Ali v. Jones, 699 F. App'x 824

Ali appeals district court dismissal of claims and summary judgment for three defendants; alleges denial of Halal diet and Noble Quran copy, and retaliation; district court adopted magistrate reports and entered judgment for defendants; RLUIPA claims moot after release from confinement; asserted First Amendment and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983; presented various bench and procedural motions; this panel affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
RLUIPA mootness after release	Ali argues RLUIPA claims remain viable	RLUIPA claims moot once released	Moot; claims dismissed
Personal involvement under §1983	Defendants denied Halal diet	No personal involvement shown	Claims fail for lack of personal involvement
Right to Halal diet and Quran copy	Restriction burdened religious exercise	Regulations rationally related to penology; alternatives exist	Not substantially burdened; permissible
Retaliation and Quran confiscation claim	Cell raid retaliatory for Muslim faith	No Fourth Amendment privacy claim; insufficient evidence of retaliation	No retaliation established; not cognizable
Overall affirmance of district rulings	District court erred in multiple rulings	Rulings were correct and properly supported	Affirmed

Pfeil v. Lampert, 603 F. App’x 665 (10th Cir. 2015) (RLUIPA mootness after release from custody)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading sufficiency; personal involvement required)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (restrictions on religious exercise; reasonableness of regulations)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (no Fourth Amendment privacy rights in jail)
Shero v. City of Grove, 510 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2007) (retaliation claim elements)
McDonald v. Kinder-Morgan, Inc., 287 F.3d 992 (10th Cir. 2002) (establishment clause issue not considered on appeal)