Opinion ID: 2620462
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: First Amendment and RLUIPA claims

Text: We turn next to Selby’s claims concerning his religious freedom. Selby alleges in his complaint that he is a devout Christian who was deprived of the right to practice his religious beliefs through participation in group worship services while he was confined in administrative segregation. In the appellate briefs, he presented argument No. 13-1248 Selby v. Caruso, et al. Page 9 only on his RLUIPA claim, so we deem the First Amendment claim abandoned. See Griffin v. Hardrick, 604 F.3d 949, 956 (6th Cir. 2010). Selby’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief under RLUIPA became moot when he was released into the general prison population at MBP. See Colvin, 605 F.3d at 289; Berryman v. Granholm, 343 F. App’x 1, 4–5 (6th Cir. 2009). In addition, Selby cannot state a claim against the State of Michigan for damages under RLUIPA. See Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651, 1658–59 (2011); Cardinal v. Metrish, 564 F.3d 794, 801 (6th Cir. 2009). Finally, our court has not ruled on whether RLUIPA authorizes a prisoner to pursue damages against prison officials who are sued in their individual capacities, see Heard v. Caruso, 351 F. App’x 1, 13 n.5 (6th Cir. 2009), but we need not resolve that issue here. Having carefully reviewed the RLUIPA claim, we agree with the district court’s reasons for granting summary judgment to the defendants on that claim.