Kevin Conway v. Sue Alford
674 F. App'x 609
8th Cir.2017Background
- Kevin Conway, an Arkansas prison inmate and member of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian (affiliated with Aryan Nations), alleged prison employees intercepted and confiscated church-related publications.
- Prison policy permitted screening of incoming publications and referral to a review committee for materials tied to designated "Security Threat/Terrorist Groups."
- Two disputed incidents: (1) Mailroom Supervisor Sue Alford forwarded a publication to the review committee and instructed Sgt. Jacob Higgins to tell Conway it was confiscated; Higgins allegedly then labeled Conway a security threat, threatened retaliation, and banned CJCC materials; (2) Chaplain Dan Flora received a CJCC membership packet for Conway, sent it to the review committee, but gave Conway his membership card.
- Conway sued Alford, Higgins, and Flora in their individual and official capacities under RLUIPA, the First Amendment (free exercise and free speech), the Establishment Clause, and the 14th Amendment.
- The district court denied the defendants summary judgment on individual-capacity claims based on qualified immunity for two confiscated publications; the defendants appealed interlocutorily.
- The appellate court limited review to legal (not factual) questions and evaluated whether the alleged facts, taken in Conway’s favor, showed violations of clearly established rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confiscation substantially burdened religious exercise under RLUIPA | Conway: withholding church literature substantially burdens his practice and expression of religion | Defendants: screening/confiscation under prison policy is lawful and not a substantial burden | No. Alleged facts do not show a "substantial" burden; qualified immunity applies to RLUIPA claim |
| Whether defendants violated free-exercise rights under the First Amendment | Conway: confiscations infringed his constitutional right to freely exercise religion | Defendants: same as RLUIPA defense; no substantial burden shown | No. Because Conway failed to show a substantial burden under RLUIPA, the free-exercise claim also fails; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on individual-capacity claims | Conway: acts violated clearly established rights | Defendants: their actions did not violate clearly established law | Yes for RLUIPA and free-exercise claims; qualified immunity protects defendants on those claims |
| Other constitutional claims (free speech, Establishment Clause, 14th Amendment) | Conway: confiscations violated these rights | Defendants: district court should address these in the first instance | Remanded to district court to consider these claims on the merits; appellate review did not decide them |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. Univ. of Minn., 838 F.3d 938 (8th Cir.) (discussing interlocutory review scope for qualified-immunity denials)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (explaining RLUIPA burden requires a "substantial burden" on religious exercise)
- Van Wyhe v. Reisch, 581 F.3d 639 (8th Cir.) (holding RLUIPA and free-exercise analyses are linked; failure under RLUIPA dooms free-exercise claim)
- Heartland Academy Community Church v. Waddle, 595 F.3d 798 (8th Cir.) (limitation on appellate consideration of factual disputes in qualified-immunity interlocutory appeals)