Opinion ID: 3020327
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Williams’s RLUIPA Claim

Text: The Prison Officials also argue that the District Court erred in denying qualified immunity with respect to Williams’s RLUIPA claim. According to the Prison Officials, their alleged conduct could not have violated Williams’s clearly established rights under RLUIPA because the statute was passed only about six months prior to the incident. Williams does not oppose the Prison Officials’ qualified immunity claim with respect to RLUIPA, but 14 notes that it is irrelevant to his request for relief under the statute because he seeks only injunctive relief, not monetary damages.9 In their reply brief, the Prison Officials withdraw their qualified immunity argument with respect to Williams’s RLUIPA claim “[t]o the extent that Williams agrees to not seek any monetary damages under [RLUIPA].” (Appellants’ Reply Br. at 8 n.1.) Accordingly, because the amended complaint seeks only injunctive relief under RLUIPA, we need not address the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity with respect to Williams’s RLUIPA claim.