Ind v. Colorado Department of Corrections
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16223
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Jacob Ind, a Colorado state prisoner, sued CDOC under RLUIPA and the Constitution challenging CSP’s policy limiting administrative-segregation inmates to two personal books as a substantial burden on his sincerely held religious practice.
- He filed suit while in administrative segregation (CSP); after litigation began he was transferred to other facilities and ultimately to general population at Limon, where inmates may keep 15 books.
- The district court denied CDOC’s motion to dismiss as moot (finding a reasonable likelihood Ind would be returned to segregation), conducted a bench trial, held the two-book policy violated RLUIPA as applied to Ind, and enjoined enforcement of the policy against him if he returned to CSP; it also awarded attorney fees.
- CDOC appealed, arguing the case was moot because Ind was no longer in administrative segregation and exceptions to mootness did not apply.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed mootness, applying the voluntary-cessation and capable-of-repetition exceptions, and concluded Ind’s claim was moot because his transfer ended the injurious policy and there was no reasonable expectation the violation would recur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ind’s challenge to CSP’s two-book policy is moot after his transfer to general population | Ind: exceptions apply — CDOC voluntarily ceased enforcement and the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review because he has long history in segregation | CDOC: transfer ended the injury; voluntary cessation and repetition exceptions do not apply | Case is moot; Tenth Circuit reversed district court and remanded to dismiss |
| Applicability of voluntary-cessation exception | Transfer does not moot because CDOC could reinstate policy and return Ind to segregation | CDOC: transfer resulted from normal completion of segregation program; no evidence of strategic cessation | Voluntary-cessation exception inapplicable; defendant showed no reasonable expectation of recurrence |
| Applicability of capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception | Policy’s short duration in practice and Ind’s past segregation make recurrence likely and litigation evasion likely | CDOC: future placement depends on Ind’s conduct; cannot assume he will re-offend | Exception not met — Ind failed to show reasonable expectation he will again be subject to the policy |
| Whether court may issue prospective injunction affecting policy generally | Ind sought relief tied to his return to CSP; district enjoined enforcement against him | CDOC argued suit moot so relief improper | No ongoing case or controversy; courts may not issue advisory relief — injunction vacated by dismissal as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir. 2011) (standing and redressability framework)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (mootness and redressability principles)
- County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (1979) (voluntary cessation mootness standard)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (court will not assume plaintiff will repeat misconduct for recurrence analysis)
- McAlpine v. Thompson, 187 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 1999) (narrow application of capable-of-repetition exception)
- Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2007) (similar inmate-mootness analysis where placement depends on inmate misconduct)