N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT STEVEN HYPOLITE, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C ALIFOR

NIA DEPAR TM ENT OF C ORR EC TIONS; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 10-16365 D.C . No. 2:05-c v-00428-M C EKJN
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., C hie f Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 6, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, THOM AS, and M c KEOW N, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r Ste ve n Hy

polite a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s gran t of sum

m ary judgm e n t on his da

m a ge s c la im s a lle ging viola tions of the R e ligious La

nd Use and Institutiona

liz e d Pe rsons Ac t (“ RLUIPA” ). The distric t



# FIL ED NOV 07 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.c ourt gra

nte d sum m ary judgm e nt to thede fe nda

nts, inc luding theSe c re t ary of the C a lifornia De pa rtm e nt of C orre c tions, theW arde n of the C a lifornia M e dic a l Fa c ility prison, a nd num e rous othe r prison offic ia ls, on Hy polite ’ s offic ia l c a

pa c ity
c la im s be c a

use of the de fe nda

nts’ Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt sove re ign im m unity . It
a lso gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt to thede fe nda

nts on Hy polite ’ s individual
c a pa c ity c la im s for m one y

dam a ge s , re a soning tha

t RL U IPA doe s not c re a te a c a use of a c tion for suc h c la im s. On a ppe a l, Hy p olite c onte nds tha

t the de fe nda

nts wa ive d sove re ign im m unity by e x te nsive ly

litiga ting his c la i m s. Thus, Hy

polite argue s tha

t the distric t c o urt e rre d whe n it gra nte d sum m a ry judgm e nt to thede fe n da

nts ba se d on the i r sove re ign im

m unity . Hy polite a lso c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d whe n it he ld tha t RLUIPA doe s not a

uthoriz e m o ne y

dam a ge s for individual c a pa c ity
c la im s. 1 The “ t e st for de te rm ining whe t he r a Stat e ha s wa ive d its im

m unity from fe de ra l-c ourt jurisdic tion is a stringe nt one .” C

oll. Sav . Bank

v . Fla. Pre

paid Postse c ondary

Ed. Ex pe n seBd
. , 527 U.S. 666, 675 (1999) (quoting Atasc ade ro State Hosp. v . Sc anlon , 473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985)). In ge ne ra l , “ [t] h e fa c t tha

t the

1 De fe nda nts’ M otion for Sum

m ary Affirm anc e is de nie d. Hy polite ’ s R e que st for Judic ia l Notic e is gra nte d. De fe n da

nts’ M otion to Strike

is de nie d a s m oot. 2Stat e a

ppe are d a nd offe re d de fe nse s on the m e rits doe s not fore c lose c onside ra tion of the Ele ve n th Am e ndm e nt issue. . . .” Fla. De pt. of State v . Tre a sureSalv ors, Inc
. , 458 U.S. 670, 683 n.18 (1982).

“ A wa ive r of Ele ve n th Am e ndm e n t im m unity m ust une quivoc a lly

e vide nc e the s tat e ’ s inte ntion to subje c t itse l f to the jurisdic tion of the fe de ra l c ourt.” Hill v
. Blind Indus. & Se r

v s ., 179 F.3d 754, 758, a m e nde d on de nial of re h ’g by 201 F.3d 1186 (9th C ir. 1999). W

h ile “ wa ive r m

u st be una

m b iguous” an “ e xpre ss writte n wa ive r” i s not “ inva

ria bly re q uire d.” Id . “ [C ] onduc t tha t is inc om pat ible with a

n inte nt to pre s e rve ” Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt im m unity m ay wa ive tha

t im m unity
. Id
. He re , the de fe n da

n t s did not une quivoc a lly wa ive Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt im m unity . The de fe nda

nts ra i se d the ir sove re i gn im m unity prom

ptly a fte r the
m a gistra te judge re que ste d supple m e nta l brie fing a nd be fore he issue d his re port and re c om

m e ndation on the

m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt. M ore o ve r, the re is no indic a tion tha

t the de fe nda

nts sought tac tic a l a d

va nta ge by wa iting to raise
sove re ign im

m unity in this c a se . Se e , e .g. , Hill , 179 F.3d a t 756-57 (e xpla ining tha

t sta te “ he dge d its be t” whe n it wa ite d until the da y of tria l to ra ise sove re ign im m unity de fe nse ); In reBlie me iste r , 296 F.3d 858, 862 (9th C ir. 2002) (finding that the sta te m a de a “ ta c tic a l de c ision” whe n it a sse rte d sove re ign im m unity a fte r the t ria l c ourt sugge ste d its le a n ings on a

m o tion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt). 3Hy

polite a lso c onte nds tha

t the distric t

c ourt e rre d whe n

it gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt to thede fe nda

nts on his individua

l c a pa c ity c la im s. He argue s tha

t RLUIPA a llows him to re c ove r dam a ge s from the de fe n da

n t s in the ir individual
c a pa c itie s be c a

use C ongre ss e na c te d RLUIPA unde r Se c t ion 5 of the14th Am e ndm e nt. B ut “ C ongre s s . . . e na c t[e d] RLUIPA pursua nt to its Spending C la use and C om

m e rc e C la

use a uthority .” S

ossamon v . LoneStar State of Te x . , 131 S. C t. 1651, 1656 (2011); se e also W ood v . Yordy , 753 F.3d 899, 901 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ RLUIPA wa s e na c te d pursua nt to C ongre ss’ s c onstitutiona l powe rs unde r the Spe nding C la

use . . .” ). RLUIPA, the re fore , doe s not a uthoriz e dam a g e s a ga inst de fe nda n ts in the i r individua l c a

pa c itie s. W

ood , 753 F.3d a

t 904 (“ [T] he re is nothing in the

la ngua ge or struc ture of RL U IPA to sugge st tha t C ongre ss c onte m p late d lia b ility of gove rnm e nt e m

ploy e e s in a

n individual c a

pa c ity .” ). AFFIRM E D

4