Sisney v. Reisch
674 F.3d 839
8th Cir.2012Background
- Sisney, an inmate at SDSP, is Jewish and sought to observe Sukkot by using a succah in the recreation yard.
- He donated a three-sided succah; it could accommodate only one person.
- Sisney submitted SDSP Project Applications in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 requesting to erect and use the succah or, alternatively, extra recreation-yard time for benediction.
- Applications were denied on grounds of inmate-to-inmate property transfer prohibition and safety/security concerns.
- District court granted summary judgment to SDSP Officials, citing PLRA § 1997e(e) and qualified immunity, and reserved damages to nominal only.
- On appeal, Sisney challenges (1) the PLRA restriction on damages and (2) qualified immunity; the Eighth Circuit affirms the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PLRA §1997e(e) damages limitation | Sisney argues Royal should be reconsidered; seeks compensatory damages. | §1997e(e) bars compensatory damages absent physical injury; Royal controls. | Section 1997e(e) bars compensatory damages. |
| Qualified immunity for denial of succah | Right to succah use is clearly established; officials violated it. | No clearly established right in these circumstances; fair notice lacking. | Officials entitled to qualified immunity for 2004–2006 denials. |
Key Cases Cited
- Royal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2004) (PLRA §1997e(e) applies to prisoners' First Amendment actions; no compensatory damages without physical injury)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (Supreme Court 2002) (officials on notice of unlawful conduct in novel facts requires fair warning)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (contours of right must be clearly established for fair notice)