Leahy v. Conant, 436 P.3d 1039

Background

Raymond Leahy, a Muslim prisoner at Goose Creek, sued two prison superintendents (Conant and Sullivan) in their individual and official capacities after a 2014 DOC directive barred inmate-to-inmate mail between three Alaska facilities, which prevented Leahy from sending a religious letter to an Imam in another prison.
The directive was issued for safety/security reasons (gang/drug-trafficking concerns) and included limited exceptions (immediate family, co-litigants). Leahy exhausted prison grievance procedures and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, RLUIPA, and the Alaska Constitution seeking damages and declaratory relief.
While the case was pending, DOC rescinded the 2014 directive (November 2016) and replaced it with an individualized-review mail policy restricting prisoner-to-prisoner mail only on a case-by-case, narrowly tailored basis.
The superior court granted summary judgment to the superintendents, holding Leahy could not recover damages under § 1983 because the superintendents had not personally participated in instituting the directive, and that declaratory/injunctive relief was moot due to the rescission.
On appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed: it rejected liability for damages on qualified immunity grounds (rather than lack of personal participation), held the declaratory judgment claim moot, and found no abuse of discretion in the court’s treatment of Leahy as a pro se litigant or in declining to designate him the prevailing party.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether superintendents are liable for damages under § 1983 for enforcing the mail directive	Leahy: the directive substantially burdened his religious exercise and defendants are liable	Conant/Sullivan: lacked personal involvement; alternatively entitled to qualified immunity	Court: defendants entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established right made the directive obviously unlawful; summary judgment for defendants on damages upheld
Whether RLUIPA permits damages against individual superintendents and whether declaratory relief remains available	Leahy: sought declaratory relief and damages under RLUIPA and state law	Defendants: RLUIPA only permits prospective relief against officials in official capacity; damages not authorized; claim moot after rescission	Court: RLUIPA does not authorize damages against individuals; declaratory claim moot because policy was rescinded and replaced with an unambiguous new policy
Whether § 1983 requires personal participation and whether "following orders" is a defense	Leahy: argued superintendents did not personally participate so no liability under § 1983	Defendants: argued lack of personal participation and raised qualified immunity	Court: personal participation is not an absolute defense to § 1983, but qualified immunity applies here because reasonable officials could have believed the mail ban was constitutional (Turner analysis)
Whether the superior court abused discretion in advising pro se litigant or in failing to declare him prevailing party	Leahy: court should have advised him to add Commissioner Brandenburg and should have awarded prevailing-party costs	Defendants: court provided appropriate procedural guidance; prevailing-party issue not raised below	Court: no abuse of discretion in not advising to add a defendant or striking unauthorized filings; prevailing-party argument waived on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulation valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests; factors for review)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity shields officials unless they violate clearly established rights)
Breck v. Ulmer, 745 P.2d 66 (Alaska 1987) (Alaska adopts federal framework for qualified immunity analysis)
Kennedy v. City of Cincinnati, 595 F.3d 327 (6th Cir. 2010) (officials may be liable under § 1983 despite following orders if they should have questioned legality)