Blackie Alvarez v. Jean Hill
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1174
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Alvarez, a former ODOC inmate, sued ODOC officials in their official capacity alleging RLUIPA burdens on his Native American religion.
- The district court granted summary judgment to ODOC officials; this court remanded for further RLUIPA analysis.
- On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment and dismissed RLUIPA claims.
- The district court held: (i) money damages under RLUIPA are not available against state officials sued in their official capacity; (ii) declaratory and injunctive relief claims are moot because Alvarez was released from custody.
- Alvarez appeals, challenging the district court’s determinations as to damages bar and mootness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RLUIPA damages against officials in official capacity | Alvarez argues damages are available against officials in their official capacity. | Defendants contend sovereign immunity bars such damages. | Damages barred by sovereign immunity. |
| Mootness of declaratory/injunctive relief after release | Alvarez argues mootness exceptions apply to ongoing policies or repetition. | ODOC officials argue release moots relief unless class certified. | Declaratory/injunctive claims moot; relief denied. |
| Mootness exception: capable of repetition yet evading review | Alvarez claims the Howard-type exception applies to ongoing policies. | No reasonable likelihood Alvarez will return to custody; exception not applicable. | Howard exception does not save Alvarez's post-conviction RLUIPA claims. |
| Application of Howard beyond pretrial contexts | Howard could apply to ongoing policies affecting other inmates. | Other inmates could bring their own RLUIPA claims; class relief not shown. | Howard does not rescue Alvarez's claims; no class-wide relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011) (RLUIPA damages barred by sovereign immunity)
- Holley v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 599 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2010) (treats official-capacity suits as against the state for immunity)
- Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365 (9th Cir. 1995) (inmate release generally moots injunctive relief claims)
- Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U.S. 1 (1988) (per curiam; released inmates lack continuing need for relief)
- Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2007) (released inmates may lack cognizable interest for declaratory relief)
- United States v. Howard, 480 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (capable-of-repetition exception may apply to ongoing policies affecting others)
- Reimers v. Oregon, 863 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1988) (injunctions can be moot after release absent damages)
- O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (non-speculative future harms required for standing and relief)
- Sierra Forest Legacy v. Sherman, 646 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2011) (mootness and justiciability principles govern standing to review)