Mario Cavin v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 927 F.3d 455

Background

Mario Cavin, a Michigan state prisoner and Wiccan, seeks to hold monthly Esbat group worship; prison policy permits group worship only on eight annual Sabbats, not Esbats.
Cavin also cannot use ritual items (candles, incense) except in the prison chapel, limiting proper rituals when alone.
He sued under RLUIPA for injunctive relief and sought damages against the Department and Chaplain David Leach; district court dismissed damages claims and tried the RLUIPA claim.
The district court concluded the prison regulations implicated but did not substantially burden Cavin’s religious exercise and denied injunctive relief; it also granted qualified immunity to Leach and refused appointed counsel.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed qualified immunity and denial of counsel, vacated the RLUIPA injunctive ruling, and remanded to decide whether the policy survives strict scrutiny under RLUIPA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cavin sincerely holds Wiccan belief requiring communal Esbat worship	Cavin testified Esbats have greater religious efficacy when observed communally; sincerity found by district court	Department argued many Wiccans worship privately, calling sincerity into question	Court accepted district court’s finding of sincerity
Whether the prison policy substantially burdens Cavin's religious exercise under RLUIPA	Policy bars Cavin from communal Esbats and from accessing ritual items, substantially burdening his exercise	Department argued solitary worship is permissible and policy does not substantially burden practice	Court held the policy does substantially burden religious exercise (vacated denial)
Whether RLUIPA or §1983 permits damages against officials	RLUIPA provides a cause of action and Cavin sought damages against Leach; alternatively §1983 could enforce RLUIPA	Defendants argued RLUIPA does not clearly authorize individual-capacity monetary damages and §1983 cannot be used to obtain what RLUIPA omitted	Court held RLUIPA does not authorize damages against officials and §1983 cannot be used to recover RLUIPA damages
Whether Chaplain Leach is entitled to qualified immunity on First Amendment claim	Cavin argued Leach violated clearly established First Amendment right by denying communal Esbats	Leach argued the right was not clearly established and Turner balancing makes outcome uncertain	Court affirmed qualified immunity: right not clearly established on these facts; official reasonably unaware

Key Cases Cited

Haight v. Thompson, 763 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2014) (denial of religious items and access can constitute a substantial burden)
Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (RLUIPA/Free Exercise framework; sincerity and protection for non-uniform religious practices)
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (courts of review should remand first-instance determinations)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulation validity via balancing of penological interests)
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (rights-creating statutory language indicates an individually enforceable right)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005) (§1983 enforcement depends on Congress’s intent regarding remedies)
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246 (2009) (existence of an express statutory remedy may preclude §1983 relief)
Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011) (limits on relying upon out-of-circuit or district-court decisions for clearly established law)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly established law must be particularized to facts for qualified immunity)