United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2054

___________

Lance Pounders, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Gary Kempker; George Lombardie; *

Winfrey Dickerson; Larry Rowley; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Douglas Prudden; Jim Moore; Clark *

Brown, Chaplain, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 24, 2003

Filed: October 31, 2003

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM

______________________________

Missouri inmate Lance Pounders appeals the district court’s preservice

dismissal of his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land

Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Pounders named various officials

at the Missouri Department of Corrections and at Northeast Correctional Center
1

Pounders also raised claims about restrictions on eagle feathers, pipes, dance

bells, and celebrating Native American “holy days”; the denial of a spiritual advisor;

and the preferential treatment of Christian inmates. He does not challenge the

dismissal of these claims on appeal. See Eddings v. City of Hot Springs, Ark., 323

F.3d 596, 599 n.2 (8th Cir. 2003). 

-2-

(NECC), where Pounders is incarcerated. Claiming First Amendment and RLUIPA

violations, Pounders alleged that he sincerely adheres to the Native American “Pipe

Religion,” and that defendants had substantially burdened his religious practice by

not permitting him to use a sweat or purification lodge.1

 Pounders sought only

injunctive relief. 

The district court dismissed Pounders’s complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), relying on Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1547 (8th Cir.), cert.

denied, 519 U.S. 874 (1996), in which we found that prison officials’ decision to deny

a Missouri inmate access to a sweat lodge at Potosi Correctional Center did not

violate the inmate’s right, under the First Amendment or under the Religious Freedom

Restoration Act (RFRA), to practice his Native American religion. Pounders

unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 59(e).

Section 1915(e)(2)(B) requires dismissal if the court determines a complaint

is frivolous or fails to state a claim, and we review such a dismissal de novo. See

Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). The RLUIPA

prohibits prison officials from imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of

religion unless they can show that the burden serves a compelling interest and is the

least restrictive means of advancing that interest. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). 

As the district court recognized, the sweat-lodge claim in Hamilton was

brought under both section 1983 and RFRA, see Hamilton, 74 F.3d at 1547, and

although RFRA has since been held unconstitutional, see City of Boerne v. Flores,

521 U.S. 507, 536 (1997), it contained the compelling-interest, least-restrictive
2

Interestingly, it appears that a sweat lodge has since been built at Potosi.

-3-

standard found in RLUIPA, see Hamilton, 74 F.3d at 1551-52. Thus, Hamilton is

instructive, but we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that Hamilton

forecloses Pounders’s sweat-lodge claim. In Hamilton the record had been fully

developed as to the prison officials’ basis for denying the inmate’s requests for a

sweat lodge: this court was reviewing the grant of injunctive relief following a 1994

hearing at which various officials testified. See id. at 1547-48. In contrast, here there

was nothing before the district court but Pounders’s complaint, which involved a

different Missouri prison; further, Pounders alleged below that NECC is a lowersecurity-level institution than Potosi.2

 See id. at 1557 (recognizing that successful

sweat-lodge claim might be possible under different circumstances); Atkinson v.

Bohn, 91 F.3d at 1127, 1128-29 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (complaint should not

be dismissed for failure to state claim unless it appears beyond doubt plaintiff can

prove no set of facts supporting his claim and entitling him to relief; pro se

complaints should be liberally construed). 

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion. We also deny all pending motions. 

______________________________