# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 24 34

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Jo se ph Lero y

Day rin ge r; J am es Eric M an sf ie ld

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Dav id W eb st er; Arth ur W oo d; Bil l Gal lo way ; M is so ur i Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: May 7, 20 13 Fi le d: Aug us t 9 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, MELLOY , and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

In m at es Jo se ph Lero y Day rin ge r an d Ja m es Eric Man sf ie ld ap pe al th e di st ric t

co ur t's ad ve rs e jud gm en t on th ei r cl ai m s un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d th e Rel ig io us

1

The Hon or ab le Mat t Je ffre y W hi two rth , Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r 1 th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, to who m th e cas e was refe rred fo r fin al di sp os it io nLan d Use an d In st it ut io na li zed Pers on s Act ("R LUIPA") fo ll owi ng a be nc h tri al

. The

cl ai m s be fo re us in th is ap pe al aro se fro m co nf is cat io n of rel ig io us m at eri al s du rin g 20 07 an d res ul ti ng di sc ip li na ry pr oc eed in gs

. App el la nt s or ig in al ly fil ed su it ag ai ns t pr is on of fic ia ls or st aff m em

be rs Dav id W eb st er, Arth ur W oo d, an d Bi ll Gall owa y in th ei r in di vi du al an d of

fic ia l cap aci ti es , se ek in g on ly de cl arat or y rel ie f. Befo re tri al , ap pe ll an ts so ug ht le av e to am en d, be cau se al l th ree na m ed de fen da nt s ha d ret ire d or

were du e to ret ire so on ; th e co ur t gr an t e d l e a v e t o ad d th e Mi ss ou ri Dep art m en t of Co rrec ti on s ("M DOC") as a d efen da nt an d a ls o t o a dd a co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e to

an MDOC po li cy res tri ct in g in m at es to s i x bo ok s at a ti m e. The th ree in di vi du al de fen da nt s wer e ret ire d b y th e ti m e o f tr ia l.

Afte r a b e n c h t r ia l, th e co ur t co nc lu de d th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e in di vi du al de fen da nt s were m oo t. Add it io na ll y an d alt ern at iv el y , th e co ur t rejecte d th e cl ai m s

on th e m eri ts

. App el la nt s no w se ek rev ers al of th e di st r i c t c ou rt’s ru li ng s on

m oo tn es s an d on th e m eri ts

. W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t's le ga l co nc lu si on s fo ll owi ng th e be nc h tri al , Out do or Cen t., In c. v. Great Lod ge .co m , In c., 68 8 F.3 d 93 8, 94 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), in cl ud in g it s de ci si on reg ard in g m oo tn es s, Keu p v. Hop ki ns , 59 6 F.3 d 8 99 , 90 4 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ).

The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y he ld ap pe ll an ts ’ cl ai m s ag ai ns t W eb st er, W oo d, an d Gall owa y in th ei r in di vi du al an d of fic ia l cap aci ti es are m oo t. The se cl ai m s are m oo t be cau se ap pe ll an ts so ug ht on ly de cl arat or y rel ie f, whi ch in th e cu rren t cas e wou ld no t "b e o p e r a t i ve ag ai ns t th es e de fen da nt s who no lo ng er po ss es s an y po wer." Tara Ent ers ., In c. v. H u mb le , 62 2 F.2 d 40 0, 40 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 80 ) (p er cu ria m ) (wh ere de fen da nt s la ck ed an y of fic ia l p o w e r g iv en th ei r res ig na ti on s be fo re tri al , no

m on et ary da m ag es were so ug ht , an d no o t h e r fo rm of rel ie f wou ld be op erat iv e ag ai ns t th em , act io n was m oo t); se e al so Sp om er v. Litt le to n, 41 4 U.S. 51 4, 52 1– 22 (1 97 4) ("Th e p l a in fact is th at

. . . res po nd en ts

. . . do no t pr es en tl y se ek to en joi n

by con se nt of t he pa rti es pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 6 36 (c).

-2

-[p et it io ne r] fro m do in g an y th in g." ). W hi le ap pe ll an ts co ul d su bs t i t ut e de fen da nt s'

s uc ces so rs as pa rti es —b ecau se ap pe ll an ts su ed th e de fen da nt s in th ei r of fic ia l
cap aci ti es —ap pe ll an ts m us t es ta b l i sh th at de fen da nt s' su cces so rs "co nt in ue [d ] th e

un co ns ti tu ti on al pr a c t i c e s al le ge d in th e co m pl ai nt " in or de r to de feat m oo tn es s. Tara Ent ers ., 62 2 F.2 d at 40 1– 02

. The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y he ld th at ap pe ll an ts fai le d to es ta bl is h th at de fen da nt s' su cces so rs co nt in ue d th e co m pl ai ne d of co nd uc t. In fact , MDOC revi se d t he si x- bo ok po li cy in 20 12 , co rrec ti ng th e de fic ie nc ie s th at

were id en ti fie d by th e di st ric t co ur t as th e ba se s of th e al le ga ti on s un de rlyin g th is su it , na m el y , th e fai lu re t o d efi ne "b oo k" an d " pa m ph le t."

Fu rth er, th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t MDOC m us t be di sm is se d be cau se MDOC is im m un e fro m su it un de r th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t. See Harri s v. McS wain , 4 17 F. App ’x 59 4, 59 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (rec og ni zi ng MDOC as pr ot ect ed st at e ag en cy fo r pu rp os es of t he Elev en th Am en dm en t); Mo nr oe v. Ark . Sta te Uni v., 49 5 F .3d 59 1, 59 4 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( s t a t in g th at th e Elev en th Am en dm en t ba rs su it ag ai ns t a st at e ag en cy for "an y ki nd of r el ie f") . Alth ou gh im m un it y was n ot rai se d by MDOC, w e

can affi rm "o n an y gr ou nd su pp or te d by th e reco rd ." Bal li ng er v. Cu lo tt a, 32 2 F.3 d 54 6, 5 48 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3)

.

The refo re, t he jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-