444 P.3d 652
Wyo.2019Background
- JonMichael Guy, a Wyoming DOC inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory, injunctive relief and damages, asking the WDOC to recognize Humanism as a religion and permit a Humanist study group and identification for assignments.
- After suit was filed, the WDOC issued a Director’s Executive Order formally recognizing Humanism and adding it to the WDOC Handbook; the American Humanist Association did not appeal that relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss as moot, argued lack of ripeness for specific practice claims, and claimed qualified immunity for individual-capacity damage claims.
- The district court dismissed the complaint as moot, declined to apply the federal voluntary-cessation mootness exception (not adopted in Wyoming), and alternatively found failure to exhaust administrative remedies under PLRA.
- Guy sought attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; the district court denied fees because he was not a “prevailing party.”
- On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed dismissal for mootness, held Wyoming has not adopted the voluntary-cessation exception, found defendants entitled to qualified immunity on the damages claim, and affirmed denial of attorney fees under Buckhannon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the voluntary-cessation exception to mootness applies in Wyoming | Guy: federal voluntary-cessation exception should apply; State and federal mootness standards are consistent | WDOC: Wyoming has not adopted voluntary-cessation; executive order moots claim | Court: Wyoming has not adopted the voluntary-cessation exception; claim for injunctive relief is moot |
| Whether dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies requires reversal | Guy: PLRA exhaustion is an affirmative defense and not appropriate for dismissal at pleading stage | WDOC: Guy did not exhaust administrative remedies | Court: Even if exhaustion dismissal was erroneous, mootness independently disposes of case; no reversal needed |
| Whether Lampert and Tennant-Caine are entitled to qualified immunity for individual-capacity damages claim | Guy: Right to freedom of religion and nonfavoring of religions was clearly established | Defendants: Qualified immunity shields them because law was not "clearly established" that Humanism is a religion | Court: Right (Humanism-as-religion) not "beyond debate"; defendants entitled to qualified immunity |
| Whether the defendants’ certificate of service was invalid and preserved | Guy: Certificate signed by paralegal violated rules (W.R.C.P. 5 and U.R.D.C. 302) | Defendants: Service was effective; Guy received filings and responded | Court: Guy failed to preserve the argument below and showed no prejudice; issue not considered on appeal |
| Whether Guy was a "prevailing party" under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and entitled to attorney fees | Guy: Litigation catalyzed WDOC’s voluntary recognition of Humanism, improving his position (catalyst theory) | State: No causal link or judicial relief; Buckhannon bars catalyst theory for § 1988 fees | Court: Buckhannon controls; voluntary change without judicial imprimatur does not make Guy a prevailing party; fees denied |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, 455 U.S. 283 (1982) (federal voluntary-cessation principle: defendant’s voluntary cessation does not automatically moot a case)
- ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (1989) (state courts are not bound by Article III justiciability limits that drive federal mootness doctrine)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may decide qualified-immunity issues in either order)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly established law must be particularized to the facts)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (law must be "beyond debate" to overcome qualified immunity)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified immunity appellate review is legal; whether alleged facts show violation of clearly established law)
- Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) (reference to Secular Humanism in footnote, but not a broad test for what counts as religion)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (plaintiff is not a "prevailing party" under federal fee statutes solely by causing defendant’s voluntary change; judicial imprimatur required)