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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 26 86

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ty le r Lot ha ire Reynol ds

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ja y Nels on ; Do t Fa us t; Mi ke Sch ie rb ro ck ; J ud y Mo rri so n; Sco tt Mi ll er; Tracy Diet sc h; Kay

Kop at ic h

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 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 16 , 20 18 Fi le d: Decem

be r 11 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, BOW MAN, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.Io wa in m at e Ty le r Lot ha ire Reynol ds ap pe al s the di st ric t co ur t’s ad ve rs e gr an t 1

o f s u m m ary jud gm en t in hi s act io n un de r 42 U.S.C.§ 19 83 an d th e Rel ig io us Lan d
Use an d In st it ut io na li zed Pers on s Act
, whe rei n he chal le ng ed de ci si on s con cern in g th e pr act ic e of hi s Nati ve Am eri can Ch ur ch (NAC) be li efs

. Viewi ng th e ev id en ce in

a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Reynol ds
, an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in hi s fav or ,
se e Cu ll o r v

. B al dwi n, 83 0 F.3 d 83 0, 83 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (d e no vo rev ie w), we

as su m e th at th e de ni al of se pa rat e NAC se rv ic es in a Tip i at Io wa St at e Pen it en ti ary (ISP ) su bs ta nti ally bu rd en ed hi s rel ig io us ex erci se

. See Nati ve Am

. Co un ci l of Trib es

v. W eb er, 75 0 F.3 d 74 2, 74 8- 49 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (to su c c e e d o n RLUIPA cl ai m , in m at e m us t of fer ev id en ce th at ch al l e n g e d go ve rn m en t pr act ic e su bs ta nt ia ll y bu rd en ed rel ig io us ex erci se ; an d if su ch ev id en ce is of fere d, go ve rn m en t ha s bu rd en of pr ov in g it s prac ti ce furt he rs co m pe ll in g g ov ern m en t i nt eres t, an d t he re i s no le ss

res tri ct iv e m ean s o f fu rth eri ng su ch in te res t).

Defen da nt s su bm it te d ev id en ce th at a Tip i as Reyold s req ue st ed was de ni ed ba se d on se cu rit y is su es du e to st affi ng an d sa fet y co nc ern s at ISP, an d th at Reynol ds ’s on ly c o u n t e r t o t he de ci si on was th at a ne w pr is on was pl an ne d whe re th ere wou ld be en ou gh ro om fo r a se co nd Tip i. Defen da nt s th us sa ti sf ie d th ei r ob li ga ti on to p r o v e th ei r pr act ic e fu rth ered a co m pe ll in g go ve rn m en t in te res t an d th ere is no le ss res tri ct iv e m ean s of fu rth eri ng su ch in te res t. Id

. Howev er, we ex pr es s

no op in io n a s t o a pp ro pr ia te res tri ct io ns in a pl an ne d ne w pr is on

. Reynol ds no w

se ek s an “ al te rn at iv e pl an ” to acco m m od at e hi s rel ig io us pr act ic e, whi ch in vo lv es ha vi ng an NAC “ ro ad m an ” co m e to ISP twi ce a y ear to co nd uc t da y ti m e cere m on ie s wit h dr um pl ay in g, si ng in g, an d pr ay in g, bu t do es no t in vo lv e th e us e of pe y ot e. His al te rn at iv e pl an is no t wha t he so ug ht whe n he req ue st ed NAC se rv ic es at ISP in May 20 14
, or whe n he pu rs ue d th at req ue st un ti l it was fin al ly de ni ed in Nov em be r 20 14

. W e th us fin d th at he is im

pr op erl y at te m

pt in g no t on ly to rai se a ne w cl ai m on ap pe al
,

The Hon or ab le Jo hn A. Ja rv ey , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.
-2

-se e St on e v. Harry
, 36 4 F .3d 91 2, 9 14 -1 5 (8t h Cir. 20 04 ) (d ecl in in g to co ns id er pro

s e ap pe ll an t’s ne w cl ai m ), bu t al so a cl ai m he co ul d no t ha ve ad m in is tra ti ve l y

ex ha us te d, se e Haig ht v. Tho m ps on , 76 3 F.3 d 55 4, 55 9- 61 (6 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (d is cu ss in g ad m in is tra ti ve ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t in in m at e s’ RLUIPA act io n)

. Bec au se Reynol ds of

fers no va li d ba si s fo r rev ers in g th e gr an t of su m m ary jud g men t to de fen da nt s ba se d on th e rec or d b efo re t he di st ric t co ur t, th e jud gm en t is affi rm ed

. 2

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

W e do no t ad dr es s cl ai m s Reynol ds ha s waiv ed
, se e Hes s v. Abl es , 71 4 F.3 d 2 10 48
, 10 51 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (wai ve r of cl ai m s) ; or ot he r ne w m at te rs he ha s rai se d.

-3

-