United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3735

___________

Troy Roddy, *

*

Appellant, *

*

H. Khalid Khalifah, doing business as *

Khalifah’s Booksellers & Associates, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

James T. Banks, Assistant Warden, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Varner Super Max, ADC (originally *

sued as Jimmy L. Banks); Rick Toney, *

Warden, Varner Super Max, ADC; Ray *

Hobbs, Deputy Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; Randall E. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Manus, Assistant Warden, Varner *

Super Max Unit, ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 3, 2004

Filed: February 25, 2005

___________

Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

2

He has abandoned his remaining claims on appeal. See Burke v. N.D. Dep’t

of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1044 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (claims not

raised in appellate brief are deemed abandoned).

-2-

Arkansas inmate Troy Roddy, a member of Nation of Islam (Nation), appeals

the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action. Roddy sued an Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) official and three

officials at the Varner Supermax Unit (VSM) for equal protection and First

Amendment free-exercise violations, after he was denied receipt of certain religious

materials.2

 Having carefully reviewed the record, see Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr.,

372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 501 (2004) (standard of review),

we affirm.

VSM houses ADC’s most incorrigible inmates, and employs an incentive-level

program to alter inmates’ behavior. There are five VSM incentive levels, and

advancement in level with more privileges is based on conduct and participation in

programming. During the relevant period, Roddy never achieved more than incentive

Level I status. Until September 2001, VSM regulations provided that all VSM

inmates were permitted to keep as personal property only two “religious texts”; VSM

officials interpreted “religious texts” to mean a “primary” source of religious doctrine,

“such as” the Koran, Bible, or Torah. In grievances from January to June 2001,

Roddy complained that he had been denied receipt by mail of issues of a Nation

newsletter and three Nation books he had ordered. He asserted that the publications

were required for him to interpret the Koran and that his religion required diligent

study. He also complained that Christian inmates were allowed to receive Christian

books and newsletters. Roddy’s grievances were denied on the grounds that he could

not receive newsletters at Level I; that he was able to practice his religion, as he could
-3-

have a Koran; and that the books at issue were not “religious texts” but were books

“about religion.” 

We conclude that summary judgment was properly granted as to Roddy’s equal

protection claims, because he failed to adduce evidence that the inmates who were

permitted to receive issues of Christian and Buddhist newsletters and Christian and

secular books were on the same incentive level as he was. See id. at 984 (to succeed

on equal protection claim inmate must show, inter alia, that he is treated differently

from similarly situated class of inmates). 

As to Roddy’s free-exercise claim, we agree with the district court that the

denial of the books supported such a claim. See id. at 982-83 (discussing factors for

determining whether limits placed on inmate’s constitutional rights are permissible);

Weir v. Nix, 114 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 1997) (elements of free-exercise claim). We

also agree with the district court that defendants were nevertheless entitled to

qualified immunity because a reasonable prison official would not have known that

denying Roddy the Nation books violated the First Amendment. See Sutton v.

Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 240, 258-60 (3d Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (finding, in freeexercise case brought by Nation inmates after they were denied certain religious

materials, that courts have not always provided clear guidance on question of what

restrictions on prisoners’ rights pass constitutional muster); Hayes v. Long, 72 F.3d

70, 73 (8th Cir. 1995) (steps in qualified immunity analysis); cf. Sparr v. Ward, 306

F.3d 589, 593 (8th Cir. 2002) (noting in First Amendment free-speech case that issue

is whether reasonable person would know he acted in manner which deprived another

of known constitutional right).

Finally, we decline to address the arguments raised on behalf of H. Khalid

Khalifah, the other plaintiff in the lawsuit underlying this appeal, because only Roddy

was named in and signed the notice of appeal. See Moore v. Robertson Fire Prot.

Dist., 249 F.3d 786, 788 (8th Cir. 2001) (where two parties provided no indication of
-4-

intent to appeal until submission of brief, this court lacked jurisdiction to consider

their arguments); Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must specify party or

parties taking appeal by naming each one in caption or body).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________