Court Opinion

ID: 9953401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 04:01:20.220086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:05.038790
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                 File Name: 24a0141n.06

                                            No. 23-3367

                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                    Mar 21, 2024
                                                          )                 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk
    RAY SCOTT HEID; JAMES E. DAMRON,
                                                          )
          Plaintiffs-Appellants,                          )
                                                          )        ON APPEAL FROM THE
    v.                                                    )        UNITED STATES DISTRICT
                                                          )        COURT     FOR      THE
    WARDEN*, et al.,                                      )        SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
          Defendants-Appellees.                           )        OHIO
                                                          )                       OPINION

Before: KETHLEDGE, BUSH, and READLER, Circuit Judges.

         JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Inmates Ray Scott Heid and James E. Damron sued

Warden Gary Mohr and other Ohio prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for confiscating three

books about Adolph Hitler and the Nazis that the inmate plaintiffs argue they read to practice their

religion. Plaintiffs seek to invoke the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The

magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for defendants because plaintiffs’

purported free-exercise claims were time-barred, and the district court agreed. We agree with this

reasoning as to the challenges of two of the books: they are untimely. We therefore affirm the

district court’s judgment as to those books. As to the third book, we do not reach the merits of the

plaintiffs’ claim because it is moot. It is therefore dismissed.

*
  The first-named defendant in this action was originally Gary C. Mohr, Warden of the Ross
Correctional Institute where both of the plaintiffs were incarcerated. The plaintiffs are now
incarcerated in different correctional facilities with different wardens. Pursuant to FRAP 43,
Substitution of Parties, the court substituted “Warden” for Gary C. Mohr in this case’s caption.
No. 23-3367, Heid, et al. v. Warden, et al.

                                               I.

       This dispute arose at the Ross Correctional Institute (RCI), where Heid and Damron were

incarcerated. On August 21, 2015, RCI prison officials removed several texts from the prison

library, including Was Adolf Hitler a Bible Christian? and Christian Principles of National

Socialism. Then, on October 15, 2015, during a prison-cell shakedown, officials confiscated a

copy of Mein Kampf from Heid. Given the nature of the removed publications, prison officials

were concerned that those writings presented a risk of violence.

       On April 9, 2018, plaintiffs filed this § 1983 action regarding the book removal. They

asserted that defendants’ actions placed a substantial burden on their practice of religion, and thus

constituted a violation of their First Amendment rights. The prison officials raised a statute-of-

limitations defense, citing a two-year statute of limitation that applies to the § 1983 claims.

Specifically, defendants argued that the claims were untimely because plaintiffs sued more than

two years after prison administrative proceedings relating to their claims had concluded.

       On July 15, 2022, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. As to the free-exercise

claims, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant summary

judgment to the prison officials based on the statute of limitations. The district court entered a

final judgment, which plaintiffs timely appealed.

                                               II.

       We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Jackson v. City of

Cleveland, 925 F.3d 793, 806 (6th Cir. 2019). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is

“no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and the moving party “is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[W]e view the factual evidence in the light most favorable

                                                -2-
No. 23-3367, Heid, et al. v. Warden, et al.

to the nonmoving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Burwell v. City

of Lansing, 7 F.4th 456, 462 (6th Cir. 2021) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).

                                                 III.

       Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s judgment as it pertains to their free-exercise claims.1

See Appellant Br. They assert that prison officials violated their First Amendment rights by

removing Was Adolf Hitler a Bible Christian? and Christian Principles of National Socialism from

the prison library and by confiscating Mein Kampf from Heid’s cell. We agree with the district

court that the challenges as to Mein Kampf and Was Hitler a Bible Christian? are time-barred. We

therefore affirm the summary judgment for the prison officials as to those challenges. As to the

challenge concerning Christian Principles of National Socialism, we dismiss it as moot.

       1. Mein Kampf and Was Adolf Hitler a Bible Christian?

       The bulk of plaintiffs’ appeal can be disposed of based on the applicable statute of

limitations. “In § 1983 cases, ‘state law determines which statute of limitations applies,’ while

‘federal law determines when the statutory period begins to run.’ ” Garza v. Lansing Sch. Dist.,

972 F.3d 853, 867 n.8 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Harrison v. Michigan, 722 F.3d 768, 772–73 (6th

Cir. 2013)). For § 1983 claims, we borrow from the state statute of limitations applicable to

personal injury actions. Banks v. City of Whitehall, 344 F.3d 550, 553 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing

Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 (1985)). Ohio imposes a two-year statute of limitations for

personal injury. Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10. The cause of action accrues “when the plaintiff knows

1
 Plaintiffs do not appeal their claims under the Fifth Amendment, the Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act, all of which they also lost upon below.
                                                 -3-
No. 23-3367, Heid, et al. v. Warden, et al.

or has reason to know that the act providing the basis of his or her injury has occurred.” Garza,

972 F.3d at 867 n.8 (quoting Collyer v. Darling, 98 F.3d 211, 220 (6th Cir. 1996)).

       However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with

respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are

available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). As a result, the statute of limitations “is tolled

while the plaintiff exhausts his required administrative remedies.” Surles v. Andison, 678 F.3d

452, 458 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Brown v. Morgan, 209 F.3d 595, 596 (6th Cir. 2000)).

       The final administrative decisions denying relief as to Mein Kampf and Was Hitler a Bible

Christian? were made on November 24 and December 4, 2015, respectively. Because plaintiffs

did not file their complaint in court until April 9, 2018—more than two years after each of the

relevant final administrative decisions—the challenges pertaining to those books are time-barred.2

       2. Christian Principles of National Socialism

       It is unclear from the record whether or when a final administrative decision was made

regarding the removal of Christian Principles of National Socialism. But, regardless of its

timeliness, their claim regarding this book has become moot. We therefore do not rule upon it.

       “A federal court has no authority to render a decision upon moot questions or to declare

rules of law that cannot affect the matter at issue.” United States v. Solano-Rosales, 781 F.3d 345,

2
  The magistrate judge also addressed equitable tolling, which may extend a statute-of-limitations
period when a litigant’s failure to file suit within that period was unavoidable because of
“circumstances beyond that litigant’s control.” Jackson v. United States, 751 F.3d 712, 718 (6th
Cir. 2014) (quoting Robertson v. Simpson, 624 F.3d 781, 783 (6th Cir.2010)). But plaintiffs did
not present any argument regarding equitable tolling in their opening brief to this court. Thus, it
is waived. See Kuhn v. Washtenaw Cnty., 709 F.3d 612, 624 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Caudill v.
Hollan, 431 F.3d 900, 915 n.13 (6th Cir. 2005)).
                                                 -4-
No. 23-3367, Heid, et al. v. Warden, et al.

355 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. City of Detroit, 401 F.3d 448, 450 (6th Cir. 2005)).

In an order denying the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, a prior panel explained that the

challenge to the removal of Christian Principles of National Socialism from the RCI prison library

was mooted after the plaintiffs were transferred to other facilities. Heid v. Mohr, No. 19-3259,

2020 WL 13561751, at *3 (6th Cir. Mar. 30, 2020). The plaintiffs did not allege in their Complaint

“that ODRC banned these materials in all its facilities or that these materials were in their personal

possession and were permanently confiscated from them.” Id. Accordingly, because their claim

regarding Christian Principles of National Socialism was “specific to their former places of

confinement,” we denied the claim on mootness grounds. Id.

       The plaintiffs have presented no basis to disturb the prior panel’s conclusion. Under the

law-of-the-case doctrine, we are bound by the conclusions of a prior panel “unless there is ‘(1) an

intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a clear

error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Howe v. City of Akron, 801 F.3d 718, 741 (6th Cir. 2015)

(quoting Entm’t Prods., Inc. v. Shelby Cnty., 721 F.3d 729, 742 (6th Cir. 2013)). As was the case

during their prior appeal, the plaintiffs are no longer incarcerated at RCI. They allege that since

filing their Complaint, the defendants “have proscribed the entire practice of” their asserted

religion, suggesting that the materials they seek would be prohibited in all ODRC facilities.

Appellant Br. at 11. But, although they claim that they are prevented from obtaining certain CDs,

they do not claim to lack access to Christian Principles of National Socialism at the facilities where

they now reside. Id. Thus, they have not presented any new allegations, let alone evidence, that

keep their claim live.

                                                 -5-
No. 23-3367, Heid, et al. v. Warden, et al.

                                              IV.

       For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court with respect to

the plaintiffs’ claims regarding Mein Kampf and Was Adolf Hitler a Bible Christian? We

DISMISS as moot the plaintiffs’ claim concerning Christian Principles of National Socialism.

                                              -6-