United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1916

___________________________

Christopher Deaton,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Arkansas Department of Correction; Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department

of Correction; Larry Norris, Former Director, Arkansas Department of Correction;

Larry May, Chief Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Raymond

Naylor, Hearing Officer Administrator, Arkansas Department of Correction;

Danny Burl, Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Greg Harmon, Former

Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Richard Todd Ball, Deputy Warden,

East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Dexter Payne, Deputy Warden, East Arkansas

Regional Unit, ADC; Steve Outlaw, Former Deputy Warden, East Arkansas

Regional Unit, ADC; Essie Clay, DHO, Arkansas Department of Correction;

Minnie L. Drayer, DHO, Arkansas Department of Correction; Lahan Ester, Former

DHO, Arkansas Department of Correction; Justine Minor, DHO, Arkansas

Department of Correction; Curtis Rolfe, Former DHO, Arkansas Department of

Correction; Lorie Taylor, DHO, Arkansas Department of Correction; Jeremy C.

Andrews, Chief Security Officer, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; DeAngelo

M. Earl, CSO, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Clinton Wade Hall, CSO, East

Arkansas Department of Correction; Clarence Kelley, CSO, East Arkansas

Regional Unit, ADC; Maurice Williams, CSO, East Arkansas Regional Unit,

ADC; Moses Jackson, Captain, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Wallace

MacNary, Captain, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Janice Gray, Law Library

Supervisor, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Derrick Harris, Corporal,

Arkansas Department of Correction,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.

____________
Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________

 Submitted: February 27, 2015

Filed: April 8, 2015

____________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas prisoner Christopher Deaton appeals the district court’s dismissal

1

of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint asserting violations of his constitutional

rights and rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of

2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. The district court dismissed the

complaint partially under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and partially on summary judgment. 

We affirmed the judgment, but then granted rehearing in light of Holt v. Hobbs, 135

S. Ct. 853 (2015), and appointed counsel for Deaton to address Deaton’s claims under

RLUIPA in light of Holt. 

Since then, Deaton has advised the court through counsel that his claim for

injunctive relief under RLUIPA is moot, because he has shaved his beard and has no

present intent to re-grow it, and because Arkansas has changed its grooming policy

to allow inmates to grow beards of any length. Deaton’s claims for damages against

the State (including official-capacity claims against corrections officials) are barred

by sovereign immunity. Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651 (2011). Even assuming

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, adopting the reports and recommendations of the Honorable

Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

-2-
for the sake of analysis that RLUIPA authorizes claims for money damages against

officials in their individual capacities, but see, e.g., Haight v. Thompson, 763 F.3d

554, 567-70 (6th Cir. 2014), the officials here are entitled to qualified immunity in

light of Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2008), and we may recognize that

defense in reviewing the district court’s preservice dismissal. See Maness v. Dist.

Court of Logan County-Northern Div., 495 F.3d 943, 944-45 (8th Cir. 2007) (per

curiam). 

In light of the foregoing, we granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Deaton’s claim for injunctive and declaratory relief from the grooming policy based

on the First Amendment is also moot. Upon careful de novo review of Deaton’s

remaining claims, we find no basis for reversal. See Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781,

783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (standard of review for § 1915A dismissal); SeltzerBey v. Delo, 66 F.3d 961, 963 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review for summary

judgment). Accordingly, we dismiss Deaton’s appeal in part as moot and otherwise

affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-3-