United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2434

___________________________

Joseph Leroy Dayringer; James Eric Mansfield

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

David Webster; Arthur Wood; Bill Galloway; Missouri Department of Corrections

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City

____________

 Submitted: May 7, 2013

Filed: August 9, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Inmates Joseph Leroy Dayringer and James Eric Mansfield appeal the district

court's adverse judgment on their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious 1

The Honorable Matt Jeffrey Whitworth, United States Magistrate Judge for

1

the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") following a bench trial. The

claims before us in this appeal arose from confiscation of religious materials during

2007 and resulting disciplinary proceedings. Appellants originally filed suit against

prison officials orstaff members David Webster, Arthur Wood, and Bill Galloway in

their individual and official capacities, seeking only declaratory relief. Before trial,

appellants sought leave to amend, because all three named defendants had retired or

were due to retire soon; the court granted leave to add the Missouri Department of

Corrections ("MDOC") as a defendant and also to add a constitutional challenge to

an MDOC policy restricting inmates to six books at a time. The three individual

defendants were retired by the time of trial. 

After a bench trial, the court concluded the claims against the individual

defendants were moot. Additionally and alternatively, the court rejected the claims

on the merits. Appellants now seek reversal of the district court’s rulings on

mootness and on the merits. We review de novo the district court's legal conclusions

following the bench trial, Outdoor Cent., Inc. v. GreatLodge.com, Inc., 688 F.3d 938,

941 (8thCir. 2012), including its decision regarding mootness, Keup v. Hopkins, 596

F.3d 899, 904 (8th Cir. 2010).

The district court correctly held appellants’ claims against Webster, Wood, and

Galloway in their individual and official capacities are moot. These claims are moot

because appellantssought only declaratory relief, which in the current case would not

"be operative against these defendants who no longer possess any power." Tara

Enters., Inc. v. Humble, 622 F.2d 400, 401 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (where

defendants lacked any official power given their resignations before trial, no

monetary damages were sought, and no other form of relief would be operative

against them, action was moot); see also Spomer v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 514, 521–22

(1974) ("The plain fact is that . . . respondents . . . do not presently seek to enjoin

by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-
[petitioner] from doing anything."). While appellants could substitute defendants'

successors as parties—because appellants sued the defendants in their official

capacities—appellants must establish that defendants' successors "continue[d] the

unconstitutional practices alleged in the complaint" in order to defeat mootness. 

Tara Enters., 622 F.2d at 401–02. The district court correctly held that appellants

failed to establish that defendants' successors continued the complained of conduct. 

In fact, MDOC revised the six-book policy in 2012, correcting the deficiencies that

were identified by the district court asthe bases of the allegations underlying thissuit,

namely, the failure to define "book" and "pamphlet."

Further, the claims against MDOC must be dismissed because MDOC is

immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. See Harris v. McSwain, 417 F.

App’x 594, 595 (8th Cir. 2011) (recognizing MDOC as protected state agency for

purposes of the Eleventh Amendment); Monroe v. Ark. State Univ., 495 F.3d 591,

594 (8th Cir. 2007) (stating that the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a state

agency for "any kind of relief"). Although immunity was not raised by MDOC, we

can affirm "on any ground supported by the record." Ballinger v. Culotta, 322 F.3d

546, 548 (8th Cir. 2003). 

Therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

-3-