d w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tlyap p lie d th e s u b s ta n tiv e la w . C o r a les v . B e n n e tt , 567 F . 3d 554, 562 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . W e m a ya f f i rm on a ny g r o u n d s s u p p o rte d b yth e r e c o r d , i d. , and d o so h er e. A s ath r e s h o ldm a tte r , it is w e ll s e ttle d th a t in th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t c o n te x t, [t ] he det erm i nat i on of w hati s a' re l i gi ou s' bel i ef or prac t i ce i s m ore oft en th a n n o t ad if

f ic u lt a n d d e lic a te ta s k ,. . . th e r e s o lu tio n o f [ w h ic h ] is n o t to tu rn u p o n aju d ic ia l p e r c e p tio n o f th e p a rtic u la rb e lie f

o rp r a c tic e in que s t i on; r e l i gi ous be l i e f s ne e d notbe a c c e pt abl e , l ogi c a l , c ons i s t e nt , or c om pr e he ns i bl e t o othe r s i n or de rt o m e r i tF i r s tA m e ndm e ntpr ot e c t i on. T ho m as v. R ev i ew B d. of

Indi an a E m

ploym ent

Sec. D i v. , 4 5 0 U .S . 7 0 7 , 7 1 4 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . R L U IP A i ncorpo ra t es thi s pri nci pl e, defi ni ng "r el i gi ou s e xerc i se , " t o i ncl ud e " any e xe r c i s e of

r e l i gi on, w he the rornotc om pe l l e d by , orc e ntr a l t o, as y s t e m of re l i gi ou s bel i ef

. " 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0cc- 5(7)(A ) ( em ph as i s a dd ed). "R L U IP A ' bars in q u iryin to w h e th e rap a rtic u la rb e lie f o rp r a c tic e is " c e n tr a l" to ap r is o n e r 's rel i g i o n . ' " G r e e n e v . So la n o C o u n tyJ a il , 513 F . 3d 982, 986 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng C ut te rv . W

i lki ns on , 54 4 U . S . 70 9, 72 5 n . 13 (200 5)). T he sugg es t i on that the pri son w as perm i tt ed t o d eny S hi l l i ng a kosher di etbecause i tdet erm i ned that he w a s nota" l e gi t i m a t e " O rthodox J e w a s am a tt e rof the f orm a l r e qui r e m e nt s of3

Judai c l aw or w ou l d n otbe re cogn i ze d as atrue m em ber of the re l i gi on by an O rthodox J e w i s h c ongr e ga t i on be c aus e hi s m othe rw a s notJ e w i s h a nd he ha d not f orm a l l yc onve rt e d i s pl a i nl yi nc ons i s t e ntw i th R L U I P A . B e c aus e i ti s notour pl ac e t o q uest i on the si ncer i ty of S hi l l i ng ' s r el i gi ou s bel i ef s, w e c re di tthe bel i ef

s he al l eges as genu i ne. S hi l l i ng br oughtc l a i m s f orboth i nj unc t i ve a nd m one t a ryr e l i e f f or d e f e n d a n ts ’ f

a ilu r e to p r o v id e h im w ith ak o s h e rd ie t a t th e H ig h D e s e rt S ta te P r i s on ( “ H D S P ” ) i n N e va da . B e c aus e S hi l l i ng ha s s i nc e be e n tr a ns f e rr e d t o a W a s hi ngt on c orr e c t i ona l f a c i l i tyw i th no pr os pe c tof r e turni ng t o H D S P , a ny c la im s f o rin ju n c tiv e r e lie f

a r e m o o t. See Jo h n so n v. Mo o re , 948 F . 2d 517, 519 (9th C i r. 19 91 ). S h illin g ’s c la im s f

o rd a m a g e s w e r e b r o u g h t a g a in s t d e f e n d a n ts in b o th th e ir offi ci al and i nd i vi du al capaci t i es . S t at e off i ci al s s ued for dam ages i n thei r off i ci al c ap a c itie s a r e n o t “p e r s o n s ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f § 1 9 8 3 . D oe v. L aw re nce L i v e rm or e N

at ’ l L ab . , 1 3 1 F . 3 d 8 3 6 , 8 3 9 (9 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ). R ath er, su i t s ag ai n st th e m a r e n o d if

f e r e n t th a n s u its a g a in s t th e s ta te its e lf , a n d th e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t b a r s s u c h s u its . Id . T h u s, th e s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n S h il li n g ’s § 1 98 3 cl ai m s a gai nstdefe nd ant s i n thei r off i ci al capaci t i es w as prop er .4

S u m m ary j u d g m en tw as al so p ro p er o n S h i l l i n g ’ s R L U IP A cl ai m s ag ai n st de f e nda nt s i n the i rof

f i c i a l c apa c i t i e s . R L U I P A doe s notuna m bi guous l yc ondi t i on re ce i ptof fund s und erR L U IP A on a w ai ver of s ov er ei gn i m m un i ty f or m on ey d a m a g e s a g a in s t th e s ta te , se e H o l ley v. Ca l. D ep t. o

f C o rr. , N o. 07- 15552, s l i p op. 5 2 1 5 ( 9 th C ir . A p r . 5 , 2 0 1 0 ) . T h u s , S h illin g c a n n o t r e c o v e rm o n e yd a m a g e s o n h is R L U I P A c la im b ys u in g d e f e n d a n ts h e r e in th e iro f

f ic ia l c ap a c itie s . Th i s c o u rth a s n o ty e td e c i d e d w h e th e rmo n e yd a ma g e s f o rRLU I PA c l a i ms are av ai l ab l e ag ai n stst at e act o rs su ed i n th ei r i n d i v i d u al cap aci t i es. A num be rof other c i rc ui t s have answ er ed thatqu es t i on i n the negat i ve. See, e. g. , N el son v. Mille r , 5 7 0 F .3 d 8 6 8 , 8 8 5 - 8 9 ( 7 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ; R en delm a n v. R o u se , 569 F . 3d 182, 1 8 7 - 8 8 ( 4 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ; Sos s am on v . T ex as , 56 0 F . 3d 31 6, 32 7-29 (5th C i r. 20 09 ); Sm i th v. A l len , 50 2 F . 3d 12 55 , 12 72 -73 (11 th C i r. 20 07 ). W e nee d n otse tt l e that que s t i on, how e ve r , be c aus e e ve n a s s um i ng ar gue ndo th a t s u c h d a m a g e s w o u ld otherw i se be avai l abl e, the defendant s i n thi s c as e are ent i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed i m m uni ty . “ T he doc tr i ne of qua l i f i e d i m m uni typr ot e c t s gove rnm e ntof f i c i a l s f r om liab ilityf o rc iv il d a m a g e s in s o f

a ra s th e irc o n d u c t d o e s n o t v io la te c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d s ta tu to ryo rc o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts o f w h ic h ar e a s o n ab le p e r s o n w o u ld h av e k n o w n . " P e ars on v . Cal lahan , 129 S . C t . 808, 815 ( 2009) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . T he r i ghtm us tha ve be e n c l e a r l ye s t abl i s he d a tthe t i m e of5

d e f e n d a n t’s a lle g e d m is c o n d u c t, id. a t816, s o tha tar e a s onabl e of f i c i a l w oul d ha ve un ders t oo d thatw hathe w as do i ng un der the ci rc um st ance s of the ca se vi ol at ed th a t r ig h t, W

i l s on v . L ay ne , 5 2 6 U .S . 6 0 3 , 6 1 5 ( 1 9 9 9 ) . Q u a lif ie d im m u n ityp r o te c ts

“ al l bu tthe pl ai nl y i ncom pet entor tho se w ho kn ow i ng l y vi ol at e the l aw . ” M al ley v . B r i ggs , 47 5 U . S . 33 5, 34 1 (19 86 ). T h e c o n d u c t a t is s u e h e r e to o kp la c e in 2 0 0 3 - 2 0 0 4 . R L U I P A w a s e n a c te d in 20 00 . P ub . L . N o. 10 6-27 4, 11 4 S t at . 80 3. In pert i nentpart , i tprov i des that

[ n] o gove rnm e nts ha l l i m pos e a s ubs t a nt i a l bur de n on the r e l i gi ous e x e r c i s e o f

ap e r s o n r e s id in g in o rc o n f in e d to a n in s titu tio n . . . un l es s the go vernm ent dem on stra t es that i m po si t i on of the bu rden on thatpers on -- ( 1) i s i n f urthe r a nc e of

ac om pe l l i ng gove rnm e nt a l i nt e r e s t ; a nd ( 2) i s the l e a s tr e s tr i c t i ve m e a ns o f f urthe r i ng tha tc om pe l l i ng g o v e rn m e n ta l in te r e s t. 42 U . S . C . § 2000c c - 1( a ) . M a j orc a s e s i nt e rpr e t i ng R L U I P A w e r e not deci ded u nt i l af

t erthe defendant s propo se d S hi l l i ng ’ s transfe r t o ano ther c orr e c t i ona l f

a c i l i tytha tc oul d m or e e a s i l ya c c om m oda t e hi s r e que s tf orar e l i gi ous d ie t th a n H D S P . Se e, e . g. , W a rso ld i er v. W

o o d f o rd , 41 8 F . 3d 98 9 (9th C i r. 20 05 ); G r e e n e v . So la n o C o u n tyJ a il , 5 1 3 F .3 d 9 8 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ; Sh a ku r v. Sch ri ro , 514 F . 3d 878 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). Itw as thu s notcl ear i n 2 00 3-20 04 thatS hi l l i ng w as ent i t l ed t o rel i ef

un der R L U IP A . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y app l i ed q u a lif ie d im m u n ityto d e f

e n d a n ts o n th a t a c c o u n t.6

T h e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t b a r§ 1 9 8 3 c la im s a g a in s t o f f ic ia ls in th e irp e r s o n a l c ap a c itie s . P en a v. G a rdn er, 9 7 6 F .2 d 4 6 9 , 4 7 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . H o w ev er , i n th is ca se , qu alified im m u n ity w as co rr ec tl y ap p li ed to S h il li n g ’s § 1 98 3 cl ai m s bec ause defe nd ant s c ou l d n otre as on abl y have kno w n that tr a n s f e rr in g S h illin g f

r o m o n e c o rr e c tio n a l f

a c ilityto a n o th e rto a c c o m m o d a te h is r e que s tf orakos he rdi e tvi ol a t e d ac l e a r l ye s t abl i s he d F i r s tA m e ndm e ntr i ght . See, e . g. , W ilkin s o n v . A u s tin , 54 5 U . S . 20 9, 22 1-22 (200 5) (hol di ng thati n m ostca se s “th e C o n s titu tio n its e lf

d o e s n o t g iv e r is e to alib e rtyin te r e s t in a v o id in g tr a n s f e rto m or e a dve r s e c ondi t i ons of c onf i ne m e nt ” be c aus e “ [ c ] onf i ne m e nti n a nyof

the S t a t e ’ s i ns t i tut i ons i s w i thi n the norm a l l i m i t s orr a nge of c us t odyw hi c h the conv i ct i on has autho ri ze d the S t at e t o i m po se ”) . B e c aus e w e hol d tha ta l l de f e nda nt s w e r e e nt i t l e d t o s um m a ryj udgm e nton a ll o f S h illin g ’s c la im s , w e n e e d n o t r e a c h S h illin g ’s a r g u m e n ts r e g a r d in g s p e c if ic d efen d an t s. AF F I RME D.