866 F. Supp. 2d 1235
D. Mont.2012Background
- Native American inmates at Crossroads (private prison operated by CCA) challenge sweat lodge participation under RLUIPA; Montana DOC policy allows sweat lodges if no undue interference.
- Plaintiffs allege strip searches before/after ceremonies, confiscation/prohibition of sacred items, inadequate ceremonial materials, restricted venue and participation, and retaliation.
- Defendants (CCA and State) move to dismiss asserting no substantial burden on religious exercise and lack standing or mootness; sovereign immunity bars damages.
- Court’s analysis acknowledges sweat lodge as religious exercise; concludes some alleged burdens are plausible but others fail under Iqbal and Warsoldier standards.
- Court notes RLUIPA applicability to private prisons and that Crossroads can be treated as a state instrumentality for purposes of RLUIPA; settlement conference ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the complaint state a prima facie substantial burden under RLUIPA? | Gopher/Potter allege confiscation of sacred items, strip searches, pipe-carrier removal | No substantial burden; claims conclusory; injury not significantly burdensome | Plaintiffs allege plausible burdens for some claims; others dismissed |
| Do plaintiffs have standing or are claims moot for injunctive/declaratory relief? | Some plaintiffs remain at Crossroads; others transferred but harmed previously | Transferred plaintiffs lack imminent threat; mootness applies | Frost, Chiefstick, Knows His Gun: no standing/moot; Gopher/Potter: standing for sacred items; all may seek monetary damages |
| Is a private prison (Crossroads) subject to RLUIPA liability? | Crossroads is an instrumentality of the state and receives federal funds | Private prisons not covered; policy should exclude private facilities | Crossroads is a program or activity of a state instrumentality; RLUIPA applies to CCA Defendants |
| Is Crossroads governed by RLUIPA’s program/activity scope despite private status? | §2000cc-1(a) covers government, §2000cc-1(b) covers programs receiving federal funds | ADA interpretation suggests private prisons not instrumentality; but RLUIPA broader | RLUIPA applies; Crossroads acts as state instrumentality under §2000cc-1(a) and §2000cc-1(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.2005) (substantial burden requires oppressive impact on religious exercise)
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (Sup. Ct.2005) (prison must accommodate religious practices; cost-shifting allowed)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must show plausibility, not mere conclusory statements)
- Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service, 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir.2008) (substantial burden requires more than mere offense to beliefs)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing for injunctive/declaratory relief requires imminent harm; mootness limits apply)
- Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964 (9th Cir.2010) (standing for injunctive relief requires real/imminent threat)
- Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365 (9th Cir.1995) (capable of repetition, yet evading review doctrine)
- Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651 (2011) (sovereign immunity considerations for damages under RLUIPA)
- Holley v. California Dept. of Corrections, 599 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.2010) (sovereign immunity limitations under RLUIPA)