FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 2, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16010

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 1 - 0 1 4 3 0 - CV - M H T- CSC T O N Y L E E S M I T H , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s R I C H A R D F . A L L E N , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts , S T E V E W A L K E R , C h ap la in , W I L L I E W H I T I N G , C h ap la in , B I L L L I N D S E Y , C h ap la in , A N T H O N Y A S K E W , C h ap la in , D O N A L C A M P B E L L , C o m m is s io n e r , A L B E R T M U R R A Y , D e p u ty C o m m is s io n e r , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 2, 2007)For a thorough and helpf

ul discussion of the tenets of Odinism / Asatru, seeRust v. 1 Clarke, 883 F . Supp. 1293, 1297-98 (D. Neb. 1995) and B orzych v. F rank, 340 F . Supp. 2d 955, 960 (W.D. Wi s. 2004) (discussingadditional aspec ts of Odinism). See also Odinic Rite, Questions and Answers About the OR and O dinism, htt p:/ /www .o dinic -rite .o rg/qa .htm (l as t 2 B efo re E D M O N D S O N , C h i ef Ju d g e, an d B IR C H an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B IR C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: P l a i nt i f f - A ppe l l a ntT ony L e e S m i th, apr i s on i nm a t e , br oughtthi s a c t i on a ga i ns tanum be rof

m e m be r s of

the R e l i gi ous A c t i vi t i e s R e vi e w C om m i tt e e of the A l abam a D epartm entof C orre ct i on s ( “ A D O C ”) , cont endi ng thatthese m em bers ha d vi ol a t e d hi s r i ght s unde rthe R e l i gi ous L a nd U s e a nd I ns t i tut i ona l i z e d P e r s ons A c t ( “R L U I P A ” ) , 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 c c - 1 th r o u g h § 2 0 0 0 c c - 5 , a s w e ll a s h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts , b y d e c lin in g h im p e rm is s io n to p o s s e s s c e r ta in ite m s in c onne c t i on w i th hi s pr a c t i c e of O di ni s m . S m i th s oughti nj unc t i ve r e l i e f a nd m one t a ry da m a ge s . T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof the d e f e n d a n t- ap p e lle e s , a n d S m ith n o w ap p e a ls . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f o r th in th is o p in io n , w e A F F I R M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. I . B AC KG RO UN D S m i th i s p resen t l y an i n m at e atth e K i l b y C o rrect i o n al F aci l i ty i n M t . M ei g s, A lab a m a . A tthe t i m e thi s a c t i on w a s c om m e nc e d, S m i th w a s a n i nm a t e a tthe L i m es t on e C orre ct i on al F ac i l i ty i n C apshaw , A l abam a. S m i th i s apr a c t i t i one rof O di ni s m , a n a nc i e ntpr e - C hr i s t i a n f a i th a l s o know n a s A s a tru. O di ni s m ’ s the ol ogy 1visited Aug. 1, 2007). 3

i s g r o u n d e d i n a n c i e n tI c e l a n d i c s a g a s a n d ru n i c my s t i c i s m. A dhe r e nt s t o the re l i gi on stri ve t o att ai n the “ N i ne N ob l e V i rtues, ” w hi ch ar e des cr i bed as c ou ra ge, truth, honor , f

i de l i ty , di s c i pl i ne , hos pi t a l i ty , i ndus tr i ous ne s s , s e l f - r e l i a nc e , a nd p ersev eran ce. T o att ai n th ese v i rtu es, m em b ers o f th e O d i n i stfai th m u st co m m u n i cat e w i th th e an ci en tN o rse g o d s an d g o d d esses–b y stu d yi n g ru n es, p ract i ci n g ri t es o n sp eci fi ed d ays o f th e w eek , an d o b serv i n g th e m aj o r O d i n i st hol i da y s . S e e R 1- 8, E xh. B 4; R us t , 883 F . S upp. a t1298. D ur i ng hi s i nc a r c e r a t i on, S m i th s ubm i tt e d as e r i e s of r e que s t s t o the R el i gi ou s R evi ew C om m i tt ee of the A D O C , se eki ng approv al of ce rt ai n p ra ct i ce s i n co n n ect i o n w i th h i s p ract i ce o f O d i n i sm . In F eb ru ary 2 0 0 1 , S m i th fi rst re qu es t ed perm i ss i on t o l i gh ta s m al l fi re ; perm i ss i on t o o bserve the O di ni stri t es on s pe c i f i e d da y s of

the w e e k; a nd pe rm i s s i on f orade s i gna t e d a r e aa tthe pr i s on s ite f o rh im to c o n d u c t h is w o r s h ip . T h e A D O C g r a n te d S m ith ’s r e q u e s t to p ract i ce h i s O d i n i strel i g i o n an d t o recei v e O d i n i stl i t eratu re, b u td en i ed h i s req u est to h a v e ad e s ig n a te d a r e af o rw o r s h ip , b a s e d o n its c o n c e rn th a t d o in g s o w o u ld po se se curi ty c on ce rns a nd “ coul d eas i l y r es ul ti n v i ol ence agai nstother i nm at es a n d s ta f f ,” a n d th e a s s e r tio n th a t “[ t]h is r e lig io n a ls o p r o m o te s r a c ia l s u p e r io r ity a n d is ap o p u la rf

r o n t f o rh a te g r o u p s .” R 1 - 8 , E x h . D ; s e e a ls o id . E x h . C . S h o r tly4

the r e a f t e r , i n N ove m be r2001, S m i th f i l e d thi s l a w s ui t , a l l e gi ng vi ol a t i ons of R L U IP A , the F i rs tA m endm ent , and the E qu al P rot ec t i on C l ause . W hi l e S m i th’ s l a w s ui tw a s pe ndi ng, i n J une 2003 S m i th s ubm i tt e d a s u p p le m e n ta l r e q u e s t to th e A D O C R e lig io u s A c tiv itie s R e v ie w C o m m itte e , th is tim e r e q u e s tin g th e f

o llo w in g : o n e s m a ll q u a r tz c ry s ta l; o n e r e lig io u s n e c k la c e in th e s h ap e o f

“ T h o r ’ s h a m m e r , ” R 2 - 6 3 , E x h . K- 1 a t3 ; p e rm i s s i o n f r o m th e AD OC to lig h t ap in e w o o d f

ir e in a“s m a ll f

ir e p it, ap p r o x im a te ly 9 '' in d ia m e te ra n d 9 '' deep, ” i d. at2; perm i ss i on t o o bserve T hu rs day ( “ T ho r’ s D ay ”) as a des i gn at ed day o f w o r s h ip , id .; a n d af

o rm a l r e c o g n itio n o f

O d in is m b y th e A D O C . I d . a t 1 . S m ith w a s a d v is e d b y aC h ap la in w ith th e A D O C th a t th e C h ap la in w o u ld p e r s o n a lly r e v ie w th e r e q u e s t; th e C h ap la in la te rs ta te dth a t, in ad is c u s s io n w ith S m i th, he had t ol d h i m that

aft er [S m i th ’ s] fi l i n g th e req u est , w i th au th o ri t at i v e so u rces, v a l i d a t i n g th e r e q u e s t s , [ th e r e q u e s t ] w o u l d b e r e v i e w e d b y me a nd the n [ the W a r de n] , w ho w e r e di f f e r e ntr e vi e w e r s a tthe i ns t i tut i ona l l e ve l . . . I nm a t e S m i th’ s r e que s t s w oul d the n be s e ntt o the R e l i gi ous A c t i vi t i e s R e vi e w C om m i tt e e w i th the sch o l arl y, au th o ri t at i v e so u rces v al i d at i n g h i s cl ai m s fo r th ese r e q u e s ts . I s tr e s s e d th e im p o r ta n c e o f id e n tif iab le [ ,] a u th o r ita tiv e s o u r c e s , w h ic h s c h o la r s a n d /o rh is s p e c if ic f a ith com m un i ty c ol l ec t i vel y r ec og ni ze . I d. , E xh. K a t3.Appa rently, N ebra ska ’spriso n s ystem hous e s a larg enumber o f O dinist s. Se eg enerally 2 Rust, 883 F. Supp. 1293. 5 In conn ec t i on w i th S m i th’ s pendi ng re qu es t , S m i th h ad a f ri end w ho w as out s i de of

the pr i s on s y s t e m s ubm i ta ddi t i ona l s our c e s on O di ni s m –vi am a i l –t o the A D O C C hapl a i n. T he C hapl a i n, how e ve r , a dvi s e d S m i th tha the f ound tha tthe s o u r c e s “m a y b e o k a y , b u t th a t th e y w e r e in c o m p le te a n d s k e tc h y s in c e th e y d id no tgi ve i nform at i on on the basi c [ t enet s] of the re l i gi on i t se l f or r ef er ence further s o u r c e s th a t c o u ld b e a c c e s s e d b y m e .” I d . a t 4 . C o n s e q u e n tly , th e C h ap la in s oughtt o “ ga the rm or e i nf orm a t i ve s our c e s on [ hi s ] ow n, ” i nc l udi ng ha vi ng di sc ussi on s w i th a C hapl ai n i n a pri son i n N ebra ska abou tthe do ctri nal 2 unde rpi nni ngs of

O di ni s m , a nd l oc a t i ng a ddi t i ona l ba c kgr ound s our c e s on the r e l i gi on. I d. A f

t e rthe C hapl a i n ha d “ ga the r [ e d] i nf orm a t i on” a nd “ r e s e a r c h[ e d] th e [ c r e d i b i l i ty ] ” o f

S m i th ’ s r e q u e s t s , h e s u b m i tt e d S m i th ’ s c a s e t o th e AD OC R e lig io u s A c tiv itie s R e v ie w C o m m itte e ( “th e C o m m itte e ” ) f o raf in a l d e c is io n . I d . A ft ercond uct i ng a m ee t i ng t o d i sc uss S m i th’ s r equest , the C om m i tt ee r e n d e r e d ad e c is io n in O c to b e r2 0 0 3 . T h e C o m m itte e ’s d e c is io n w a s a s f o llo w s . F i r s t , the C om m i tt e e gr a nt e d S m i th’ s r e que s tf orar e l i gi ous ne c kl a c e i n the s hape of T ho r’ s ham m er . T he C om m i tt ee al so grant ed S m i th’ s r equestt o u se a ce re m on i al fi re i n con nect i on w i th h i s pra ct i ce of O di ni sm , al bei t“ i n the form of a ca nd l e i n a pri vat e s ec ure pl ac e. ” R 2-98 , E xh . M at2. T he C om m i tt ee grant ed6

S m ith ’s r e q u e s t to h a v e as p e c ia l d a y o f th e w e e k

– T h u r s d a y / T h o r ’s D a y– to p r a c tic e th e O d in is t r ite s . I ta l s o gr a nt e d S m i th’ s r e que s t s t o r e c ogni z e at ot a l of f ourO di ni s thol i da y s ; t o pos s e s s rune s t o us e i n c onne c t i on w i th hi s r e l i gi ous s tudy ; a nd t o us e a nd pos s e s s as m a l l , f e rn tr e e tw i g “ i n am a nne rtha tw oul d not j eo p ard i ze secu ri ty. ” Id . W i th resp ectt o S m i th ’ s req u estt o h av e O d i n i sm r e c ogni z e d by the A D O C , the C om m i tt e e s t a t e d tha tthe r e que s tw a s gr a nt e d, in s o f a ra s th e A D O C a g r e e d to f o rm a lly r e c o g n iz e S m ith ’s r ig h t to in d e p e n d e n tly prac t i ce O di ni sm , i ncl ud i ng hi s r i gh tt o h ave “ l i t er ature, spac e, and [] approv ed p a r ap h e rn a lia .” I d . a t 1 . T h e C o m m itte e d e c lin e d th e f o llo w in g a s p e c ts o f

S m ith ’s r e q u e s t. F ir s t, it de c l i ne d S m i th’ s r e que s tt o pos s e s s as m a l l c ry s t a l , due t o a“ l a c k of s uppor t i ng m at er i al s val i dat i ng a nee d for thi s i t em . ” I d. S ec on d, the C om m i tt ee deni ed S m ith ’s r e q u e s t f

o ra“d e s ig n a te d p la c e o f w o r s h ip ” to p e r f

o rm th e O d in is t r ite s . Id. at2. W i th res pectt o thi s i ss ue, the C om m i tt ee expres se d con ce rn that O di ni sm ’ s a l l eged conn ec t i on s w i th N eo-N az i sm and w hi t e s up re m ac i stbel i ef s w oul d pos e s e c ur i ty pr obl e m s i n the pr i s on, w e r e O di ni s m t o be gr a nt e d a d e s ig n a te d a r e ao f

w o r s h ip in th e o p e n , c o m m o n a r e ao f th e p r is o n . T he C o m m itte e , h o w e v e r , a d v is e d S m ith th a t h e w o u ld b e g r a n te d as e c u r e lo c a tio n to pr a c t i c e hi s O di ni s tr i t e s , s t a t i ng: “ [ w ] he n as e c ur e pl a c e of w or s hi p i s r e qui r e d,The de fenda nt-appe llees filed a

number of “ Special Reports”addre ssing Smith’s 3 argumentsand

hisc laimsfo r re lie f. Th emag ist ratejudg esu

bs e qu ently

c ho seto c oll e c tiv e ly construe the se “Spec ial Reports” a s a motion for summary judgment. The propriety of that decision is not beforeus on appeal, and there fore , we do not address it. See AT& T Broadband v. Tech Commc’ns Inc., 381 F .3d 1309, 1320 n.14 (11th Cir. 2004) (“ I ssues not raised on a ppeal arec on sidere d a

ba ndon e d. ” ) ( c itatio n o mitte d) . Rather, fo r pur po se s o f t hisa pp e al, w ewi ll assume that the magistrate judg e ac ted properly in construingthe “Spec ial Reports”–a nd the response s thereto–a s motions for summary judgment. 7 th e W a r d e n a n d th e C h ap la in m a y d e s ig n a te as u itab le lo c a tio n f o rS m ith to cond ucthi s r i t es . ” I d. F i nal l y, the C om m i tt ee decl i ned S m i th’ s r equestfor afi re p it, lim itin g h im in s te a d to as m a ll c a n d le . S m i th wa s r e l e a s e d f

r o m i m p r i s o n m e n ti n J a n u a ry 2 0 0 4 . T h e AD OC de f e nda nt - appe l l e e s s ubs e que nt l y m ove d f ors um m a ry j udgm e nti n c onne c t i on w i th S m i th’ s pe ndi ng l a w s ui t . A f t e rr e vi e w i ng the pa r t i e s ’ a r gum e nt s , the 3 m a g is tr a te ju d g e m a d e th e f o llo w in g r e c o m m e n d a tio n s . F i r s t , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge f ound tha tthe A D O C ha d a l r e a dy gr a nt e d a n u m b ero f S m ith ’s re q u es ts, i n clu d in g h is re q u es t fo r a w o rs h ip sp o t; fo r a T h o r’s h am m er n eck l ace; fo r a sm al l fi re; an d fo r a fo rm al reco g n i t i o n o f O d i n i sm as a val i d rel i gi on . A cc ordi ng l y, the m agi stra t e j ud ge det erm i ned thatthese cl ai m s had a ll b e e n r e n d e r e d m o o t. H e f ou nd thatthe on l y c l ai m st i l l pend i ng before the court w a s S m ith ’s R L U I P A c la im b a s e d u p o n th e d e n ia l o f h is r e q u e s t f

o ras m a ll q u a r tz c ry s ta l. A s t o thatre m ai ni ng cl ai m , the m agi stra t e j ud ge foun d thatS m i th h adSee, e.g ., Z atler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 399 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) ( stating 4 that a tra nsfer or re leasefrom prison will moot the prisoner’s c laims for injunctive re lief). 8 been rel ea se d from pri son, there by m oo t i ng the i nj un ct i ve re l i ef as pect s of that c l a i m. 4 A s t o S m i th’ s c l a i m f

orm one t a ry da m a ge s unde rR L U I P A –ba s e d onl y on the deni al of the re qu es t ed crys t al–the m agi stra t e j ud ge foun d thatS m i th h ad l od ged cl ai m s a gai nstthe defendant -app el l ee s i n b oth thei r off i ci al and i nd i vi du al c ap a c itie s . W ith r e s p e c t to S m ith ’s o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity s u it, h o w e v e r , th e m a g is tr a te j ud ge st at ed thata s ui tagai nstthe defendant -app el l ee s i n thei r off i ci al capaci t i es for m on eydam ages w ou l d n otl i e, because “ the prop erdefe nd anti n the offi ci al a c t i on c l a i m s i s the gove rnm e nt a l e nt i ty . ” R 3- 146 a t9. A c c or di ngl y , t o the e xt e nt S m ith ’s a c tio n in v o lv e d a n y o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity c la im s a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n tappel l ee s, the m agi stra t e j ud ge re com m ended thatthey be grant ed sum m ary ju d g m e n t. W ith r e s p e c t to S m ith ’s c la im a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n t- ap p e lle e s in th e ir i ndi vi dua l c apa c i t i e s –ba s e d, a ga i n, s ol e l y on the de ni a l of the c ry s t a l –the m a g is tr a te ju d g e f

o u n d th a t S m ith h a d e s tab lis h e d ap r im af a c ie R L U I P A c la im . S peci fi ca l l y, the m agi stra t e j ud ge foun d thatS m i th h ad dem on stra t ed that

“ A D O C ’ s c urt ai l m entof hi s use of a c ry st al du ri ng re l i gi ou s c er em on i es s u b s ta n tia lly b u r d e n e d th e e x e r c is e o f h is r e lig io n .” I d . a t 2 0 . N o r , th e m a g is tr a te9

j udge f ound, ha d the A D O C de f e nda nt - appe l l e e s e s t abl i s he d tha tthe de ni a l of S m i th’ s pos s e s s i on of

ac ry s t a l w a s ne c e s s a ryt o f ur the rac om pe l l i ng g o v e rn m e n ta l in te r e s t a n d w a s th e le a s t r e s tr ic tiv e m e a n s o f a c h ie v in g th a t in te r e s t. A c c o r d in g ly , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e r e c o m m e n d e d d e n y in g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f th e d e f e n d a n t- ap p e lle e s o n S m ith ’s R L U I P A c la im f o rm o n e y d a m a g e s . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge de c l i ne d t o e nt e r t a i n ade f e ns e of qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty f

orthe de f e nda nt - appe l l e e s on S m i th’ s R L U I P A c l a i m , due t o hi s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe l aw w as “ cl earl y est ab l i sh ed ” w h en th e A D O C d efen d an t -ap p el l ees h ad fi rst r e c e i ve d S m i th’ s r e que s tf orac ry s t a l , a nd, the r e f

or e , qua l i f

i e d i m m uni ty w oul d not ap p ly . R 3 - 1 5 1 a t 4 . I n D e c e m be r2005 the di s tr i c tc our tr e vi e w e d the r e c om m e nda t i ons of the m agi stra t e j ud ge. T he di stri ctcourtagre ed w i th the m agi stra t e j ud ge thata num ber o f S m ith ’s c la im s h a d b e e n r e n d e r e d m o o t b y th e A D O C ’s d e c is io n to g r a n t h is r e que s t s i n 2003, a nd tha tS m i th’ s onl y s urvi vi ng R L U I P A c l a i m w a s ba s e d upon th e A D O C ’s d e n ia l o f

as m a ll q u a r tz c ry s ta l. T he c our tf ur the ra gr e e d tha tthe in ju n ctiv e a sp ec t o f th is re m ain in g claim h ad b ee n re n d er ed m o o t b y S m ith ’s r e l e a s e f r om pr i s on i n 2004. T hus , the c our tonl y a ddr e s s e d S m i th’ s c l a i m f or m o n e ta ry d a m a g e s b a s e d o n th e d e n ia l o f th e c ry s ta l.The district cour t also grante d summary

judgment in favor of

the def endant- appellee s 5 on Smith’s Equal Protec tion Cl aim. See Smith, 401 F. Supp. 2d at 1244. The dismissal of the Equal Protection claim has not been a ppeale d by

Smith, see B r. of Appe llant at 34, and, acc ording ly , we do not address it. See AT& T, 381 F.3d at 1320 n.14. The district cour

t also grante d summary

judgment in favor of

the def endant- appellee s on Smith’s Fir st Amendment claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On appe al, Smith requests that wea dd re ss t hemerits o f his F ir st Amendment c laim i f w ea ff ir m th edis mis sal of

hisRLUIPA 10 T u rn in g to th a t c la im , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f ir s t f o u n d th a t n o a c tio n w o u ld lie a g a in s t th e d e f

e n d a n t- ap p e lle e s in th e iro f f ic ia l c ap a c itie s , b e c a u s e s u c h ac la im w a s “ ba rr e d by the E l e ve nth A m e ndm e nt . ” S m i th v. H a l e y , 401 F . S upp. 2d 1240, 1 2 4 4 ( N .D . A l. 2 0 0 5 ) . A s to th e c la im a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n t- ap p e lle e s in th e ir in d iv id u a l c ap a c itie s f

o rd a m a g e s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f ir s t e x p r e s s e d s k e p tic is m a s to w hether i nd i vi du al capaci ty c l ai m s f or m on et ary dam ages w er e a vai l abl e und er R L UI P A. M or e ove r , e ve n a s s um i ng tha ts uc h ac l a i m w e r e vi abl e , a nd tha tthe deni al of a c ry st al const i tut ed a “ subst ant i al bu rden on the re l i gi ou s e xerc i se of a pe r s on” s o a s t o c ons t i tut e aR L U I P A vi ol a t i on unde r42 U . S . C . § 2000c c - 1, the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatthe defendant -app el l ee s w ou l d b e e nt i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed i m m uni ty on S m i th’ s i ndi vi dua l c apa c i ty c l a i m s , be c a us e , c ontr a ry t o the m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s f

i nd i ng , “ S m i th’ s r i gh tt o p osse ss a c ry st al as partof hi s pra ct i ce of O di ni s m w a s notc l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d. ” I d. a t1250. S i nc e the di s tr i c tc our tf ound th at th e d ef

en d an t-ap p ellees w er e e n ti tl ed to q u alified im m u n ity o n S m ith ’s i ndi vi dua l c apa c i ty c l a i m s unde rR L U I P A , i tgr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vor o f th e d e f e n d a n t- ap p e lle e s . T h is ap p e a l f o llo w e d . 5claim. I f a prison’s regulation passes muster under RLUIPA, however , it will perforc e satisfy

the re quirements of theFirst Amendment, since RLUIPA offer s greater prote ction to relig ious e xerc isetha

n th eF ir st Amendment o ff ers . Se eCha

rl e s v . F ra

nk , 1 01 F e d. App’ x 634 , 6 35 (7 th Cir. 2004) (per

curiam). Since, as e xplained below, w e conc lude that Smith failed to present sufficient evidenceto withstand summary judgment on his RLUIPA claim, it follows that summary judgment was also appropriate on his F irst Amendment claim under § 1983. We need not addre ss that aspec t of the district court’ s decision. 11 I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n app ea l , S m i th con t ends thatsum m ary j ud gm entshou l d n othave been g r a n te d in f

a v o ro f th e d e f e n d a n t- ap p e lle e s f

o ran u m b e ro f

r e a s o n s . F ir s t, S m ith ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n tre at i ng hi s r equestfor i nj un ct i ve re l i ef –b as ed o n th e d e n ia l o f

h is c ry s ta l– a s m o o t, in lig h t o f h is r e le a s e f

r o m p r is o n in 2 0 0 4 . S m ith a s s e r ts th a t b e c a u s e h e w a s r e - in c a r c e r a te d a f te rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t e n te r e d its s um m a ry j udgm e ntor de r , a nd be c a us e he i s s t i l l s ubj e c tt o the A D O C ’ s 2003 deci si on prevent i ng hi m fr om po ss es si ng a c ry st al , hi s c l ai m for i nj un ct i ve re l i ef b a s e d o n th e d e n ia l o f

ac ry s ta l is n o t m o o t, a n d s h o u ld b e c o n s id e r e d o n its m e r its . S e c o n d , h e a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in f in d in g th a t o th e ra s p e c ts o f h is c l a i m –na m e l y , hi s r e que s tf orade s i gna t e d w or s hi p a r e aa nd hi s r e que s ttha the be a l l ow e d t o l i ghtas m a l l pi ne f i r e i n a9' ' by 9' ' f

i r e pi t–ha d be e n m oot e d by the A D O C ’ s 2003 de c i s i on. T hi rd, S m i th con t ends thathe i s e nt i t l ed t o m on et ary dam ages agai nstthe defendant -app el l ee s ( i n b oth thei r off i ci al and thei r i nd i vi du al c apa c i t i e s ) ba s e d on the i ra l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons of R L U I P A , a nd tha t , c ontr a ry t o the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o n c lu s io n , th e d e f e n d a n t- ap p e lle e s a r e n o t s h ie ld e d in th e ir12

i nd i vi du al capaci t i es fr om m on et ary l i abi l i ty und erthe do ctri ne of qu al i fi ed im m u n ity . S m ith f

u r th e ra s s e r ts th a t b e c a u s e h e p r e s e n te d s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to e s t abl i s h apr i m af

a c i e vi ol a t i on of

R L U I P A by the de f

e nda nt - appe l l e e s , a nd be c a us e the de f

e nda nt - appe l l e e s f

a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e tha tthe s ubs t a nt i a l bur de ns on hi s pra ct i ce of O di ni sm w er e nec es sa ryt o further acom pel l i ng go vernm ent al i nt er es t , he i s e nt i t l ed t o b oth i nj un ct i ve re l i ef and m on et ary dam ages un der R L U I P A . A . S t andard of R evi ew W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntde novo , appl y i ng the sa m e l egal st andard used by the di stri ctcourt . S ee Jo h n so n v . B d . o f R eg en t s, 26 3 F . 3d 12 34 , 12 42 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). W e dra w al l fa ctual in f e r e n c e s in alig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e n o n - m o v in g p a r ty

– in th is c a s e , S m ith . I d . a t 1 2 4 3 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is ap p r o p r ia te w h e r e “th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n y m a te r ia l f a c t a n d . . . th e m o v in g p a r ty is e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s am a tte ro f la w .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 ( c ) . W e h a v e s ta te d th a t “th e p la in la n g u a g e o f

R u le 5 6 ( c ) m a n d a te s th e e n try o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t . . . a g a in s t a party w ho fa i l s t o m ake ashow i ng suff i ci entt o est abl i sh the exi st ence of an el em entes se nt i al t o thatparty’ s c as e, and o n w hi ch thatparty w i l l bearthe bu rden o f p r o o f a t tr ia l.’” J o h n s o n , 2 6 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 3 ( q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) .13

“ A ddi t i ona l l y , w e not e tha tw e m a y a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on on a ny adequat e groun d, even i f i ti s other than the on e on w hi ch the courtac tual l y r el i ed. ” P a rks v. C i ty of

W a rne rR obi ns , 43 F . 3d 609, 613 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( c i t a t i on o m itte d ) . O urdi s c us s i on of

S m i th’ s appe a l r e qui r e s tha tw e unr a ve l anum be rof s e pa r a t e l e ga l i s s ue s . F i r s t , w e r e vi e w R L U I P A ’ s l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t ory a nd the s t a nda r d of

l i abi l i ty tha tthe s t a tut e s e t s f or th. W e the n turn t o S m i th’ s c l a i m s f or i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

unde rR L U I P A , a nd w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n c onc l udi ng tha tthos e c l a i m s f

ori nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

w e r e m oot . T hi r d, w e a ddr e s s the que s t i on of w ha ta ddi t i ona l r e l i e f

, i f a ny , i s a va i l abl e unde rR L U I P A –s pe c i f i c a l l y , w he the rthe ph ra se “ approp ri at e r el i ef ” i n R L U IP A ’ s r em edi es se ct i on , 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0cc2 ( a ) , c o n te m p la te s m o n e y d a m a g e s . W e th e n a d d r e s s w h e th e ra n e n title m e n t to m one t a ry da m a ge s f

orvi ol a t i ons of

R L U I P A i nc l ude s the r i ghtt o s e e k i ndi v i dual l i abi l i ty a gai nstdefe nd ant s und erR L U IP A , and, i f s o, w hether the qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty def

ense w ou l d app l y t o tho se ac t i on s. H avi ng re sol ved tho se l egal que s t i ons , w e the n a s s e s s the m e r i t s of S m i th’ s R L U I P A c l a i m s a ga i ns tthe d e f e n d a n t- ap p e lle e s . B. Ba c k g r o u n d o n RLU I PA14

“ R L U IP A i s the l at es tof l on g-runn i ng cong re ss i on al ef fort s t o acc ord re l i gi ou s e xerc i se hei gh t ened prot ec t i on fr om go vernm ent -i m po se d b urdens. ” C utt e rv. W i l ki ns on, 544 U . S . 709, 714, 125 S . C t . 2113, 2117 ( 2005) . T he st atu t e’ s o ri g i n s st em fro m th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s d eci si o n s i n tw o cases, E m pl oy m e ntD i vi s i on, D e pa r tm e ntof H um a n R e s our c e s of

O r e gon v. S m i th, 494 U . S . 872, 110 S . C t . 1595 ( 1990) a nd C i ty of B oe rne v. F l or e s , 521 U . S . 507, 117 S . C t . 2157 ( 1997) . P r i ort o S m i th, the S upr e m e C our tha d e m pl oy e d ac om pe l l i ng i nt er es tst andard for t es t i ng the const i tut i on al val i di ty of l aw s of gener al appl i cabi l i ty thataf

fe ct ed re l i gi ou s pra ct i ce s; go vernm entac t i on s thatbu rdened re l i gi ou s pra ct i ce s had t o b e j ust i fi ed by a c om pel l i ng go vernm enti nt er es t . S ee S he rbe r tv. V e rne r , 374 U . S . 398, 402- 03, 83 S . C t . 1790, 1792- 94 ( 1963) ; A tki ns v . K a s p a r , 3 9 3 F .3 d 5 5 9 , 5 6 6 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( d is c u s s in g th e p r e - S m ith la n d s c ap e ) . In S m i th, ho w ever , the S up re m e C ou rthel d thatl aw s of gener al appl i cabi l i ty that o n l y i n ci d en t al l y b u rd en rel i g i o u s co n d u ctd o n o to ffen d th e F ree E x erci se C l au se of the F i r s tA m e ndm e nt . S m i th, 494 U . S . a t878- 79, 110 S . C t . a t1599- 1600. C ongr e s s r e s ponde d t o S m i th by pa s s i ng the R e l i gi ous F r e e dom a nd R e s to r a tio n A c t o f

1 9 9 3 ( “R F R A ” ) , in w h ic h it s o u g h t to r e in s ta te th e p r e - S m ith

“ c om pe l l i ng i nt e r e s t ” s t a nda r d f orl a w s of

ge ne r a l appl i c abi l i ty bur de ni ng a p e r s o n ’ s r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e s . Se e Cu tt e r , 5 4 4 U . S. a t7 1 4 - 1 5 , 1 2 5 a t2 1 1 8 . RFRA15

h a d “u n iv e r s a l” c o v e r a g e , ap p ly in g to a ll s ta te a n d f e d e r a l la w s , a n d p u rp o r te d ly w a s pa s s e d pur s ua ntt o C ongr e s s ’ e nf or c e m e ntpow e r s unde rs e c t i on 5 of the F ou rt ee nth A m endm ent . S ee C i ty of B oerne, 52 1 U . S . at51 6-17 , 11 7 S . C t . at 2 1 6 2 ; s e e a l s o Cu tt e r , 5 4 4 U . S. a t7 1 5 , 1 2 5 S. Ct . a t2 1 1 8 ( s t a t i n g th a tRFRA l ac ked a C om m er ce C l ause or S pend i ng C l ause un derpi nn i ng ). In C i ty of B oerne, how e ve r , the S upr e m e C our ti nva l i da t e d R F R A a s appl i e d t o the s t a t e s , hol di ng th a t th e s ta tu te e x c e e d e d C o n g r e s s ’ r e m e d ia l p o w e r s u n d e rth e F o u r te e n th A m e ndm e nt . 521 U . S . a t535- 36, 117 S . C t . a t2172. C o n g r e s s a g a in r e s p o n d e d , th is tim e b y e n a c tin g R L U I P A , 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 c c - 2 0 0 0 c c - 5 . “L e s s s w e e p in g th a n R F R A ,” a n d “in v o k in g f e d e r a l a u th o r ity un der the S pend i ng and C om m er ce C l ause s, ” C ut t er , 54 4 U . S . at71 5, 12 5 S . C t . at 2118, R L U I P A t a r ge t s onl y tw o na rr ow a r e a s f orpr ot e c t i on: l a nd us e ( s e c t i on 2 of the A c t , 42 U . S . C . § 2000c c ) a nd the r e l i gi ous e xe r c i s e of i ns t i tut i ona l i z e d pe r s ons ( s e c tio n 3 o f

th e A c t, 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 c c - 1 ) . T h e latter s ec ti o n , w h ich is at issu e in th e p re se n t ap p ea l, states th at “[n ]o gove rnm e nts ha l l i m pos e as ubs t a nt i a l bur de n on the r e l i gi ous e xe r c i s e of ape r s on r e s i di ng i n orc onf

i ne d t o a n i ns t i tut i on . . . e ve n i f the bur de n r e s ul t s f

r om arul e of g e n e r a l ap p lic ab ility ,” u n le s s th e g o v e rn m e n t c a n d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e b u r d e n “is i n f ur the 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 “ i s the l e a s tr e s tr i c t i ve16

m ea ns of furtheri ng thatcom pel l i ng go vernm ent al i nt er es t . ” 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0cc1(a) . S ec t i on 3 o f R L U IP A there by af fords t o p ri son i nm at es a “ hei gh t ened pr ot e c t i on f

r om gove rnm e nt - i m pos e d bur de ns , ” by r e qui r i ng tha tthe gove rnm e nt d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e s u b s ta n tia l b u r d e n o n th e p r is o n e r ’s r e lig io u s e x e r c is e is ju s tif ie d b y ac o m p e llin g , r a th e rth a n m e r e ly ale g itim a te , g o v e rn m e n ta l in te r e s t. S ee W ar sol di er v . W o o d f o r d , 4 1 8 F .3 d 9 8 9 , 9 9 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . I n doi ng s o, s e c t i on 3 a f f or ds c onf

i ne d pe r s ons “ gr e a t e rpr ot e c t i on of r e l i gi ous e xe r c i s e tha n w ha tthe C ons t i tut i on i t s e l f a f f or ds . ” L ove l a c e v. L e e , 472 F . 3d 174, 186 ( 4th C i r . 2006) . S e c t i on 3 appl i e s w he ne ve r“ the s ubs t a nt i a l bur de n on re l i gi ou s e xerc i se i s i m po se d i n a prog ra m or ac t i vi ty thatre ce i ves f eder al fi nanci al a s s is ta n c e .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 c c - 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) . C. Smi th ’ s Cl a i ms f

o rI n j u n c t i v e Re l i e f

U n d e rRLU I PA O n ap p e a l, S m ith f

ir s t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in c o n s tru in g h is c la im s f o rin ju n c tiv e r e lie f

u n d e rR L U I P A a s b e in g m o o t. S m ith ’s a r g u m e n t in th is r e g a r d is tw o - f

o ld . F ir s t, h e c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in tr e a tin g h is r e q u e s t f o rin ju n c tiv e r e lie f

b a s e d o n h is r e q u e s t f

o ras m a ll q u a r tz c ry s ta l a s m o o t, du e t o h i s r el ea se fr om pri son i n 2 00 4. S ec on d, he ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt e rr e d i n a s s um i ng tha thi s othe rr e que s t s f ori nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

–na m e l y , hi s pe t i t i onA re leasefrom prison does not moot a c laim for monetar y damag es, McKinnon, 387 6 F .3 d at 13 62 , s inc ea

c laim f or mon e tary damag e s “ loo ks bac k in

tim eand is intende d tore dre ss a past injury .” Adler

v. Duval County

Sch. Bd., 112 F .3d 1475, 1477 (11th Cir. 1997). 17 f orade s i gna t e d w or s hi p a r e aa nd hi s r e que s tf oraf i r e pi t–ha d be e n m oot e d by the A D O C C om m i tt e e ’ s 2003 de c i s i on. W e a ddr e s s e a c h a r gum e nti n turn. “A r tic le I I I o f

th e C o n s titu tio n lim its th e ju r is d ic tio n o f th e f e d e r a l c o u r ts to the c ons i de r a t i on of

‘ C a s e s ’ a nd ‘ C ontr ove r s i e s . ’ ” M i ngki d v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 468 F . 3 d 7 6 3 , 7 6 8 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). “ T h e d o ctri n e o f m o o tn ess d e r iv e s d ir e c tly f

r o m th e c a s e - o r - c o n tr o v e r s ylim ita tio n , b e c a u s e a n a c tio n th a t is m ootc a nnotbe c ha r a c t e r i z e d a s a n a c t i ve c a s e orc ontr ove r s y . ” I d. ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . A c c or di ngl y , w e m a y note nt e r t a i n a n appe a l unl e s s the r e i s apr e s e nt c a s e orc ontr ove r s y , tha ti s , “ a n a c tua l di s put e [ tha t ] c ont i nue s t o e xi s tbe tw e e n the part i es . ” B ou rgeoi s v. P et er s, 38 7 F . 3d 13 03 , 13 08 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). O n the other hand , “ [a ] ca se i s m oo tw hen i tno l on ger pre se nt s al i ve controvers y w i th res pect t o w hi c h the c ourtc a n gi ve m e a ni ngf ul r e l i e f . ” M i ngki d, 468 F . 3d a t768 ( c i t a t i on, al t er at i on , and i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). T he general rul e i n o ur ci rc ui ti s thata tra nsfe r or are l ea se of a pri soner f r o m p r is o n w ill m o o t th a t p r is o n e r ’s c la im s f o rin ju n c tiv e a n d d e c la r a to ry r e lie f . M cK i nn on , 74 5 F . 2d at13 63 ; Z at l erv. W ai nri gh t , 80 2 F . 2d 39 7, 39 9 (11 th C i r. 1 9 8 6 ) ( p ercu riam ). T h e r ea so n fo r th is ru le is th at in ju n ctiv e r elief is “a 618

pr os pe c t i ve r e m e dy , i nt e nde d t o pr e ve ntf utur e i nj ur i e s , ” A dl e r , 112 F . 3d a t1477, a n d , a s ar e s u lt, o n c e th e p r is o n e rh a s b e e n r e le a s e d , th e c o u r t la c k s th e ab ility to g r a n t in ju n c tiv e r e lie f

a n d c o rr e c t th e c o n d itio n s o f w h ic h th e p r is o n e rc o m p la in e d . Se e , e . g . , W a h l v . M c I v e r , 7 7 3 F. 2 d 1 1 6 9 , 1 1 7 3 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 8 5 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( s t a t i ng tha tapr i s one r ’ s pa s te xpos ur e t o s ub- pa rc ondi t i ons i n apr i s on “ doe s not const i tut e apres entca se or controvers y i nv ol vi ng i nj un ct i ve re l i ef ”) . T he di stri ctcourtre l i ed on thi s w el l -e st abl i shed rul e, and con cl ud ed that S m i th’ s c l a i m f

ori nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

–r e que s t i ng tha tthe A D O C be or de r e d t o gr a nt h i m a cryst al fo r h i s p ract i ce o f O d i n i sm – h ad b een ren d ered m o o tb y h i s rel ease f r om pr i s on i n 2004. T he c our tf ound tha t“ [ S m i th’ s ] r e l e a s e c ons t i tut e d ac ha nge in th e f a c ts th a t e n d e d th e c o n tr o v e r s y w ith r e s p e c t to in ju n c tiv e r e lie f

f o rth is a lle g e d in

ju ry ,” th a t is , th e d e n ia l o f th e c ry s ta l. S m ith , 4 0 1 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 2 4 4 . T hi s de t e rm i na t i on w a s note rr one ous a tthe t i m e i tw a s m a de –i nde e d, unde rthe l a w of ourc i r c ui t , S m i th’ s r e l e a s e f r om the pr i s on w oul d ha ve m oot e d hi s c l a i m f or i nj un ct i ve re l i ef

re qu es t i ng thathe be grant ed the f ut ure u s e o f

ac ry s ta l. I n a n in te r e s tin g tu rn o f e v e n ts , h o w e v e r , a f

te rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e n d e r e d its de c i s i on a nd gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof the de f e nda nt - appe l l e e s on S m ith ’s c la im f

o rin ju n c tiv e r e lie f

, S m ith w a s r e - in c a r c e r a te d . A t p r e s e n t, S m ith r e m a in s in c a r c e r a te d in th e A D O C p r is o n s y s te m . M o r e o v e r , a s th e d e f e n d a n t-19

appe l l e e s c onc e de , S m i th i s a ga i n s ubj e c tt o the A D O C ’ s 2003 de c i s i on de ny i ng h is r e q u e s t f

o ras m a ll, q u a r tz c ry s ta l. S m i th’ s appe l l a t e br i e f i nc l ude s al e tt e rf

r om the A D O C , dat ed 14 S ept em ber 200 6, w hi ch i nd i ca t es thatthe 20 03 C om m i tt ee d e c is io n r e m a in s in f

u ll e f f e c t a n d is ap p lic ab le to h is e a r lie rr e lig io u s r e q u e s ts . S e e R e pl y B r . of

A ppe l l a nt , E xh. 1. T hus , i f S m i th w e r e t o a ga i n r e que s tthe us e of as m a ll q u a r tz c ry s ta l in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is p r a c tic e o f O d in is m , th e A D O C w o u ld pr e s um abl y de c l i ne hi s r e que s tf orthe s a m e r e a s ons i tdi d i n i t s or i gi na l 2003 deci si on , nam el y, thatthere w as a “ l ac k o f s up po rt i ng m at er i al s val i dat i ng a nee d f orthi s i t e m . ” R 2- 98, E xh. M a t1. I n l i ghtof

thi s e vi de nc e , w e c onc l ude tha tS m i th’ s c l a i m f ori nj unc t i ve r e l i e f , pr e di c a t e d on the pr os pe c t i ve us e of aqua r t z c ry s t a l , i s notm oot . T he fund am ent al qu es t i on w i th res pectt o m oo tness i s w hether e vent s have occurr ed s ubs e que ntt o the f

i l i ng of a n appe a l tha t“ de pr i ve the c ourtof the abi l i ty t o gi ve the . . . appe l l a ntm e a ni ngf ul r e vi e w . ” A l N a

j a rv. A s hc r of

t , 273 F . 3d 1330, 1336 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( per c uri am ). H er e, w er e w e t o con cl ud e thatthe deni al of a qua r t z c ry s t a l c ons t i tut e d as ubs t a nt i a l bur de n on S m i th’ s r e l i gi ous pr a c t i c e a nd tha ti tw a s notj us t i f

i e d by ac om pe l l i ng gove rnm e nti nt e r e s t , w e w oul d ha ve the abi l i ty t o aff

ord rel i ef t o S m i th, by re vers i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s s um m ary j udge m e ntor de ra nd r e m a ndi ng the c a s e s o tha tS m i th c oul d obt a i n the i nj unc t i veNo r, de sp itethepa rtie s’ arguments , n e e d w einq uireinto whether S mith’ s c a sewould 7 fall under the “c apableof repetition yet evading review”exception to mootness. S ee Mur phy v. Hunt, 45 5 U .S. 47 8, 48 2, 10 2 S. Ct. 11 81 , 1 18 3 ( 19 82 ) (per curiam) (discus singthi s e xcepti on to mootness). In this c a se , it

is n ot a qu e sti on of wh e ther t hedenial of

Smit h’ s c rystal isre a so na

bly likely to occur in the future, such that this ex ception would apply . See id. Rather, theconduct at issue is occurring at present, sinceSmith remains subject to the 2003 denial of his cr ystal. Be causethis is a live case or controversy, one to which wehave theability to presently

aff ord meaning ful relief

, Smith’s claim base d on the denial of the cr ystal is not mootin the first place . An inquiry

into whether a

n exc eption to m oo tne ss a pp lie s– su c h a s whether t

hec on duc t islike ly t o re cur i nth ef uture– w o u l d thu s b em i s p l a c e d

an d unn e c e s s ar

y. 20 re l i ef he se eks. B ec ause w e have the abi l i ty t o eff ec tuat e are m edy i n S m i th’ s c as e, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th is p a r tic u la ra s p e c t o f h is c a s e is n o t m o o t. S e e , e .g ., 7 S u n A m e r ic aC o rp . v . S u n L if e A s s u r a n c e C o . o f

C a n a d a , 7 7 F .3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 3 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 96 ) ( st at i ng that“ [t ] he abi l i ty of the appel l at e c ou rtt o eff ec tuat e apart i al re m edy i s s uffi ci entt o p re ventm oo tness ” a nd concl ud i ng thatbecause “ po t ent i al r e l i e f r e m a i ns a va i l abl e t o [ the pl a i nt i f f ] . . . th[ e ] c a s e i s notm oota nd [ ] w e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o de c i de the m e r i t s of thi s appe a l ” ) ( quot a t i ons a nd i nt e rna l c i t a t i ons o m itte d ) . T h e r e f

o r e , in a s s e s s in g th e m e r its o f S m ith ’s R L U I P A a c tio n , w e w ill c o n s id e rS m ith ’s c la im f o rin ju n c tiv e r e lie f

, b a s e d o n h is r e q u e s t f

o ras m a ll, q u a r tz c ry s ta l. S m ith f u r th e rc h a lle n g e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t o th e ra s p e c ts of hi s c l a i m f

ori nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

ha d be e n m oot e d by the A D O C R e l i gi ous A c t i vi t i e s R e vi e w C om m i tt e e ’ s de c i s i on i n 2003. S pe c i f i c a l l y , he c ha l l e nge s the di stri ctcourt ’ s c on cl usi on (bas ed on the m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s r ec om m endat i on ) that21

hi s r e que s t s f

ora“ de s i gna t e d pl a c e of w or s hi p” a nd f

orapi ne w ood f

i r e i n a

“ s m a l l f i r e pi tappr oxi m a t e l y 9' ' i n di a m e t e ra nd 9' ' de e p, ” R 2- 63, E xh. K - 1 a t1- 2, ha d be e n m oot e d–pr i ort o the s um m a ry j udgm e nts t a ge –by the C om m i tt e e ’ s 2003 d e c is io n . In as se ss in g th es e c laim s, th e d istrict co u rt ad o p ted th e m ag istrate ju d g e’s f i ndi ng tha tS m i th’ s r e que s tf orade s i gna t e d pl a c e of w or s hi p ha d be e n m oot e d, s i nc e the C om m i tt e e ha d de c i de d tha tS m i th w oul d be gr a nt e d “ as e c ur e pl a c e of w o r s h ip ” g o in g f

o rw a r d . R 2 - 9 8 , E x h . M a t 2 . N o tab ly , th e C o m m itte e d e c lin e d to grantS m i th’ s r equestfor a“ de s i gnate d plac e of

w ors hi p to p e r f o rm [ th e O d in is t] ri t es ” w i thi n the l ar ger pri son are a, i d. (e m ph as i s a dd ed); ho w ever , the di stri ct c our tc ons true d the C om m i tt e e ’ s de c i s i on t o gr a ntS m i th a“ s e c ur e pl a c e of w or s hi p, ” i d. , a s , e f

f e c t i ve l y , agr a ntof

hi s r e que s t , the r e by r e nde r i ng i tm oot . T he d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o c o n c lu d e d th a t th e C o m m itte e d e c is io n g r a n tin g S m ith “a c a n d le [t o b e u sed ] i n a p ri v at e secu re p l ace, ” i d . , h ad effecti v el y sat i sfi ed S m i th ’ s req u est for ace re m on i al fi re pi t , and, there fore , thatpart i cul arcl ai m for i nj un ct i ve re l i ef ha d be e n m oot e d. S m i th c ont e nds tha tthe s e c onc l us i ons w e r e i n e rr or , a nd tha t , c ontr a ry t o the di stri ctcourt ’ s f

i nd i ng , the 20 03 deci si on di d n otm oo tthese tw o i nd i vi du al re qu es t s f

or i nj un ct i ve re l i ef

. H e poi nt s outthathi s r equestfor adesi gn at ed pl ac e22

o f w o rsh i p w as actu al l y deni ed by the C om m i tt e e , a nd tha tthi s r e que s tf or i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

r e m a i ns pe ndi ng a tpr e s e nt , s i nc e he c ont i nue s t o pe t i t i on the A D O C for adesi gn at ed w orshi p are a i n the pri son. In other w ords, S m i th argues tha tthe C om m i tt e e ’ s l i m i t i ng of hi s r e que s tt o a“ s e c ur e pl a c e of w or s hi p, ” R 2- 98, E xh. M a t2, doe s notm oothi s ( s t i l l e xt a nt ) r e que s tf or“ ade s i gna t e d a r e aof w orshi p” i n the great erpri son, R 2-63 , E xh . K -1 at1, and thatthere fore , w e m ay c o n s i d e ri t . A d d i t i o n a l l y , Smi th c o n t e n d s th a tth e Co mmi tt e e ’ s g r a n t i n g h i m a sm al l ca nd l e di d n otm oo thi s c l ai m for “ a f i re pi t , approx i m at el y 9' ' i n d i am et er a nd 9' ' de e p, ” i d. a t2, a nd, s i nc e thi s c l a i m f ori nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

r e m a i ns pe ndi ng, w e m a y c o n s id e rth a t r e q u e s t a s w e ll. W e a gr e e . A s not e d e a r l i e r , S m i th i s pr e s e nt l y i nc a r c e r a t e d, i s s ubj e c tt o the A D O C ’ s e ar l i erdeci si on , and i s app ar ent l y c on t i nu i ng t o p re ss hi s r equestfor a d e s ig n a te d p la c e o f

w o r s h ip in th e g e n e r a l p r is o n a r e aa n d f o rac e r e m o n ia l f

ir e p it. A s di sc usse d, i nj un ct i ve re l i ef i s prospec t i ve i n n ature, “ i nt ended t o p re ventfuture i nj ur i e s , ” i nc l udi ng the A D O C ’ s c ont i nue d de ni a l of ade s i gna t e d w or s hi p s pota nd a 9' ' by 9' ' fi re pi t . S ee A dl er , 11 2 F . 3d at14 77 . W hi l e the di stri ctcourtfoun d that the s e tw o c l a i m s w e r e no l onge rpe ndi ng, be c a us e the C om m i tt e e ha d “ a l l ow [ e d] S m i th t o p osse ss ce rt ai n rel i gi ou s obj ec t s, as w el l as an ar eai n w hi ch t o p ra ct i ce h is fa ith ,” S m ith , 4 0 1 F . S u p p 2 d at 1 2 4 4 , w e a g re e th at th e C o m m ittee’s23

de c i s i on–w hi c h w a s pa r t i a l i n na tur e –di d notw hol l y nul l i f y S m i th’ s r e que s t s , a nd tha t , f orpurpos e s of

m ootne s s , w e r e t a i n the abi l i ty t o e f f e c tua t e apa r t i a l r e m e dy i n thi s c as e. S ee S un A m er i ca , 77 F . 3d at13 33 (“ T he abi l i ty of the appel l at e c ou rt t o e f f e c tua t e apa r t i a l r e m e dy i s s uf f i c i e ntt o pr e ve ntm ootne s s . ” ) ( c i t a t i on a nd in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . P u t s im p ly , w e r e w e to f in d th a t th e d e n ia l o f

ad e s ig n a te d w o r s h ip p la c e in th e l a r g e rp r i s o n , a n d th e d e n i a l o f a9 ' ' b y 9 ' ' f

i r e p i t , d i d i n f

a c tv i o l a t e R L UI P A, S m ith c o u ld o b ta in to “ap p r o p r ia te r e lie f ,” 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 c c - 2 ( a ) , in c lu d in g , in th e co u rt ’ s d i scret i o n , an i n j u n ct i o n p ro sp ect i v el y g ran t i n g h i m th ese tw o req u est s, i n th e i re n t i r e ty . B e c a u s e s o m e “ p o t e n t i a l r e l i e f r e m a i n s a v a i l ab l e t o [ S m i th ] , ” we hol d tha tthe s e tw o c l a i m s a r e “ notm oota nd tha tw e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o de c i de the m e r i t s ” of

the s e c l a i m s . S e e S unA m e r i c a , 77 F . 3d a t1333. W e a gr e e tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d notha ve l abe l e d the s e tw o pa r t i c ul a rc l a i m s f ori nj unc t i ve r e lie f a s b e in g m o o t, b a s e d s o le ly o n th e C o m m itte e ’s 2 0 0 3 d e c is io n , w h ic h o n ly pa r t i a l l y gr a nt e d S m i th’ s r e que s t s . A s ar e s ul t , w e c ons i de rthe s e tw o c l a i m s on the m e r i t s i n a ddr e s s i ng S m i th’ s unde r l y i ng R L U I P A a c t i on. D . V i ab i l i ty o f

Smi th ’ s Cl a i ms f

o rM o n e t a ry D a ma g e s U n d e rRLU I PA H av in g re so lv ed w h ich claim s f o r in ju n ctiv e r elief r em ain v iab le in S m ith ’s appeal , w e now m ustaddres s w hether S m i th cou l d o bt ai n add i t i on al , m on et ary24

re l i ef i n the eventhe w er e t o est abl i sh a R L U IP A vi ol at i on . T hi s i nq ui ryi nv ol ves the prel i m i naryqu es t i on of w hether m on et ary dam ages ar e provi ded for un der R L U IP A ’ s s t atut ory rub ri c, and, i f s o, w hether S m i th m ayal l ege e i ther a n in d iv id u a l o ra n o f

f ic ia l c ap a c ity s u it f

o rd a m a g e s – o rb o th

–u n d e rR L U I P A . 1 . Av a i l ab i l i ty o f

Mo n e t a ry Da m a g e s Un d e rR L UI P A R L U I P A c r e a te s ap r iv a te c a u s e o f a c tio n f o rap r is o n in m a te if

s e c tio n 3 is vi ol at ed, and further provi des thatthe com pl ai ni ng party, i f s ucce ss ful , m ay “o b ta in ap p r o p r ia te r e lie f a g a in s t ag o v e rn m e n t.” 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 c c - 2 ( a ) . W h ile th e p a r tie s d o n o t d is p u te th a t th e p h r a s e “ap p r o p r ia te r e lie f ” w o u ld p r e s u m ab ly e nt i t l e ac om pl a i ni ng i nm a t e t o i nj unc t i ve a nd de c l a r a t ory r e l i e f –s uc h a s , f

or e x a m p le , a n o r d e rg r a n tin g th e in m a te th e r ig h t to ap a r tic u la ro b je c t f o ru s e in r e lig io u s w o r s h ip

– th e q u e s tio n is w h e th e rth a t p h r a s e a ls o e n c o m p a s s e s ar ig h t to m o n e ta ry r e lie f

. T o puti tm i l dl y , “ the r e i s adi vi s i on of a uthor i ty ” on thi s que s t i on. M a di s on v. V a. , 47 4 F . 3d 11 8, 13 0 n . 3 (4th C i r. 20 06 ). S om e di stri ctcourt s have c on cl ud ed th atth e p h rase “app ro p ri at e rel i ef” as u sed i n R L U IP A d o es n o ten co m p ass m one t a ry da m a ge s . S e e , e . g. , B ol e s v. N e e t , 402 F . S upp. 2d 1237, 1241 ( D . C o. 2005) ( “ I tw oul d appe a r , the r e f or e , tha tthe ‘ appr opr i a t e r e l i e f’ pe rm i tt e d unde rthe s t a tut e m us tbe l i m i t e d t o i nj unc t i ve orde c l a r a t ory r e l i e f . . . . ” ) ; s e e a l s o D a ke rv.25

F e rr e r o, 475 F . S upp. 2d 1325, 1337 ( N . D . G a . 2007) ( f i ndi ng R L U I P A t o be

“ a m bi guous on the que s t i on of w he the ri ta uthor i z e s apr i va t e r i ghtof a c t i on seek i n g m o n et ary d am ag es, ” b u trej ect i n g a reco v ery o f m o n et ary d am ag es, i na s m uc h a s the y a r e s oughti n a n i ndi vi dua l c apa c i ty l a w s ui t ) . A num be rof di stri ctcourt s have c on cl ud ed otherw i se , and h ave f ou nd thatR L U IP A ’ s phras e, “ap p r o p r ia te r e lie f

,” is s u f f ic ie n tly b r o a d to in c lu d e s o m e f o rm s o f m o n e ta ry r e lie f

. S ee S hi dl erv. M oo re , 40 9 F . S up p. 2d 10 60 , 10 67 (N . D . Il l . 20 06 ); G uru N anak S i k h S o c . o f

Yu b aC i ty v . C o u n ty o f S u tt e r , 3 2 6 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 1 4 0 , 1 1 6 1 - 6 2 ( E . D. C a l . 2003) ; s e e a l s o C ha s e v. C i ty of P or t s m outh, N o. 2: 05C V 446, 2005 W L 3079065, a t*5 ( E . D . V a . N ov. 16, 2005) ( “ A ppr opr i a t e r e l i e f m a y i nc l ude in ju n c tiv e a n d d e c la r a to ry r e lie f a s w e ll a s n o m in a l d a m a g e s .” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . S till o th e rc o u r ts h a v e a s s u m e d th a t m o n e y d a m a g e s a r e a v a ilab le , w ith o u t a c tu a lly de c i di ng the que s t i on. S e e P r e s l e y v. E dw a r ds , N o. 2: 04- C V - 729- W K W , 2007 W L 174153, a t*13 ( M . D . A l . J a n. 19, 2007) ; G oode n v. C r a i n, 405 F . S upp. 2d 714, 723- 24 ( E . D . T e x. 2005) ; C ha r l e s v. V e rha ge n, 220 F . S upp. 2d 937, 938- 39 ( W .D . W is . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h is w a s th e ap p r o a c h ta k e n b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in th is c a s e in d is p o s in g o f

S m ith ’s a c tio n . S e e S m ith , 4 0 1 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 2 4 6 . T he S upr e m e C our tha s i ns truc t e d tha t , w he r e C ongr e s s ha d notgi ve n a ny g u id a n c e o rc le a rin d ic a tio n o f its p u rp o s e w ith r e s p e c t to r e m e d ie s , f e d e r a l c o u r ts26

s houl d pr e s um e the a va i l abi l i ty of a l l appr opr i a t e r e m e di e s . S e e F r a nkl i n v. G w i nne ttC ounty P ubl i c S c hool s , 503 U . S . 60, 68- 69, 112 S . C t . 1028, 1034 (199 2) (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). In F ra nk l i n, the i ss ue before the C ou rtw as w hattypes of re m edi es w er e a vai l abl e i n a pri vat e r i gh tof ac t i on for s ex di sc ri m i nat i on un der T itle I X o f

th e E d u c a tio n A m e n d m e n ts o f 1 9 7 2 , 2 0 U .S .C . § 1 6 8 1 ( “T itle I X ” ) . A l tho ug h the st atut e w as si l entas t o w hatre m edi es w er e a vai l abl e, the courtst at ed th a t it w a s ap p r o p r ia te f o rac o u r t to “p r e s u m e th e a v a ilab ility o f a ll ap p r o p r ia te r e m e di e s unl e s s C ongr e s s ha s e xpr e s s l y i ndi c a t e d othe rw i s e . ” 503 U . S . a t66, 112 S . C t . a t1032. T hus , abs e nta ny i nt e ntt o the c ontr a ry r e f l e c t e d i n the s t a tut e , the C o u r t in s tru c te d th a t th e p r e s u m p tio n s h o u ld b e in f a v o ro f a ll a v a ilab le r e lie f

–b o th i nj unc t i ve a nd m one t a ry . I d. a t73, 112 S . C t . a t1036. A ft erF ra nk l i n, court s–w hen face d w i th a st atut e l ac ki ng expres s gui dance on the qu es t i on of re m edi es –h ave genera l l y a dh er ed t o thi s pre sum pt i on . In R ei ch v. C am bri dg eportA i r S ys t em s, Inc. , for e xam pl e, the F i rs tC i rc ui tconcl ud ed that the ge ne r a l phr a s e “ a l l appr opr i a t e r e l i e f , ” a s us e d i n s e c t i on 11( c ) of the O cc up at i on al S af

ety a nd H ea l th A ct , 66 U . S . C . § 6 60 (c ), “ em brac e[ d] m on et ary da m a ge s a s w e l l a s othe rr e l e va ntf orm s of r e l i e f norm a l l y a va i l abl e . ” 26 F . 3d 1 1 8 7 , 1 1 9 1 ( 1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) .27

In l i g h to f F ran k l i n an d i t s p ro g en y, w e ag ree th atth e u se o f th e p h rase

“ approp ri at e r el i ef

” i n sec t i on 3 o f R L U IP A , 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0cc( a) , i s broad enou gh t o encom pass the ri gh tt o m on et ary dam ages i n the eventa pl ai nt i ff es t abl i shes a vi ol at i on of the st atut e. C on gres s e xp re ss ed no i nt entt o the contra ry w i thi n R L U I P A , e ve n though i tc oul d ha ve , by , f ore xa m pl e , e xpl i c i t l y l i m i t i ng the re m edi es se tforth i n § 20 00 cc (a ) t o i nj un ct i ve re l i ef on l y. Inst ea d, C on gres s use d b r o a d , g e n e r a l la n g u a g e in c r a f tin g th e r e m e d ie s s e c tio n o f R L U I P A , s ta tin g th a t a p r e v a ilin g p a r ty c o u ld o b ta in “ap p r o p r ia te r e lie f .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 c c ( a ) . W e a s s um e tha t , w he n C ongr e s s a c t e d, i tw a s a w a r e of F r a nkl i n’ s pr e s um pt i on i n f a vor of m a ki ng a l l appr opr i a t e r e m e di e s a va i l abl e t o the pr e va i l i ng pa r ty . S e e F r a nkl i n, 5 0 3 U .S . a t 7 3 , 1 1 2 S . C t. a t 1 0 3 6 . I n lig h t o f th a t p r e s u m p tio n , w e c o n c lu d e th a t, ab s e n ta n i n t e n tt o th e c o n tr a ry , th e p h r a s e “ ap p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f ” i n RLU I PA encom pass es m on et ary a s w el l as i nj un ct i ve re l i ef . H a v in g r e a c h e d th a t g e n e r a l c o n c lu s io n , h o w e v e r , it b e a r s p o in tin g o u t th a t a p riso n er p la i n t i

f f’s r i g h tt o mo n e t a ry r e l i e f i s s e v e r e l y c i r c u ms c r i b e d b y th e t e rms o f th e Pr i s o n e rLi t i g a t i o n Re f o rm A c t( “ PLRA ” ) , 4 2 U . S. C. § 1 9 9 7 ( e ) . Th e PLRA pr ovi de s tha tapr i s one rm a y notbr i ng af e de r a l c i vi l a c t i on “ f

orm e nt a l or em ot i on al i nj ury s uffe re d w hi l e i n cust od y w i tho uta pri or show i ng of ph ys i ca l in ju ry .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 ( e ) ; s e e a ls o N ap ie rv . P r e s lic k a , 3 1 4 F .3 d 5 2 8 , 5 3 2 ( 1 1 th28

C i r . 2002) ( c ons trui ng § 1997( e ) a s ba rr i ng apr i s one rf r om obt a i ni ng c o m p e n s a to ry d a m a g e s f o rs o le ly m e n ta l o re m o tio n a l h a rm w h ile h e is in cust od y) . D e s p ite th is lim ita tio n , n o m in a l d a m a g e s m a y s o m e tim e s b e ap p r o p r ia te unde r§ 1997( e ) . S e e , e . g. , C a r e y v. P i phus , 435 U . S . 247, 255, 98 S . C t . 1042 (1 9 7 8 ) (st at i n g th atn o m i n al d am ag es m ay b e ap p ro p ri at e i f a p l ai n t i ff est ab l i sh es a vi ol at i on of a c on st i tut i on al ri gh t , even i f he c anno tprov e a ctual ph ys i ca l i nj ury s u f f ic ie n t to e n title h im to c o m p e n s a to ry d a m a g e s ) . I n d e e d , in e a r lie rc a s e s th is c our tha s s ugge s t e d tha t§ 1997( e ) doe s notpr e c l ude apr i s one rf r om s e e ki ng n o m in a l d a m a g e s , if

h e c a n e s tab lis h th a t h e h a s s u f f e r e d ac o n s titu tio n a l in

ju ry . S e e H ughe s v. L ott , 350 F . 3d 1157, 1162 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ; s e e a l s o B oxe rX v. D o n ald , 1 6 9 F ed . A p p ’x 5 5 5 , 5 5 8 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) ( statin g th at “th e P L R A ’s l i m i t a t i on on c om pe ns a t ory r e l i e f doe s notne c e s s a r i l y l i m i tothe rf orm s of m on et ary r el i ef

, ” nam el y, no m i nal dam ages ). H er e, S m i th h as al l eged vi ol at i on s of R L U IP A du e t o the bu rden pl ac ed u p o n h is r e lig io u s e x e r c is e , b u t n o p h y s ic a l h a rm . H e s e e k s n o m in a l, com pensat ory, and p un i t i ve dam ages . Iti s c l ea r f rom ou r c as e l aw , ho w ever , that the l att ertw o types of dam ages ar e pre cl ud ed un der the P L R A , N api er , 31 4 F . 3d at 53 2, bu tthatno m i nal dam ages m ayst i l l be re coverabl e. H ug hes, 35 0 F . 3d at29

1 1 6 2 . T h u s, al th o u g h w e co n cl u d e, as a g en eral m att er, th atR L U IP A ’ s p h rase

“ ap p ro p ri at e rel i ef” co n t em p l at es m o n et ary as w el l as i n j u n ct i v e rel i ef, i n th i s case i ti s c l ea r thatS m i th’ s m on et ary a w ar d, i f a ny, w i l l be l i m i t ed t o a grantof no m i nal dam ages , i n l i gh tof the l i m i t i ng l angu age of § 19 97 (e ). H a vi ng c onc l ude d tha tS m i th m a y s e e k nom i na l da m a ge s i n hi s s e c t i on 3 R L U IP A ac t i on agai nstthe A D O C , w e now m ustaddres s w hether S m i th i s e nt i t l ed t o br i ng e i the ra n i ndi vi dua l c apa c i ty a c t i on, ora n of f i c i a l c apa c i ty a c t i on, orboth, ag ai n stth ese d efen d an t -ap p el l ees. 2 . A v a i l ab i l i ty o f

a n I n d i v i d u a l Cap a c i ty Su i tf o rD a ma g e s U n d e rRLU I PA T h e d i st i n ct i o n b etw een an i n d i v i d u al cap aci ty su i t

– al so referred t o as a pe r s ona l c apa c i ty s ui t–a nd a n of f i c i a l c apa c i ty s ui ti s as i gni f i c a ntone . “ W he n a pl ai nt i ff sues a m un i ci pal offi ce r i n the offi ce r’ s i nd i vi du al capaci ty f or al l eged [] vi ol at i on s, the pl ai nt i ff

se eks m on eydam ages di re ct l y f rom the i nd i vi du al offi ce r. ” B u s b y v . C ity o f

O r la n d o , 9 3 1 F .2 d 7 6 4 , 7 7 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . I n c ontr a s t , a n of

f i c i a l c apa c i ty s ui ti s , e s s e nt i a l l y , “ pl e a di ng a n a c t i on a ga i ns tthe e nt i ty of w hi c h a n of

f i c e ri s a n a ge nt . ” K e ntuc ky v. G r a ha m , 473 U . S . 159, 165, 10 5 S . C t . 30 99 , 31 05 (198 5) (c i t at i on and q uo t at i on s om i tt ed). M oreover, i n an in d iv id u a l c ap a c ity s u it, ad e f e n d a n t “m a y , d e p e n d in g o n h is p o s itio n , b e ab le to a s s e r tpe r s ona l i m m uni ty de f e ns e s , ” s uc h a s qua l i f

i e d i m m uni ty . I d. a t166- 67,F or thi s re a so n, a s th edis tric t c ourt ob serv e d, “ [a]b sent l ia

bil ity fo r damag e s in

the ir 8 individual capac ities, there is no nee d for g overnment employees to raise, and thus for thecourt to addre ss, the qualified immunity defense.” SeeSmith, 401 F. Supp. 2d at 1246.

30 10 5 S . C t . at31 05 . In contra st , i n an o ff i ci al capaci ty a ct i on , “ the on l y i m m un i t i es 8 th a t c a n b e c la im e d . . . a r e f o rm s o f s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity th a t th e e n tity , qua en t i ty, m a y p o s s e s s , s u c h a s th e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t.” I d . a t 1 6 7 , 1 0 5 S . C t. a t 3 1 0 6 . I n th is c a s e , S m ith ’s R L U I P A a c tio n s e e k s d a m a g e s f r o m th e d e f

e n d a n tappe l l e e s both i n the i ri ndi vi dua l a nd of f i c i a l c apa c i t i e s . T he c a s e l a w on R L U IP A , ho w ever , i s notcl ea r a s t o w hether the st atut e perm i t s asui tfor m on et ary d a m a g e s a g a in s t g o v e rn m e n t e m p lo y e e d e f e n d a n ts in th e irin d iv id u a l c ap a c itie s . I nde e d, the di s tr i c tc our t s ha ve be e n s pl i ton thi s que s t i on. C om pa r e A gr a w a l v. B r i l e y , N o. 02 - C - 6807, 2006 W L 3523750, a t*9- 10 ( N . D . I l l . D e c . 6, 2006) ( pe rm i tt i ng a n i ndi vi dua l c apa c i ty s ui tf orm one t a ry da m a ge s unde rR L U I P A ) a nd Or a f a n v . Go o r d , No . 0 0 C U2 0 2 2 ( L E K/R F T ) , 2 0 0 3 WL 2 1 9 7 2 7 3 5 , a t* 9 ( N. D. N . Y . A ug . 11 , 20 03 ) ( st at i ng that“ [c ] l ea rl y [ R L U IP A ] cont em pl at es i nd i vi du al l i abi l i ty ” ) w i th H a m m ons v. J one s , N o. 00- C V - 0143- C V E - S A J , 2006 W L 353448, at* 1 (N . D . O k . F eb . 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 ) (R L U IP A o n l y al l o w s fo r o ffi ci al cap aci ty act i o n s) a nd H a l e O K aul aC hur c h v. M a ui P l a nni ng C om m ’ n, 229 F . S upp. 2d 1056, 1067 ( D . H a w . 2002) ( s t a t i ng tha tR L U I P A “ doe s notappe a rt o a l l ow c a us e s of a c t i on agai nsti nd i vi du al s” ).31

R L U I P A ’s s e c tio n 3 p r o v id e s th a t “[ a ] p e r s o n m a y a s s e r t av io la tio n o f th is ch ap t er as a clai m . . . i n a j u d i ci al p ro ceed i n g an d o b t ai n ap p ro p ri at e rel i ef ag ai n st a g o v ern m en t . ” 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 cc-2 (a). T h e t erm “ g o v ern m en t ” i s d efi n ed as:

( i) aS ta te , c o u n ty , m u n ic ip a lity , o ro th e rg o v e rn m e n ta l e n tity c r e a te d u n d e rth e a u th o r ity o f aS ta te ; ( ii) ab r a n c h , d e p a r tm e n t, agency , i nstrum ent al i ty, or offi ci al of an ent i ty l i st ed i n cl ause ; a n d ( i i i ) a n y o th e rp e r s o n a c t i n g u n d e rc o l o ro f S t a t e l a w. I d . a t § 2 0 0 0 c c - 5 . S m i th ci t es t o thi s l angu age, es peci al l y the l att erre fe re nces t o “ [a n] offi ci al of an ent i ty” and t o “ any other pers on ac t i ng un der c ol or of st at e l aw , ” i d. , as e v i d e n c e th a tRLU I PA w a s d e s i g n e d t o p r o v i d e f o rmo n e t a ry r e l i e f

f r o m i ndi v i dual gove rnm e nt a l e m pl oy e e s , i n a ddi t i on t o pe rm i tt i ng ar e c ove ry f r om the g o v e rn m e n ta l e n tity its e lf . S m ith c o n te n d s th a t th e p h r a s e “u n d e rc o lo ro f s ta te l a w ” i n R L U I P A i s s i m i l a rt o the “ unde rc ol orof ” l a ngua ge tha tappe a r s i n 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , w h ic h c r e a te s ac a u s e o f a c tio n a g a in s t a n y p e r s o n w h o , w h ile a c t i ng “ unde rc ol orof

a ny s t a tut e or di na nc e , r e gul a t i on, c us t om , orus a ge , of a ny S t a t e , ” c a us e s “ the de pr i va t i on of a ny r i ght s , pr i vi l e ge s , ori m m uni t i e s s e c ur e d by the C on st i tut i on . ” J ustas the l att erprov i des f or an act i on agai nsti nd i vi du al go vernm entem pl oyee s f or dam ages , ar gu es S m i th, so t oo shou l d the form er .32

A fl aw w i th thi s a rgum ent , ho w ever , i s thatse ct i on 3 o f R L U IP A w as e na c t e d pur s ua ntt o C ongr e s s ’ S pe ndi ng P ow e runde rA r t i c l e I of the C ons t i tut i on; R L U I P A “[ s ]e c tio n 3 ap p lie s w h e n th e s u b s ta n tia l b u r d e n o n r e lig io u s e x e r c is e is i m po se d i n a prog ra m or ac t i vi ty thatre ce i ves f eder al fi nanci al as si st ance . ” C ut t er , 5 4 4 U .S . a t 7 1 6 , 1 2 5 S . C t a t 2 1 1 8 ( a lte r a tio n s a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . O u r co u rt , i n ad d ressi n g o th er fed eral st atu t es th atem an at e d i rect l y fro m C o n g ress’ S pend i ng P ow er–thati s, fe dera l st atut es thatcond i t i on a s t at e’ s r ec ei ptof fe dera l fund i ng on the st at e’ s a dh er ence t o cert ai n con di t i on s–has r epea t edl y hel d that C on gres s c anno tuse i t s S pend i ng P ow ert o subj ec ta non -r ec i pi entof fe dera l f u n d s , in c lu d in g as ta te o f f ic ia l a c tin g h is o rh e rin d iv id u a l c ap a c ity , to p r iv a te l i abi l i ty f orm one t a ry da m a ge s . S e e , e . g. , H a r t l e y v. P a rne l l , 193 F . 3d 1263, 1270 (11th C i r. 19 99 ) ( st at i ng thati nd i vi du al sc ho ol offi ci al s c anno tbe hel d l i abl e und er T itle I X , b e c a u s e aT itle I X c la im c a n o n ly b e b r o u g h t a g a in s t th e g r a n t r e c ip ie n t) . A s w e d is c u s s b e lo w , th is f a c t s tr o n g ly m ilita te s a g a in s t ar e c o g n itio n o f ap r iv a te act i o n ag ai n stan i n d i v i d u al cap aci ty d efen d an tfo r m o n et ary d am ag es. T he S pend i ng C l ause of the C on st i tut i on prov i des, i n p ert i nentpart , that

“ C ongr e s s s ha l l ha ve the P ow e rT o l a y a nd c ol l e c tT a xe s , D ut i e s , I m pos t s a nd E xci se s, t o p aythe D ebt s a nd prov i de for the com m on D ef ence and g ener al W e l f a r e o f th e U n i t e d St a t e s . ” U . S. C ON ST . a r t I ., § 8 , c l. 1 . P u r s u a n t to th is33

a uthor i ty , the S upr e m e C our tha s he l d tha t“ C ongr e s s m a y a tt a c h c ondi t i ons on the r e c e i ptof

f e de r a l f unds ” a nd m a y “ f

ur the ri t s br oa d pol i c y obj e c t i ve s by c o n d itio n in g r e c e ip t o f

f e d e r a l m o n e y s u p o n c o m p lia n c e b y th e r e c ip ie n t w ith f e d e r a l s t a tu t o ry a n d a d mi n i s tr a t i v e d i r e c t i v e s . ” So u th D a k o t av . D o l e , 4 8 3 U . S. 2 0 3 , 2 0 6 , 1 0 7 S . C t. 2 7 9 3 , 2 7 9 5 - 9 6 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ( c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . C o n g r e s s ’ S p e n d in g le g is la tio n ty p ic a lly g r a n ts f e d e r a l f u n d s to s ta te in s titu tio n s in exchange for the st at e’ s c om pl i ance w i th cert ai n con di t i on s. S uch l egi sl at i on has be e n de s c r i be d a s c r e a t i ng a“ c ontr a c t ” be tw e e n the f e de r a l gove rnm e nta nd the s ta te th a t r e c e iv e s th e f

e d e r a l f u n d s . S e e F lo y d v . W a ite r s , 1 3 3 F .3 d 7 8 6 , 7 8 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) , v a c a te d o n o th e rg r o u n d s , 5 2 5 U .S . 8 0 2 , 1 1 9 S . C t. 33, r e i ns t a t e d a t171 F . 3d 1264 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . A s ar e s ul t , “ [ t ] he l e gi t i m a c y of C ongr e s s ’ pow e rt o l e gi s l a t e unde rthe s pe ndi ng pow e r[ ] r e s t s on w he the rthe S t at e v o l u n t ari l y an d k n o w i n g l y accep t [ed ] th e t erm s o f th e ‘ co n tract . ’ ” P en n h u rst S t a t e S c h. & H os p. v. H a l de rm a n, 451 U . S . 1, 17, 101 S . C t . 1531, 1540 ( 1981) (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). A dd i t i on al l y, pu rs uantt o thi s a rr angem ent , C on gres s m ay cr ea te a f u n d in g co n trac t th at co n d it io n s th e a w ar d o f f ed er al m o n ies to th e s tate’s w a iv e ro f

s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity to p r iv a te la w s u its s e e k in g to e n f o r c e th e le g is la tio n . S e e , e . g. , F r a nkl i n, 503 U . S . a t74- 75, 112 S . C t . a t1037 ( f i ndi ng tha tthe S pe ndi ng34

P o w e rp e rm itte d C o n g r e s s to c r e a te ap r iv a te c a u s e o f a c tio n a g a in s t as ta te in s titu tio n f

o rav io la tio n o f

T itle I X ) . C ongr e s s ha s e na c t e d anum be rof l a w s c r e a t i ng apr i va t e a c t i on i n the e ve nt th e fed eral fu n d s reci p i en tfai l s t o ad h ere t o th e co n d i t i o n s o f th e co n tract

– m o st not abl y T i t l e I X , w hi c h a l l ow s f orapr i va t e c a us e of

a c t i on w he n a n “ e duc a t i on p r o g r a m . . . r e c e iv in g F e d e r a l f in a n c ia l a s s is ta n c e ” s u b je c ts ap e r s o n to d i s c r i m i n a t i o n “ o n th e b a s i s o f s e x . ” 4 2 U. S . C . § 1 6 8 1 ( a ) . Wi th T i t l e I X, C ongr e s s e f

f e c t i ve l y “ c ondi t i on[ e d] a n of f e rof f e de r a l f undi ng on apr om i s e by the r e c i pi e ntnott o di s c r i m i na t e , i n w ha ta m ount s e s s e nt i a l l y t o ac ontr a c tbe tw e e n the G o v e rn m e n t a n d th e r e c ip ie n t o f f u n d s .” G e b s e rv . L a g o V is taI n d e p . S c h . D is t., 52 4 U . S . 27 4, 28 6, 11 8 S . C t . 19 89 , 19 97 (199 8) (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). C ou rt s, ho w ever , i n add re ss i ng T i t l e I X , have pl ac ed l i m i t s on i t s s cope, hol di ng tha tthe s t a tut e doe s notgo s o f a ra s t o a l l ow apr i va t e c a us e of a c t i on a ga i ns ta n de f

e nda nti n hi s i ndi vi dua l c apa c i ty , s i nc e a n i ndi vi dua l de f e nda nti s not the “ r e c i pi e nt ” of

the f e de r a l f unds . S e e F l oy d, 133 F . 3d a t789 ( “ B e c a us e the contra ct i ng party i s the grant -r ec ei vi ng l ocal sc ho ol di stri ct , a T i t l e I X cl ai m ca n onl y be br oughta ga i ns tagr a ntr e c i pi e nt. . . a nd nota n i ndi vi dua l . ” ) ( c i t a t i on, q u o ta tio n s , a n d a lte r a tio n s o m itte d ) . I n o th e rw o r d s , th e c o u r ts h a v e c o n s is te n tly r e c ogni z e d the l i m i t e d r e a c h of C ongr e s s ’ S pe ndi ng P ow e rl e gi s l a t i on, c onc l udi ng35

tha ts t a tut e s pa s s e d unde rthe S pe ndi ng C l a us e m a y , a s ac ondi t i on of f undi ng, s u b je c t th e g r a n t r e c i

pi e nt t o l i abi l i ty i n apr i va t e c a us e of a c t i on, buttha tthe S p e n d in g P o w e rc a n n o t b e u s e d to s u b je c t in d iv id u a l d e f

e n d a n ts , s u c h a s s ta te e m p lo y e e s , to in d iv id u a l liab ility in ap r iv a te c a u s e o f a c tio n . S e e , e .g ., id .; H a r tle y , 1 9 3 F .3 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 7 0 ( s a m e ) ; R o s aH . V . S a n E liz a r io I n d e p . S c h . D is t., 1 0 6 F .3 d 6 4 8 , 6 5 4 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( s ta tin g th a t “T itle I X d o e s n o t in s tru c t c o u r ts to i m po se l i abi l i ty bas ed on anythi ng other than the ac t s of the re ci pi ent s of f eder al fund s” and fi nd i ng that“ [w ] hen the sc ho ol bo ar d acc ept ed fe dera l fund s, i tagre ed no tt o d i sc ri m i nat e on the basi s of s ex, ” butthati ti s “ un l i kel y thati tfurther a gree d t o suffe r l i abi l i ty w henever i t s e m pl oyee s di sc ri m i nat e on the basi s of s ex”) ; se e al so Je nn i ng s v. U ni v. of N . C . atC hapel H i l l , 44 4 F . 3d 25 5, 26 8 n . 9 (4th C i r. 2006) , r e v’ d on othe rgr ounds , 482 F . 3d 686 ( 2007) ( e n ba nc ) , pe t . f orc e r t . f i l e d, (U . S . Ju l y 9 , 2 0 0 7 ) (N o . 0 7 -4 3 ) (“ T i t l e IX w as en act ed p u rsu an tt o C o n g ress’ sp en d i n g p o w er an d p ro h i b i t s d i scri m i n at o ry act s b y fu n d i n g reci p i en t s. B ecau se s c hool of f i c i a l s a r e notf

undi ng r e c i pi e nt s unde rT i t l e I X , s c hool of f i c i a l s m a y not be sued i n thei r i nd i vi du al capaci t i es un der T i t l e I X . ”) . P utsi m pl y, the fe dera l ci rc ui t s a re i n agreement thatT i t l e I X , because of i t s nature a s S pend i ng P ow er l egi sl at i on , do es no tautho ri ze sui t s a gai nstpu bl i c off i ci al s i n thei r i nd i vi du al c ap a c itie s .RLUIPA also purports to contain a Commerc e Clause underpinning . See 42 U.S.C. § 9 2000cc- 1(b) ( stating that RLUIPA will also apply whenever “the substantial burden affe cts . . . commerc e with fore ign nations, among theseveral States, or with Indian tribes”) . However, the majority of cour ts that have addresse d the statutory section bef

ore us have construe d it as emanating f

rom Congress’ SpendingPower. SeeBenning v. G a., 391 F .3d 1299, 1306 (11th Cir. 20 04 ); se ealsoMadis on , 4 72 F .3 d at 12 4 ( statingthat RLUIPA “ fits c omf or ta bly within Congress’ SpendingClause authority”); Charles v. Ver hag en, 348 F .3d 601, 607-610 (7th Cir. 2003) (same). This strikes us as a n appropriate interpretation of the statute, e specially since thereis no evidencethat a state prison’s denial of a individual prisoner’s re quest for a relig ious item would “af

fec t[ ]” interstate commerce. 42 U .S.C. § 2000cc-1(b) . Like the other courts that have addresse d this statutory provision, we agreethat it hinges on Congress’ SpendingPower, rather than its Commerce ClausePower. 36 S i m i l art o T i t l e I X , se ct i on 3 o f R L U IP A deri ves f rom C on gres s’ po w er unde rthe S pe ndi ng C l a us e . S e e 42 U . S . C . 2000c c - 1( b) ( s t a t i ng tha ts e c t i on 3 appl i e s i n a ny c a s e w he r e “ the s ubs t a nt i a l bur de n i s i m pos e d i n apr ogr a m or a c t i v i ty th a tr e c e i v e s Fe d e r a l f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e ” ) ; Cu tt e r , 5 4 4 U . S. a t7 1 6 , 1 2 5 S. C t . a t2119. I n B e nni ng v. G e or gi a , i n r e vi e w i ng the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of s e c t i on 3 9 o f R L U IP A , w e co n cl u d ed th atsect i o n 3 co n st i tu t ed a v al i d ex erci se o f C o n g ress’ S p en d i n g P o w er. S ee 3 9 1 F . 3 d at1 3 0 6 . In l i g h to f th i s S p en d i n g C l au se au th o ri ty, C ongr e s s m a y , unde rR L U I P A , a w a r d f e de r a l f unds t o s t a t e pr i s on i ns t i tut i ons w ho , as a c on di t i on of re ce i vi ng fe dera l fund s, agre e nott o i m po se “ a s ub st ant i al bu rden on the re l i gi ou s e xerc i se ” of i t s pri soners . 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0cc- 1(a) . I ti s m uc h l e s s c l e a r , how e ve r , w he the rs e c t i on 3 of R L U I P A s houl d be construed as further provi di ng a c ause of ac t i on agai nsti nd i vi du al defe nd ant s, such as the A D O C C om m i tt ee m em bers w ho have been sued i n thei r i nd i vi du alAt least one district c ourt in our circuit has already conclude d that allowingan 10 individual cause of

action for

damag es ag ainst defendant-employees of a prison would be in con si st entwi thCo ngres s’ S pen di ng P owe r. S ee Dak er, 4 75 F. S up p. 2dat 1 34 1-4 2 (“By imposing liability

on non-re cipients of fe deral funding– individuals who are in e ssence involuntary

and unknowingthird parties to the fundingcontract–RLUIPA would become a n example of an unpre cedented and unteste d exercise of Congress’ [S] pendingpower .”). Mo re ov er, be c a

us ewec on c ludethat se c tio n 3 of RLUIPA doe s n ot p ermit a c laim 11 ag ainst the defendant-a

ppellees in their individual ca pacities, weneed not address the se condar y question of whether the de fenda nt-appe llees would be entitled to a defense of qualified immunity . Se e , e .g ., B usby, 9 31 F .2 d at 77 2 ( statingthat th equ alif ie d immunity

de fens eonly applies when the def

endant is sued individually ). 37 cap aci t i es i n th i s case. In l i g h to f o u r j u ri sp ru d en ce co n stru i n g C o n g ress’ S pe ndi ng P ow e ri n othe rs e tt i ngs , i ti s c l e a rtha tthe “ c ontr a c t i ng pa r ty ” i n the R L U I P A c ont e xti s the s t a t e pr i s on i ns t i tut i on tha tr e c e i ve s f e de r a l f unds ; put a n o th e rw a y , th e s e in s titu tio n s a r e th e “g r a n t r e c ip ie n ts ” th a t a g r e e to b e a m e n ab le t o s ui ta s ac ondi t i on t o r e c e i vi ng f unds –butthe i ri ndi vi dua l e m pl oy e e s a r e not

“ r e c i pi e nt s ” of

f e de r a l f undi ng a s w e ha ve c ons true d tha tt e rm . S e e F l oy d, 113 F . 3d a t789. 10 W e a g r e e th a t ac o n s tru c tio n o f R L U I P A p r o v id in g f

o rin d iv id u a l liab ility r a i s e s s ubs t a nt i a l c ons t i tut i ona l c onc e rns . C ons e que nt l y , w e c onc l ude tha ts e c t i on 3 of R L U I P A –apr ovi s i on tha tde r i ve s f r om C ongr e s s ’ S pe ndi ng P ow e r–c a nnotbe construed as cr ea t i ng a pri vat e a ct i on agai nsti nd i vi du al defe nd ant s f or m on et ary d am ag es. S ee i d . T h u s, S m i th i s n o ten t i t l ed t o p u rsu e a cl ai m ag ai n stth ese d e f e n d a n t - ap p e l l e e s i n th e i ri n d i v i d u a l c ap a c i t i e s u n d e rs e c t i o n 3 o f R L UI P A. 1138

3 . A v a i l ab i l i ty o f

a n O f f i c i a l Cap a c i ty Su i tf

o rD a ma g e s U n d e rRLU I PA H avi ng concl ud ed thatR L U IP A do es no tprov i de for asui tfor dam ages a ga i ns tgove rnm e ntof

f i c i a l s i n the i ri ndi vi dua l c apa c i t i e s –s i nc e s uc h a n a c t i on w o u l d b e i n co n g ru en tw i th th e reach o f C o n g ress’ S p en d i n g P o w er– w e n o w m u st a d d r e s s w h e th e rth e s ta tu te p e rm its a n a c tio n f o rd a m a g e s a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n tappel l ee s i n thei r off

i ci al capaci t i es . “ A sui tagai nsta s t at e off i ci al i n h i s or her of f i c i a l c apa c i ty i s notas ui ta ga i ns tthe of f i c i a l buti s r a the ras ui ta ga i ns tthe of f i c i a l ’ s of f i c e . ” L a M a r c av. T urne r , 995 F . 2d 1526, 1542 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ( c i t a t i on, a l t e r a t i on, a nd quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . S uc h a c t i ons a r e notas ui ta ga i ns tthe of f i c e rpe r s ona l l y , s i nc e the r e a l pa r ty i n i nt e r e s tr e m a i ns the s t a t e e nt i ty , a nd a f a v o r ab le m o n e ta ry ju d g m e n t u ltim a te ly im p o s e s liab ility o n th e e n tity th a t s ta te offi ce r r epre se nt s. S ee G ra ham , 47 3 U . S . at16 5, 10 5 S . C t . at31 05 . S o l on g as the gove rnm e nte nt i ty r e c e i ve s not i c e a nd a n oppor tuni ty t o r e s pond, how e ve r , the o f f ic ia l- c ap a c ity s u it w ill “in a ll r e s p e c ts o th e rth a n n a m e , [ ] b e tr e a te d a s as u it a g a in s t th e e n tity .” I d . a t 1 6 6 , 1 0 5 S . C t. a t 3 1 0 5 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . I n th is c a s e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t S m ith m a y p u r s u e a n o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity s u it agai nstthe defendant -app el l ee s f or “ approp ri at e r el i ef

. ” S ee 42 U . S . C . §§ 20 00 cc 2 . R L U IP A al l o w s fo r a p l ai n t i ff t o seek rel i ef i n th e ev en tth ere i s a v i o l at i o n b y a

“ gove rnm e nt , ” w hi c h t e rm i s de f i ne d i n the s t a tut e a s i nc l udi ng, i nt e ra l i a , a nyThe district cour t properly found that, base d upon Gra ham, an action ag ainst the 12 defendant-a

ppellees in their of

ficial c apac ities, was, in essenc e, a suit ag ainst the state itself, since a favorable judgment would be satisfied f rom state cof

fer s rather

than the individual officers. The district c ourt then stated, however, that an offic ial capacity claim for da

mag es under RLUIPA would be “ba rre d by the Eleventh Amendment.” Smith, 401 F. Supp. 2d at 1244. This conclusion was in er ror. While it is true that “the Eleventh Amendment [will ] bar federal suits ag ainst state offic ials in their ‘off icial ca pacity,’ bec ause such actions seek rec overy from state f

unds,” seeHobbs v. Roberts, 999 F.2d 1526, 1528 ( 11th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted), we ha ve previously

held that, by

entering into a f

unding c ontrac t with the federal g overnment and a c c eptingfe deral f

un ding , s tatepriso n in stitution s v olu nta ri ly agre e d towaivethe ir s o v er ei gni mmun i ty

an d m ak e th em s el v es am en ab l e t o ac ti o n s un d er RLUIP A. S eeBe nn i n g, 391 F.3d at 1305-06. Indeed, in B enning , we he ld that section 3 of RLUIPA effe ctuated a clea r waiver o f t

hestate ’sso vere ign immunity un der t heEl e venth

Am endment. I d. at 13 06 . Wehe ld that RLUIPA’s statutory

languag e, conditioningthe re ceipt of f ederal funds on adherenc e to the 39 “ pe r s on a c t i ng unde rc ol orof s t a t e l a w . ” 42 U . S . C . § 2000c c - 5( 4) ( A ) ( i i i ) . H a vi ng a l r e a dy c onc l ude d tha tthe phr a s e “ appr opr i a t e r e l i e f ” i nc l ude s a n a w a r d of m on et ary dam ages –al bei t , i n S m i th’ s c as e, an aw ar d l i m i t ed t o n om i nal da m a ge s –w e f

i nd tha tnothi ng i n the pl a i n l a ngua ge of R L U I P A pr ohi bi t s a n a c t i on for dam ages agai nstthese defe nd ant -app el l ee s i n thei r off i ci al capaci t i es , thati s, as o ffi cers “act i n g u n d er co l o r o f st at e l aw . ” S ee i d . A l th o u g h i ti s tru e th atth ese o f f ic e r s w e r e s u e d in th e iro f f ic ia l c ap a c itie s in n a m e o n ly

– a s m o n e ta ry liab ility in the eventof a s ucce ss ful sui tw i l l ul t i m at el y be i m po se d o n the ent i ty thatthey r e pr e s e nt , the A D O C –i ti s undi s put e d tha tthe A D O C r e c e i ve d not i c e of the a c t i on and h ad am pl e opp ortun i ty t o res po nd t o i t . G ra ham , 47 3 U . S . at16 5, 10 5 S . C t . at 31 05 . A cc ordi ng l y, consi st entw i th G ra ham , w e hol d thatS m i th m aypu rs ue a R L U I P A a c tio n f

o r“ap p r o p r ia te r e lie f

” a g a in s t th e s e d e f

e n d a n t- ap p e lle e s , in th e ir of f i c i a l c apa c i t i e s a s of

f i c e r s of the A D O C . S e e 42 U . S . C . § 2000c c - 2. 12statute and providingthat a plaintiff may seek “ appropriate re lief” when the statute is violated, made c lear

that “by acc eptingfederal funds, [the state] waived its immunity under RLUIPA,” and found that “Congress unambiguously require d states to waive the ir sovere ign immunity from suits filed by

prisoners to enf

orceRLUIPA.” I d. at 1305-06. In light of that holding, we concludethat the Eleventh Amendment will not shield the state (and it ag ents) from an offic ial capacity action for

damag es under

RLUIPA. 40 Th u s , i n a d d r e s s i n g Smi th ’ s ap p e a l , w e mu s tc o n s i d e rb o th Smi th ’ s c l a i ms f o rin ju n c tiv e r e lie f

, a n d h is o f

f ic ia l c ap a c ity c la im s f

o rn o m in a l d a m a g e s , in eval uat i ng w hether the A D O C defe nd ant -app el l ee s w er e e nt i t l ed t o sum m ary ju d g m e n t. W e n o w tu rn to th e m e r its o f th o s e c la im s . E. M e r i t s o f

Smi th ’ s RLU I PA Cl a i ms T o est ab l i sh a p ri m a faci e case u n d er sect i o n 3 o f R L U IP A , a p l ai n t i ff m u st de m ons tr a t e 1) tha the e nga ge d i n ar e l i gi ous e xe r c i s e ; a nd 2) tha tthe r e l i gi ous e x e r c is e w a s s u b s ta n tia lly b u r d e n e d . S e e A d k in s , 3 9 3 F .3 d a t 5 6 7 ; 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 c c - 1 ( a ) . T h e p la in tif f “b e a r [ s ] th e b u r d e n o f

p e r s u a s io n o n w h e th e rth e . . . gove rnm e ntpr a c t i c e tha ti s c ha l l e nge d by the c l a i m s ubs t a nt i a l l y bur de ns the e x e r c is e o f

r e lig io n .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 c c - 2 ( b ) . I f th e p la in tif

f s u c c e e d s in de m ons tr a t i ng apr i m af a c i e c a s e , the gove rnm e ntm us tthe n de m ons tr a t e tha tthe chal l enged g ov ernm entac t i on i s “ i s i n furthera nce of a c om pel l i ng go vernm ent al i nt e r e s t ” a nd “ i s the l e a s tr e s tr i c t i ve m e a ns of f ur the r i ng tha tc om pe l l i ng gove rnm e nt a l i nt e r e s t . ” 42 U . S . C . §§ 2000c c - 1( a ) , 2000c c - 2( b) . I n c ontr a s t , i f the p l a i n t i f f f a i l s t o p r e s e n te v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r tap r i ma f a c i e c a s e unde rR L U I P A , the41

courtneed no ti nq ui re i nt o w hether the go vernm ent al i nt er es tatst ake w as c om pe l l i ng. S e e M i dr a s h S e pha r di , I nc . v. T ow n of S ur f s i de , 366 F . 3d 1214, 1228 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). T hus , t o w i ths t a nd s um m a ry j udgm e nton hi s R L U I P A c l a i m , S m i th bor e the b u rd en o f fi rstp resen t i n g ev i d en ce t o d em o n strat e th ath i s o b serv an ce o f O d i n i sm c o n s titu te d a“r e lig io u s e x e r c is e ” u n d e rth e s ta tu te . S e e A d k in s , 3 9 3 F .3 d a t 5 6 7 . A “ r e l i gi ous e xe r c i s e ” i s br oa dl y de f i ne d unde rR L U I P A a s “ a ny e xe r c i s e of r e lig io n , w h e th e ro rn o t c o m p e lle d b y , o rc e n tr a l to , as y s te m o f r e lig io u s b e lie f

.” 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 cc -5 (7 )( A ). In li g h t o f th at d ef in it io n , w e c o n clu d e th at S m ith ’s p r a c t i c e o f

O d i n i s m c o n s t i tu t e s a“ r e l i g i o u s e x e r c i s e ” f o rp u rp o s e s o f

aRLU I PA c l a i m. A s t o the s e c ond s t e p–the i s s ue of a“ s ubs t a nt i a l bur de n” on tha tr e l i gi ous pr a c t i c e –S m i th c l a i m s tha tthe f ol l ow i ng de c i s i ons of

the C om m i tt e e e f

f e c tua t e d a

“ s ubs t a nt i a l bur de n” on hi s obs e rva nc e of O di ni s m : ( 1) the C om m i tt e e ’ s de c i s i on t o de ny hi s r e que s tf

oras m a l l qua r t z c ry s t a l ; ( 2) the C om m i tt e e ’ s de c i s i on t o de ny S m i th’ s r e que s tf

orade s i gna t e d a r e aof

w or s hi p i n the ope n a r e aof the pr i s on; a nd ( 3 ) th e C o m m itte e ’s d e c is io n to d e n y S m ith ’s r e q u e s t f o ra“s m a ll f

ir e p it, ap p ro x i m at el y 9 ' ' i n d i am et er an d 9 ' ' d eep . ” R 2 -6 3 , E x h . K -1 at2 . W e ad d ress e a c h o f th e s e a lle g a tio n s in tu rn .42

1. D eni al of a Q uart z C ry st al T he C om m i tt ee deni ed S m i th the po ss es si on of a quart z c ry st al af t er r e vi e w i ng hi s w r i tt e n r e que s t , a s w e l l a s anum be rof ba c kgr ound m a t e r i a l s on O di ni s m , be c a us e the r e w a s a“ l a c k of s uppor t i ng m a t e r i a l s va l i da t i ng ane e d f or th is ite m .” R 2 - 9 8 , E x h . M a t 1 . S m ith c o n te n d s th a t th is d e c is io n s u b s ta n tia lly b u r d e n e d h is o b s e rv a n c e o f O d in is m . W e ha ve pr e vi ous l y de f i ne d a“ s ubs t a nt i a l bur de n” a s be i ng “ s i gni f i c a nt pres sure w hi ch di re ct l y c oerc es the re l i gi ou s a dh er entt o con form hi s or her be ha vi ora c c or di ngl y . ” M i dr a s h, 366 F . 3d a t1227. M or e pe r t i ne ntt o the pr e s e nt a c t i on, w e ha ve m a de c l e a rtha t , i n or de rt o c ons t i tut e a“ s ubs t a nt i a l bur de n” on r e l i gi ous pr a c t i c e , the gove rnm e nt ’ s a c t i on m us tbe “ m or e tha n . . . i nc i de nt a l ” a nd

“ m us tpl a c e m or e tha n a n i nc onve ni e nc e on r e l i gi ous e xe r c i s e . ” I d. ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T ha ti s , t o c ons t i tut e as ubs t a nt i a l bur de n unde rR L U I P A , the g o v e rn m e n ta l a c tio n m u s t s ig n if ic a n tly h a m p e ro n e ’s r e lig io u s p r a c tic e . H e r e , S m i th c ont e nds tha tthe f a c ttha tthe qua r t z c ry s t a l w a s de ni e d outr i ght shou l d b e s uffi ci ent , st andi ng al on e, t o d em on stra t e thathi s r el i gi ou s pra ct i ce w as s ubs t a nt i a l l y bur de ne d. T he C om m i tt e e ’ s de ni a l a l one , how e ve r , doe s not ne c e s s a r i l y e s t abl i s h as ubs t a nt i a l bur de n. R a the r , i n r e vi e w i ng the e nt i r e ty of the r e c o r d e v id e n c e , w e f

in d th a t S m ith h a s f

a ile d to p r e s e n t s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e toWe also note that the Committ ee’ s denial of the qua rtz crystal should be place d in the 13 larg er c onte xt of

its20 03 de c isi on

–a de c isi on in which th eCommitte egra nte d Smith ’sre qu e sts for, a mong other thing s, a Thor’ s hammer ne cklac e; a c andle in his ce ll; a fern tree; a number of relig ious “runes”to be used in practicingthe Odinist faith; as well as permission to have a de signate d day

of thewe e k topra c tic ehisOdini sm; and permiss ion

to re c ognizefour

Odini st holidays. Put si mply , as the district cour t found, the Committ ee grante d almost the entirety of 43 dem on stra t e how , i f a tal l , the A D O C ’ s deni al of a s m al l qu art z c ry st al const i tut ed a“s u b s ta n tia l b u r d e n ” o n h is p r a c tic e o f O d in is m . S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 c c - 1 ( a ) . T he deci si on t o u l t i m at el y deny S m i th’ s r equestfor aqu art z c ry st al w as re ac h ed af

ter th e C o m m ittee u n d er to o k a p ro b in g an d th o ro u g h re v iew o f S m ith ’s r e lig io u s r e q u e s ts . T h e A D O C C h ap la in p e r s o n a lly m e t w ith S m ith to d is c u s s h is req u est , i n cl u d i n g th e n eed fo r th e cryst al ; rev i ew ed d o cu m en t at i o n o n O d i n i sm s ubm i tt e d by S m i th’ s non- i nc a r c e r a t e d f r i e nd; c onduc t e d i nde pe nde ntr e s e a r c h on the t e ne t s of

O di ni s m ; he l d di s c us s i ons w i th C hapl a i ns i n othe rpr i s ons on the r e lig io n ’s d o c tr in e s ; a n d e n c o u r a g e d S m ith to s u b m it a s m u c h e v id e n c e a s h e c o u ld i n s uppor tof

hi s r e que s t . I n c onduc t i ng hi s r e vi e w , the C hapl a i n f ound tha tthe e v id e n c e in s u p p o r t o f

S m ith ’s r e q u e s t f

o ras m a ll q u a r tz c ry s ta l w a s “in c o m p le te and sket chy. ” R 2-63 , E xh . K at3. A ft er“ gather[ i ng ] m ore i nform at i ve sources on [hi s] ow n” and “ re se ar ch[i ng ] the [c re di bi l i ty] ” of e ac h o f S m i th’ s r equest ed i t e m s , i d. , the C hapl a i n f ound tha tthe r e w e r e no “ s uppor t i ng m a t e r i a l s va l i da t i ng [ the ] ne e d” f

orac ry s t a l i n c onne c t i on w i th S m i th’ s pr a c t i c e of O di ni s m , a nd, a c c or di ngl y , the C om m i tt e e de ni e d tha ti t e m . R 2- 98, E xh. M a t1. 13Smith’s re quest, permitting him to havea number of re ligious items to prac tice his Odinism; the on ephysic al it e m it

denie d w a s th ec rystal. 44 I n c h a lle n g in g th a t d e c is io n o n ap p e a l, S m ith h a s p r e s e n te d n o e v id e n c e to d e mo n s tr a t e th a tas ma l l q u a r t z c ry s t a l w a s f u n d a me n t a l t o h i s p r a c t i c e o f O d i n i s m, s uc h tha tthe de ni a l of

the c ry s t a l e f

f e c tua t e d a ny “ m or e tha n a n i nc onve ni e nc e on [hi s] re l i gi ou s e xerc i se . ” S ee M i dras h, 36 6 F . 3d at12 27 . Indeed, S m i th h as fa i l ed t o est abl i sh the re l evance of the crys t al t o h i s pra ct i ce of O di ni sm , as he w as o b lig a te d to d o in o r d e rto d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e d e n ia l o f th a t ite m w o u ld s i gni f i c a nt l y ha m pe rhi s r e l i gi ous obs e rva nc e . S m i th’ s r e que s ts t a t e s onl y tha tthe crys t al w as “ es se nt i al ” bec ause i t“ al l ow s c om m un i ca t i on w i th the netherw orl d. ” R 1 - 2 0 , E x h . K . S im ila r ly , th e s o u r c e s o n O d in s im th a t w e r e s u b m itte d b y S m ith s t a t e d, i n r a the rge ne r a l t e rm s , tha t“ [ q] ua r t z c ry s t a l s a r e us e d i n s ha m a ni s m a r ound th e w o r ld ,” th a t th e y a r e u s e d in m a n y p r e h is to r ic r e lig io n s , s u c h a s “O ld w o r ld al chem y, w i t chcr af

t , and m agi c, ” a nd thatthey a re “ st i l l i n u se i n m any tra di t i on al s o c i e t i e s . ” R2 - 6 1 . Th e r e i s n o me n t i o n i n th e s e th i r d p a r ty s o u r c e s o f O d i n i s m, nori s the r e a ny i ndi c a t i on tha tas m a l l , qua r t z c ry s t a l i s ne c e s s a ry t o obs e rve the r ite s o f O d in is m . I n s h o r t, n e ith e rS m ith ’s r e q u e s t, n o rth e o u ts id e s o u r c e s th a t h e s u b m itte d in conn ec t i on w i th i t , dem on stra t e the need for a quart z c ry st al i n o rdert o p ra ct i ce O di ni sm . W hi l e i ti s true thatcourt s a re no tt o i nq ui re i nt o the ce ntra l i ty of a45

p art i cu l ar rel i g i o u s t en eti n u n d ert ak i n g th e su b st an t i al b u rd en an al ysi s, A d k i n s, 3 9 3 F. 3 d a t5 5 9 , a tami n i mu m th e s u b s t a n t i a l b u r d e n t e s tr e q u i r e s th a taRLU I PA pl a i nt i f f de m ons tr a t e tha tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s de ni a l of apa r t i c ul a rr e l i gi ous i t e m or ob se rvance w as m ore than an i ncon veni ence t o o ne’ s r el i gi ou s pra ct i ce . S ee M id r a s h , 3 6 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 7 . O n appe a l , S m i th a r gue s tha tas ubs t a nt i a l bur de n c a n be f ound ba s e d on the si m pl e f ac tthat(1) he a sked for the crys t al t o u se i n O di ni sm ; (2) the re qu es tw as base d o n S m i th’ s “ si ncer [e ] ” r el i gi ou s bel i ef s; and (3) the C om m i tt ee fl at l y deni ed tha tr e que s t . B r . O f

A ppe l l a nta t47. S m i th c ont e nds tha tthi s e vi de nc e s houl d be e n o u g h , s ta n d in g a lo n e , to d e m o n s tr a te th a t h is r e lig io u s e x e r c is e w a s s u b s ta n tia lly b u r d e n e d u n d e rR L U I P A . S u c h a n e x p a n s iv e r e a d in g o f s e c tio n 3 , h o w e v e r , w o u ld re qu i re us t o fi nd a s ub st ant i al bu rden w henever any r e que s ti n c onne c t i on w i th a s in c e r e r e lig io u s b e lie f

w a s d e n ie d b y as ta te p r is o n . I f th e w o r d “s u b s ta n tia l” in the s t a tut ory phr a s e “ s ubs t a nt i a l bur de n, ” 42 U . S . C . § 2000c c - 1( a ) , i s t o r e t a i n a ny m ea ni ng , i tm ust , ata m i ni m um , be construed as re qu i ri ng som ethi ng m ore than s ol e l y the de ni a l of

ar e que s ttha ti s s i nc e r e . A n a l t e rna t e appr oa c h, l i ke the one advo ca t ed by S m i th, w ou l d res ul ti n the w ord “ subst ant i al ” i n § 20 00 cc -1(a ) a s bei ng m er e s urpl usage, si nce e verygo vernm ent al ac t i on denyi ng a r equest ed i t em46

to b e u s e d in r e lig io u s o b s e rv a n c e w o u ld g iv e r is e to ap r im af a c ie R L U I P A c la im . W e d e c lin e to a d o p t s u c h a n e x p a n s iv e r e a d in g o f s e c tio n 3 o f

R L U I P A . P utsi m pl y, w e a re no tconv i nced–and there i s no evi dence, other than S m ith ’s o w n as se rtio n an d h is sc an t so u rc es , t o es tab li sh

– th at th e C o m m ittee’s deci si on denyi ng S m i th a sm al l , qu art z c ry st al “ pl ac e[ d] m ore than an i ncon veni ence on [hi s] re l i gi ou s e xerc i se . ” S ee M i dras h, 36 6 F . 3d at12 27 . If an yth in g , th e d en ial o f th e c ry stal strik es u s a s a n “i n cid en tal” b u rd en o n S m ith ’s O di ni sm , w hi ch, w e have hel d, i s notsuff i ci entt o m ee tthe thres ho l d o f a s u b s ta n tia l b u r d e n u n d e rR L U I P A . S e e id . B ec ause S m i th d i d n otpres entevi dence t o d em on stra t e asubst ant i al bu rden on hi s O di ni s tobs e rva nc e s by the de ni a l of the c ry s t a l , he f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h a p r im af a c ie c a s e u n d e rR L U I P A , a n d th e d e f e n d a n t- ap p e lle e s a r e e n title d to sum m ary j ud gm enton S m i th’ s R L U IP A cl ai m . S ee i d. at12 28 (s um m ary ju d g m e n t is ap p r o p r ia te if th e R L U I P A p la in tif

f f a ils to m a k e o u t ap r im af a c ie ca se , and the courtneed no ti nq ui re i nt o w hether the go vernm enti nt er es tas se rt ed is c o m p e llin g ) . S e e a ls o J o h n s o n , 2 6 3 F .3 da t 1 2 4 3 ( s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is appr opr i a t e i f

the pa r ty “ f

a i l s t o m a ke as how i ng s uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h the e x is te n c e o f

a n e le m e n t e s s e n tia l to th a t p a r ty ’s c a s e , a n d o n w h ic h th a t p a r ty w ill bearthe bu rden of proo f a ttri al ”) (quo t at i on s a nd ci t at i on om i tt ed).47

2 . D e n ia l o f

aD e s ig n a te d A r e ao f

W o r s h ip S m i th a l s o a r gue s tha tthe A D O C ’ s de c i s i on t o de ny hi s r e que s tt o be gr a nt e d ade s i gna t e d a r e aof w or s hi p i n a n ope n a r e aof the pr i s on e f

f e c tua t e d a su b stan ti al b u rd en o n h is p ra ctice o f O d in ism . T h e C o m m ittee d en ied S m ith ’s req u estfo r a d esi g n at ed area o f w o rsh i p , d u e t o i t s co n cern s th atp erm i tt i n g O d i n i st r ite s to b e p e r f

o rm e d in ap u b lic a r e ao f th e p r is o n , b e f

o r e a ll th e in m a te s , c o u ld p o s e s e c u r ity p r o b le m s . T h e C o m m itte e ’s d e c is io n s ta te d th a t T he A sa tru /O di ni sm re l i gi on draw s a nd em brac es ce rt ai n m em bers of the A ry a n N a t i ons a nd N e o- N a z i s , w hi c h c om bi ne d w i th a pot e nt i a l l y hos t i l e i nm a t e popul a t i on a nd the pr e va l e nc e of pr i s on gang s, w ou l d b e detri m ent al t o sec uri ty a nd [pose] a s trong po t ent i al f o rh a rm. R 2-98 , E xh . M at2. T he C om m i tt ee di d g ra ntS m i th a se cure l ocat i on t o p ra ct i ce hi s O di ni s tr i t e s , s t a t i ng tha tw he n as e c ur e pl a c e of w or s hi p w a s r e qui r e d, the W a r d e n a n d C h ap la in w o u ld d e s ig n a te as u itab le lo c a tio n f o rS m ith to e n g a g e in h i s o b serv an ces. U p o n r e v ie w , w e f

in d th a t S m ith h a s f

a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t th is d e c is io n – to a llo w S m ith to p r a c tic e h is r e lig io n f r e e ly in as e c u r e lo c a tio n w h ile d e c lin in g to a llo w h is o b s e rv a n c e s in th e g e n e r a l p r is o n a r e a– s ig n if ic a n tly h a m p e r e d h is rel i g i o u s ex erci se. A s d i scu ssed i n th e p rev i o u s sect i o n , a su b st an t i al b u rd en m u st

“ pl a c e m or e tha n a n i nc onve ni e nc e on [ one ’ s ] r e l i gi ous e xe r c i s e . ” S e e M i dr a s h,48

3 6 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 7 . H e r e , th e r e is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e A D O C ’s d e c is io n to lim it S m ith ’s r e lig io u s p r a c tic e s to as e c u r e lo c a tio n p la c e d “m o r e th a n a n in c id e n ta l” b u r d e n o n h is p r a c tic e o f th e O d in is t f

a ith . S e e id . O n th e c o n tr a ry , S m ith re m ain ed fr ee to en g ag e in h is re li g io u s o b se rv an ce s u n d erth e C o m m ittee’s 2 0 0 3 ’s d e c is io n , a lb e it lim ite d to as e c u r e , r a th e rth a n a n o p e n , a r e ao f th e p r is o n . I n a ddi t i on, a s w i th the qua r t z c ry s t a l , S m i th ha s f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e on appe a l how , i f

i ta l l , the de c i s i on t o de ny S m i th ade s i gna t e d w or s hi p a r e a , i n the op en ar eaof the pri son, ef fe ctuat ed a “ subst ant i al bu rden” on h i s i nd i vi du al prac t i ce of O di ni sm . 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0cc- 1(a) . In fa ct , the ou t si de sources that S m i th s ubm i tt e d i n c onne c t i on w i th hi s r e que s tdi d notm a ke a ny m e nt i on of the n e e d f o ra“d e s ig n a te d w o r s h ip a r e a ” in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e p r a c tic e o f O d in is m . S e e g e n e r a lly R 2 - 6 1 . B e c a u s e S m ith f a ile d to s u b m it e v id e n c e to e s tab lis h h is pr i m af a c i e c a s e , the de f

e nda nt - appe l l e e s w e r e e nt i t l e d t o s um m a ry j udgm e nton S m ith ’s R L U I P A c la im b a s e d o n th e d e n ia l o f ad e s ig n a te d w o r s h ip s p o t. S e e M id r a s h , 3 6 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 8 . 3. D eni al of a S m al l F i re F in a lly , S m ith c h a lle n g e s th e A D O C C o m m itte e ’s d e c is io n to d e n y h is r e q u e s t f o ras m a ll f

ir e p it. S m ith ’s o r ig in a l r e q u e s t s o u g h t a“s m a ll f ir e p it, ap p r o x im a te ly 9 '' in d ia m e te ra n d 9 '' d e e p ,” in w h ic h h e w o u ld b e ab le to lig h t a49

p in e f ir e . R 2 - 6 3 , E x h . K - 1 a t 2 . T h e C o m m itte e g r a n te d th is r e q u e s t o n ly in p a r t, a llo w in g S m ith p o s s e s s io n o f as m a ll c a n d le to b e u s e d in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is O di ni stexer ci se s. S m i th con t ends thatthi s dec i si on ef fe ctuat ed a s ub st ant i al b u r d e n o n h i s r e l i g i o u s e x e r c i s e u n d e rs e c t i o n 3 o f R L UI P A. W e di s a gr e e . A s w i th S m i th’ s r e que s tf orac ry s t a l , S m i th f

a i l e d t o pr e s e nt r e c o r d e v id e n c e to e s tab lis h th e n e e d f o r , o rr e le v a n c e o f

, a9 '' b y 9 '' f

ir e p it in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is O d in is t p r a c tic e s , s u c h th a t th e d e n ia l o f th is ite m w o u ld e f f e c tu a te as u b s ta n tia l b u r d e n h is r e lig io u s o b s e rv a n c e . A s n o te d , th e A D O C d id g r a n t S m ith ac a n d le to u s e in h is c e ll in h is o b s e rv a n c e o f O d in is m . O n ap p e a l, S m i th h as fa i l ed t o d em on stra t e how , i f a tal l , the deci si on t o l i m i thi m t o a ca nd l e, r a th e rth a n to af

u ll- b lo w n f

ir e p it, s ig n if

ic a n tly h a m p e r e d h is p r a c tic e o f O d in is m . S e e M id r a s h , 3 6 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 7 . A s w ith th e A D O C d e c is io n o n as e c u r e w o r s h ip s pot , the r e c or d de m ons tr a t e s tha tS m i th r e m a i ne d f r e e t o e nga ge i n hi s r e l i gi ous obs e rva nc e unde rthe A D O C 2003 de c i s i on, a l be i tl i m i t e d t o ac a ndl e r a the rtha n a p in e f ir e . M or e ove r , l i ke the f

i r s ttw o r e que s t s , S m i th ha s f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e how the A D O C ’ s dec i si on t o l i m i thi m t o a sm al l ca nd l e e ff ec tuat ed a s ub st ant i al b u r d e n o n h is r e lig io u s p r a c tic e . T h e s o u r c e s th a t h e s u b m itte d in c o n n e c tio n w ith thi s r e que s ta l l ude d t o the K e na z rune be i ng r e pr e s e nt a t i ve of “ the pi ne f

i r e of50

pu ri fi ca t i on . ” R 2-63 , E xh . K -1, bu tthere w as no m ent i on of the need for a pi ne fi re in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e p r a c tic e o f O d in is m . S e e id .; s e e a ls o R 1 - 2 0 , E x h . M (di sc ussi ng i n g ener al ho w the rune sy m bo l i ze s api ne tre e gi vi ng heatand l i gh t ); R 2-61 (s t at i ng thatthe rune “ re fe rs t o the sa cr edness of the hearth and ri tual c le a n s in g b y f

ir e ” ) . T h e C h ap la in f

o u n d , a n d w e a g r e e , th a t th e s o u r c e s th a t S m ith s ubm i tt e d di d “ nots how [ ] the ne c e s s i ty of [ api ne ] f

i r e ” i n c onne c t i on w i th the O di ni s tr i t e s . S e e R 1- 20, E xh. C . F a i l i ng s uc h e vi de nc e , w e a r e unabl e t o f i nd h o w , if a t a ll, th e d e n ia l o f

ap in e f ir e p it e f f e c tu a te d as u b s ta n tia l b u r d e n o n h is obs e rva nc e of

O di ni s m . B e c a us e S m i th f a i l e d t o s ubm i te vi de nc e t o e s t abl i s h a p r im af a c ie R L U I P A c a s e b a s e d o n th e d e n ia l o f th e p in e f

ir e p it, th e d e f

e n d a n tappe l l e e s w e r e e nt i t l e d t o s um m a ry j udgm e nton S m i th’ s c l a i m . S e e M i dr a s h, 366 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 8 . I n s um m a ry , ha vi ng r e vi e w e d S m i th’ s c l a i m s f ori nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

a nd n o m in a l d a m a g e s u n d e rR L U I P A

–b a s e d o n th e A D O C ’s d e n ia l o f ac ry s ta l, a w orshi p are a, and a fi re pi t–w e c on cl ud e thatno ne of the three vi ol at i on s w as s u f f i c i e n tt o e s t ab l i s h ap r i ma f a c ie c l a i m unde rR L U I P A . N orc a n w e c onc l ude thatthe C om m i tt ee ’ s di sposi t i on of S m i th’ s three re qu es t s, t aken col l ec t i vel y, w as s uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h tha tS m i th’ s r e l i gi ous pr a c t i c e w a s s i gni f i c a nt l y ha m pe r e d, s o a s t o gi ve r i s e t o apr i m af a c i e R L U I P A c a s e . A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tthe51

defe nd ant -app el l ee s w er e e nt i t l ed t o sum m ary j ud gm ent . A nd al tho ug h the di stri ct court ’ s dec i si on t o g ra ntsum m ary j ud gm entt o the defendantm ayhave been re ac h ed o n th e b as is o f q u alified im m u n ity, “w e m ay af firm th e d istrict co u rt’s deci si on on any a dequ at e groun d, even i f i ti s other than the on e on w hi ch the court a c tua l l y r e l i e d. ” P a rks , 43 F . 3d a t613 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . B e c a us e w e c onc l ude th a ts u m m a ry j u d g m e n twa s p r o p e r l y e n t e r e d f o rth e d e f

e n d a n t - ap p e l l e e s , we affi rm th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s su m m ary j u d g m en to rd er o n S m i th ’ s R L U IP A cl ai m s. I I I . CONCL US I ON S m i th ha s c ha l l e nge d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s pos i t i on of hi s c l a i m s br ought pu rs uantt o R L U IP A , ra i si ng a num ber of s epar at e i ss ues on app ea l . A ft er re vi ew i ng the re cord and b ri ef s of the part i es , and h avi ng had the benefi tof oral a r g u m e n t , we c o n c l u d e th a tR L UI P A’ s r e m e d i e s s e c t i o n , wh i c h g e n e r a l l y a l l o ws for “ approp ri at e r el i ef

, ” m ay , i n som e c as es , al l ow for the re covery of m on et ary dam ages , w here approp ri at e. 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0cc- 2. W e c on cl ud e, ho w ever , that u n d e rs e c tio n 3 , s u c h ar e c o v e ry o n ly e x te n d s to a n a c tio n b r o u g h t a g a in s t s ta te o f f ic ia ls in th e iro f

f ic ia l c ap a c itie s ; aR L U I P A c la im f o rd a m a g e s a g a in s t as ta te o f f ic ia l in h is in d iv id u a l c ap a c ity is n o t v iab le u n d e rs e c tio n 3 o f R L U I P A . Ha v i n g r e s o l v e d th e s e b r o a d e rl e g a l q u e s t i o n s , i n S m i th ’ s p a r t i c u l a rc a s e we c onc l ude tha the f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h apr i m af a c i e R L U I P A vi ol a t i on unde rs e c t i on52

3, and, ac cordi ng l y, thatthe di stri ctcourtac t ed prop er l y i n g ra nt i ng sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of the defendant -app el l ee s. A cc ordi ng l y, w e A F F I R M the ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t.53

E D M O N D S O N , C h ie f

J u d g e , CO NC UR S in th e r e s u lt.