United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2686

___________________________

Tyler Lothaire Reynolds

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Jay Nelson; Dot Faust; Mike Schierbrock; Judy Morrison; Scott Miller; Tracy

Dietsch; Kay Kopatich

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: November 16, 2018

Filed: December 11, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Iowa inmate Tyler LothaireReynolds appeals the district court’s adverse grant

1

of summary judgment in his action under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 and the Religious Land

Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, wherein he challenged decisions concerning

the practice of his Native American Church (NAC) beliefs. Viewing the evidence in

a light most favorable toReynolds, and drawing all reasonable inferencesin his favor,

see Cullor v. Baldwin, 830 F.3d 830, 836 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review), we

assume that the denial of separate NAC services in a Tipi at Iowa State Penitentiary

(ISP) substantially burdened his religious exercise. See Native Am. Council of Tribes

v. Weber, 750 F.3d 742, 748-49 (8th Cir. 2014) (to succeed on RLUIPA claim,

inmate must offer evidence that challenged government practice substantially

burdened religious exercise; and if such evidence is offered, government has burden

of proving its practice furthers compelling government interest, and there is no less

restrictive means of furthering such interest). 

Defendants submitted evidence that a Tipi as Reyolds requested was denied

based on security issues due to staffing and safety concerns at ISP, and that

Reynolds’s only counter to the decision was that a new prison was planned where

there would be enough room for a second Tipi. Defendants thus satisfied their

obligation to prove their practice furthered a compelling government interest and

there is no lessrestrictive means of furthering such interest. Id. However, we express

no opinion as to appropriate restrictions in a planned new prison. Reynolds now

seeks an “alternative plan” to accommodate his religious practice, which involves

having an NAC “road man” come to ISP twice a year to conduct daytime ceremonies

with drum playing, singing, and praying, but does not involve the use of peyote. His

alternative plan is not what he sought when he requested NAC services at ISP in May

2014, or when he pursued that request until it was finally denied in November 2014. 

We thusfind that he isimproperly attempting not only to raise a new claim on appeal,

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Southern District of Iowa.

-2-
see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (declining to consider pro

se appellant’s new claim), but also a claim he could not have administratively

exhausted, see Haight v. Thompson, 763 F.3d 554, 559-61 (6thCir. 2014) (discussing

administrative exhaustion requirement in inmates’ RLUIPA action). Because

Reynolds offers no valid basis for reversing the grant of summary judgment to

defendants based on the record before the district court, the judgment is affirmed.

2

______________________________

We do not address claims Reynolds has waived, see Hess v. Ables, 714 F.3d

2

1048, 1051 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013) (waiver of claims); or other new matters he has raised. 

-3-