FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT APRI L29, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble J ohn R. Gibson, United States Circuit J udg e for the Eig hth Circuit, sit ting by * desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1624 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00134 -CV -2 JOAQUIN TERRERO, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, et al ., Defen da nt s, W ES LAMB, DAVID FOX, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 29, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T and G IB SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. *See B ivens v. Six Unknown Named Ag ents of F ed. B urea u of Na rcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 1 91 S. Ct . 1999, 29 L . Ed. 2d 619 (1971). Te rr e ro wa s f

ini sh ingup a

17 0- month s e nte nc e fo r p os se ssi on wi th i nte nt t o d ist

ri bute 2 coca ine in the low sec urity satellite of the F eder al Corre ctional Institut e-Jesup. Al so name d a s d e fe nd ants we re the Un ite d St ate s o f Ame ri c a and the Natio na l Inmate 3 Appea ls Coordinator (John Doe # 1) and the Reg ional Administrative Remedies Coordinator (John D oe # 2 ), bo th e mpl oye e s o f t he F e de ra l B ur e a

u o f P ri so ns . The c omplaint relies on the ame ndment’s Equal Protec tion Cl ause. 4 RFRA provides that the “ [g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person’ s 5 exercise of

relig ion even if the burden r esults from a r ule of g ener al applica

bility ,” unless “[the g overnme nt] demonstrates that application of the bur den to the per son (1) is in the furthe ranc e of a compe lling g overnme ntal interest; and ( 2) is the least re strictive means of further ing that compellingg overnme ntal interest.” 42 U .S.C. § 20 00 bb -1 (a ) a nd (b ). “ [T]he te rm

‘g ov e rnme nt’ inc lud e s . . . [an ] of

fi c ia l . . . o f t

he Un ite d St ate s. ” I d. at § 2000bb-2(1)
. Sukkot is also known as the F east of T aber nacle s. Sukkot celebra

nts erec t and eat 6 e ve ry me a l in a sukk ah, a

te mpo ra ry te nt- lik e str

uc tur e c ov e re d w ithbr anc he s. Ce le br ants da ily rec ite blessings ove r four plant specie s: a lulav (a pa lm branch) ; an etrog(a c itron); a my rtle; and a willow. 2 PE R CU RIA M: T his is a ci vil r igh ts B ive ns s uit f or dam ag es br ough t by

af orm er inm at e of 1
a fe de ra l l ow -s ec ur ity

pr iso n inJe sup, G eo rg ia , Joa qui n T er re ro , a ga ins t the 2 prison’s w arden, D. L. Hobbs, and tw o of the prison’s for m er c haplains, W es L am b and D av id F ox. T er

re ro , apr ac tic ing Je w , c la im s th at the de fe ndants 3 inf ri nge d hi s r igh ts unde r the F ir st A m en dm en t, the F if th A m en dm en t, and the 4 Re lig iou s F re ed om

Re sto ratio n A ct

( “ RF RA ”) , be ca

use , on d if

fe re nt o cc as ion s, 5 the y f ai le d to pr ovi de him

w iththe m eans o f ce le br at ing the se ve n- day Je w ish fe sti va l of

S ukko t in O ct obe r 2001 , f ai le d to e nsur e that he w as se rv ed w ith 6We have jurisdiction of this interlocutory appea l pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. S ee 7 Mitchell v. Forsy

th, 472 U.S. 511, 526-27, 105 S. Ct . 2806, 2815-16, 86 L . Ed. 2d 411 (1985). 3 ch al lah br ea d in ste ad

of m at zah c ra ck er s, and f

ai le d to c ontra ct

w ithar ab bi t o pr ovi de r el igi ous se rv ic es . T he c ha pla ins m ove d th e dis tr ic t c ourt t o di sm iss T er re ro ’ s c om

pla int pur suant t o F ed er al Ru le of Ci vil P ro ce dur e 12( b) (6 ) on the gr ound that the y are e nti tle d to qua lif

ie d im m uni ty . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th ei r
m otion , and they

appeal. W e re verse.

7 I. T er re ro ’ s th re e- co unt

c om pla int is sig nif ic an t i n w ha t i t do es and wha t i t does not allege. W e first c onsid er what the com plaint expl icitly

alleges, then consider what it does not allege. What the com

plaint alleges Count One O n August 8, 2001 and again on Septem ber 17, 2001, T erre ro
w ro te L am

b ale tte r as kin g th at

the pr iso n f

ur nis h hi m w iththe f

oll ow ing f

or the
ce le br at ionof

S ukko t: a sukk ah ; e ac h of the f our plant s pe ci es ; and p er

m iss ionto
eat e ve ry m ea l i n th e sukk ah
. T er

re ro inf orm ed L am b th at if the pr iso n w as una

ble to furnish th e item s, the A leph Institu te of Miam i, F lorida, w oulddo so. T erre ro did not he ar f ro m L am b inr es pons e, e ith er

ve rb al ly or in w ri tin g. On Oct ob er 1 , Suk ko t b eg an wit ho ut th e it em s Terrero req ue st ed . OnThe c omplaint alleg es that the prison provide s clergy of all other r elig ious sects either 8 a s p ri so n e mpl oye e s o r b y c ontr a c t. 4 O ct obe r 6, L am

b ha d asukkah bu ilt

and a uth or iz ed T er re ro to eat l unc h init
. T he sukk ahble wdown th e ne xt d ay and L am b gave the Je w ishinm at es e xc lus ive
ac ce ss t o th e ch ap el f

or S ukko t pr ay er s. L am

b de nie d T er

re ro ’ s r eque st f

or the fo ur plant s pe ci es , c iti ng b udge tary c onstra int s. Co unt T w o P ri or

to January

200 2, the pr iso n ha d f

ur nis he d th e Je w ish inm ates challah brea d for Sa bbath pray ers. In January 2002 , the prison replace d challah with m atzah cr ackers. T erre ro asked Lam b and Fox to p rovide challah ins te ad of m at zah, and tha t i f the pr iso n c oul d no t pr ovi de c ha llah, “ vari ous Je w ish
or ganiz at ion s” w oul d pr ovi de it
. T he c ha pla ins de nie d hi s r eque st, c iti ng

“ bu dg et ary co ns tra in ts .” Co unt T hr ee T er

re ro a ske d L am

b and F ox t o c ontra ct

w ithar ab bi t o pr ovi de r el igi ous se rv ic es a t the pr iso n, and tha t a r ab bi w as not

pr ovi de d. 8 Terrer o e xh au st edhi s re m ed ie s wi th th e Fed eral Bu reau of P ris on s (“ BOP”)
. The rem ed ie s av ai labl e to Terrer o a re s pe ll edou t i n 2 8 C .F.R. § 5 42 .10 et s eq . Af ter prese nting each issue of concer n inform ally

to staff, id. at § 542.13, T erre ro subm itt ed aRe que st f

or A dm ini str at ive Re m edy

to the W ar de n w ith in 2 0 day s of the denial of his requests, id. at § 542.14. The W arden investigated and respon ded5

t o ea ch re qu es t . Id . a t§ 5 4 2 .1 1 (a )( 4 ). If h e w as d i s s at i s fi ed wi t h th e Wa rd en ’s
re spon se , T er

re ro ha d 20 day s to appe al , f ir st t o th e BO P Re gio na l D ir ec tor , and the n to the BO P G en er al Co unse l, id. a t § 542. 15, w ho e ac h in ve sti ga te d hi s gr ie vanc e an d r es pond ed to his Re que sts f

or A dm ini str at ive Re m edy . I d. a t § 542. 15. T he se are the r es ult s of T er re ro ’ s R eque sts f

or A dm ini str at ive Re m ed ie s. Co unt O ne a lle ge s th at

the “N at ion al and A dm ini str at ive Re m edy Co or din at or s up he ld [ L am b’ s] de nia ls, a s di d th e W ar de n. ” Co nc er nin g th e sukk ah , Co unt

O ne a lle ge s th at

the “ gove rn m en t, ” in i ts “ re spon se s” to his r eque st for adm inistrative rem edies, stated that it w ouldchange its policyand in the future pr ovi de asukkah. Co unt T w o a lle ge s th at

tho se handl ing the a dm ini str at ive r ev ie w“ re fu se d to req ui re [Lam

b a nd Fo x] to pro vi de [ch al la h b read ]. ” Count Three a lleges that thos e handling the adm inistrative review “ refused to i ssu e [a ] c ontra ct ” fo r a ra bbi
. Wha t the c om

pla int doe s no t a lle ge A s to e ac h c ount , the c om pla int doe s no t a lle ge w ha t the c ha pla in( s) did after rec eiving Terr ero’ s request for re ligio us accom m odation
. For exam

ple, Co unt O ne doe s no t i ndi cate ( 1) w he the r or not L am b a tte m pte d to obt ai n th e funds ne ce ssary

to bui ld the sukkah and the f our plant s pe ci es ; ( 2) the da te (s ) he6

soug ht h is a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s; ( 3) the e vid en ce pr es en te d ona dm ini str at ive reviewby Te rrer o and Lam

b; and (4) the reason w hy Lam b’ s decisions we re uphe ld. F or

a ll w e know , L am

b a tte m pte d to a cc om

m oda te T er

re ro ’ s r eque sts but
w as pr es en te d f

ro m doi ng s o by

asup er ior

w ith in the BO P, by

BO P re gul at ion s or pol ic ie s, or

the r eg ulatio ns o r pol ic ie s go ve rn ing the ope ratio n of the Je sup pr iso n. Co unt T w o li ke w ise doe s no t i ndi cate w ha t transpi re d duri ng the vari ous sta ge s of a dm ini str at ive r ev ie w . A ll w e knowis that c ha llah w as not pr ovi de d du e to “ bu dg et ary co ns tra in ts .” Who im po se d t ho se res tra in ts an d wh y is no t al le ge d. D id the c ha

pla ins r eque st the pr ovi sio n of c ha llah? I f so, to w hom

did the y m ak e their request, and what re spon se did they rec eive? Count Three does not indicate when T erre ro asked the chaplains to cont ract
w ithar ab bi, w he the r or

not the y a tte m pte d to se cure the se rv ic es of ar ab bi, and wha t t ran sp ire d d ur in g t he va rio us st ag es of a dm in is tra ti ve rev ie w. II. A ssu m ing f

or sake of arg um en t tha t T er

re ro w as de nie d r el igi ous
ac co m m oda tio ns at i ssu e in v iol at ionof the F ir st and F if

th A m en dm en ts and RF RA , the que sti on the c om pla int doe s no t answ er

is w he the r the c ha

pla ins or
som eo ne e lse c au se d th e de nia l and whe the r the de nia l w as law fu l. U nde r the ci rc um stanc es , w e w oul d be hard pr es se d to hol d th at

the c ha pla ins , in the e xe rc ise7

of their discretion, infringed T erre ro’ s rights. So to hold, we would have to say that m er el y

a lle gin g th at

T er re ro a ske d th e ch ap la ins f or the r el igi ous
ac co m m oda tio ns at i ssu e an d th at the a cc om

m oda tio n w er e not

pr ovi de d st at es a violatio n und er the F irst or Fifth A m endm ents or RFRA
. In other wor ds, the fac t that those part ic ipatin g inthe a dm ini str at ive r ev ie wof the c ha pla ins ’ a ct ion s uphe ld the m

is of no m om en t. W e ar e not

pr ep ar ed to go tha t f

ar . T he c ha

pla ins are e nti tle d to the dis m iss al of

T er re ro ’ s a lle ga tio ns a ga ins t the m on the ba sis of

qua lif ie d im m uni ty be ca use tho se a lle ga tio ns d o no t st at e the c onst itu tio na l and s ta tut or y vio la tio ns cl ai m ed
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r de ny ing L am b’ s and F ox’ s m oti ons to d ism iss is REVERSED.