FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 27 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 9- cv -0 04 82 -TJC -MC R SAMUEL JOSEPH GARDNER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us G RISKA, in hi s i nd iv idua l an d o ffi ci al cap aci ty, TONI BOW DEN, in he r in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ty, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORREC TIONS, in hi s i nd iv idua l an d o ffi ci al cap aci ty, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 22 , 20 11 )Befo re BARKETT, W ILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Sam ue l Gar dn er, a p ris on er p ro ceed in g p ro se, b ro ug ht42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 cl ai m s ag ai ns t the Flo rid a Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s (“ DOC”), the Secr et ary of th e DOC, W al te r A. McNei l, an d DOC e m pl oyees G. Ri sk a an d To ni Bo wde n al le gi ng th atth e d efen da nt s v io la te d h is rig ht s u nd er the Fir stAm en dm en t an d t he Rel ig io us LandUse a ndIns ti tu ti on al iz edPers on s Act(“ RLUIPA”) b y de nyin g hi m a Kos he r di et . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of McNe il , Ris ka , andBo wde n o n t he gro un d tha t Gar dn er fa il edto de m on st rat e th at he si nc erel y

be li ev edth ata Kos he r di etis im po rta ntto hi s fr ee ex erci se of rel ig io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt al so di sm is se d t he cla im ag ai ns t the DOC as f

riv ol ou s pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. 19 15 A(b ) on th e g ro un d t ha t the DOC is no t a “ pe rs on ” withi n t he m ean in g o f 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Gard ne r ap pe al s the se rul in gs . I. W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of McNei l, Ri sk a, an d B owd en , app lying th e sa m e st an da rdas t he di st ric t co urt
an d v ie win g a ll ev id en ce an d fa ctua l i nf eren ces reas on ab ly drawnfro m th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p arty . Mic co su ke e Trib e of Ind ia ns of F la . v. Un it edSta te s, 5 16 F.3d12 35 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). 2Su m

m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te “ if t he m ov an t s ho ws tha t the re i s n o g enui ne di sp ut e as to an y

m at eri al factan d the m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 56 (a). On ce the m ov in g p arty ha s ca rri edit s b ur de n, the bu rd ensh ift s t o t he no nm ov in g p arty to co m e fo rwardwith s pe ci fic fact s s ho win g th atth ere i s a g enui ne is su e fo r tr ia l. Ma ts us hi taElec . Indus . Co., Lt d. v . Zeni th Rad io Co rp ., 47 5 U.S. 5 74 , 58 6- 87 (19 86 ). Sect io n 3 (a) o f RLUIPA “pr ot ect s i ns ti tu ti on al iz edpe rs on s wh o a re unabl e free ly to at te ndto th ei r rel ig io us ne ed s an d are the refo re d ep en de ntonth e go ve rn m en t’s p erm is si on an d a cco m m od at io n fo r ex erci se of the ir r el ig io n.” Cu tt er v . W il ki ns on , 54 4 U.S. 7 09 , 72 1 (2 00 5) . Mor e ex pa ns iv e th anpri so ne rs ’ rig ht s und er the Fir stAm en dm en t, RLUIPA “ affo rd s t o p ris on in m at es a he ig ht en edpro te ct io n fr om go ve rn m en t-i m

po se d b ur de ns , by requi rin g t ha t the go ve rn m en t d em on st rat e th atth e subs ta nt ia l b ur de n o n t he pri so ne r’s rel ig io us ex erci se is jus ti fie d b y

a co m pe ll in g, ra th er tha n m erel y a le gi ti m at e, go ve rn m en ta l in te res t.” Sm ith v . All en , 50 2 F .3d12 55 , 12 66 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) , abr og at edon ot he r gr ou nd s b y So ss am on v. Tex as , __U.S. __ , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 65 1 (2 01 1)
. Thu s, i f Gardne r’s RLUIPA ri gh ts were n otvi ol at ed , ne it he r were h is Fir stAm en dm en t ri gh ts .

3“ To es tabl is h apri m a fac ie cas e und er s ect io n 3 of R LUIPA, a pl ai nt iff m us t de m on st rat e 1 ) th athe en ga ge d i n arel ig io us ex erci se ; an d 2 ) th atth e rel ig io us ex erci se was s ub st an ti al ly bur de ne d.” Smith, 5 02 F.3dat 1 27 6. “ The pra ct ic e bu rd en edne edno t b e cen tra l t o t he adhe ren t's be li ef s y st em , bu t the adhe ren t m us t ha ve anho ne stbe li ef tha t the pra ct ic e is im po rtantto hi s fr ee ex erci se of r el ig io n.” So ss am on v. Lo ne Sta r St at e o f Tex as , 56 0 F .3d31 6, 3 32 (5t h C ir. 2 00 9)
.

“ Altho ug h R LUIPA ba rs in qu iry int o wh ethe r a p art ic ul ar b el ie f orpra ct ic e is ‘central ’ to a pr is on er’s rel ig io n, . . . th e Actdo es no t p recl ud e in qu iry int o t he si nc eri ty of a p ris on er’s p ro fes se d re li gi os it y .” Cu tt er, 5 44 U.S. at 7 25 n.1 3. Here, Gard ne r fai le d t o d em on st rat e th athe si nc erel y be li ev es th ata Kos he r di etis im po rta ntto th e fre e ex erci se of h is rel ig io n. Th e d efen da nt s s ub mit te d affi da vi ts fro m

two can te enop erat or s wh o s ta te d t ha t the y ha d s ol d Gar dn er nu m ero us no n- Kos he r it em s, h eat edm an y of the se no n- Kos he r it em s fo r Gardne r, an d wi tn es se d h im

co ns um e m an y

of the se it em s, d es pi te th e fac t tha t the can te en m enu i nc lu de d i te m s d es ig na te d a s Ko sh er. The de fen da nt s al so subm it te d re co rd s de m on st rat in g t ha t Gar dn er p ur ch as ednu m ero us no n- Kos he r it em s fr om th e pr is on can te en . In re sp on se , Gardne r on ly sub mit te d h is ownaffi da vi t, wh ic h
ne it he r refu te d t he de fen da nt s’ evi de nc e, no r st at edth athe si nc erel y be li ev edth at a Kos he r di etis im

po rta ntto th e fre e ex erci se of h is rel ig io n. As Gardne r fai le d t o 4co m e fo rwardwith s pe ci fic fact s d em on st rat in g t ha t h e h ada si nc ere b el ie f th ata

Kos he r di etis im

po rta ntto th e fre e ex erci se of h is rel ig io n, h e fai le d t o c arry his bu rd enat s umm ary jud gm en t o f es tabl is hi ng a pr im a fac ie cas e und er s ect io n 3 of RLUIPA. Acco rd in gl y , def en da nt s M cNei l, Ri sk a, an d B owd enare en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law. II. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s s uasp on te di sm is sa l o f Gardne r’s cl ai m ag ai ns t DOC p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 19 15 A foranab us e o f di sc ret io n. Mi ll er v . Don al d, 5 41 F.3d10 91 , 11 00 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). A civ il co m pl ai ntfil edby a pr is on er s eek in g re dr es s fr om a go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty or anem pl oyee oroff

ic er o f a go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty m

us t b e d is m is se d i f th e co m pl ai ntis “ fri vo lo us , m al ic io us , or fai ls to st at e a cl ai m

up on whi chrel ie f can be gra nt ed .” 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5A( b) (1 ).

“ A cla im is fri vo lo us if andon ly if it‘ la ck s an arg uabl e b as is eithe r in law o r in fact .’ ” Mi ll er, 5 41 F.3dat 1 10 0 (quo ti ng Neit zk e v . W il li am s, 4 90 U.S. 31 9, 3 27 (1 98 9) ). To es tabl is h acla im

un de r § 1 98 3, a p la in ti ff m us t s ho w th athe “ was de pr iv edof afed eral rig htby a pers on act in g und er co lo r of st at e la w.” Griff

in v. Ci ty of Opa -Loc ka , 26 1 F .3d12 95 , 13 03 (11 thCir . 20 01 ) (em ph as is ad de d) . “ A st at e, a s tate ag en cy , anda st at e o ffi ci al su edinhi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty are no t 5‘pers on s’ withi n t he m ean in g o f § 1 98 3, thu s d am ag es are u nava il ab le .” Edwar ds

v. Wall ace C m

ty. Co ll ., 49 F.3d15 17 , 15 24 (11 thCir . 19 95 ). As the DOC is a st at e ag en cy , andth us no t a p ers on withi n the m ean in g o f § 1 98 3, Gar dn er’s § 19 83 cla im

fordam ag es ag ai ns t the DOC is fri vo lo us . Howev er, Gardne r’s cl ai m for in jun ct iv e rel ie f ag ai ns t the DOC is no t fri vo lo us be cau se RLUIPA crea te s an ex pr es s p riv at e cau se of a ct io n fo r in jun ct iv e an d d ecl arat ory

rel ie f ag ai ns t the go ve rn m en t, wh ic h i nc lu de s “ St at es , co un ti es , m

un ic ip al it ie s, the ir i ns tru m en ta li ti es an d o ffi cers , andpe rs on s ac ti ng un de r co lo r of

st at e la w.” Sos sa m on v. Tex as , __U.S. __ , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 65 1, 1 65 6 (2 01 1) . Non ethe le ss , bec au se Gardne r fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cla im
un de r RLUIPA, th e DOC is st il l en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. AFFIRMED.

6