Warner, Jr. v. Patterson, 534 F. App'x 785

Plaintiff Danny Lee Warner, Jr., an Odinist (Asatru) inmate at Utah State Prison, sought religious accommodations: a metal/wood thorshammer medallion, wood runes, a wood bowl, altar cloth, fast-boxes for an extended holiday, and access to a publication. Prison officials denied these requests citing security and a blanket publisher ban.
Warner sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment free exercise and free speech; Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection) and under RLUIPA. He exhausted administrative remedies before filing.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on most claims but denied summary judgment on two claims: denial of fast-boxes (Fourteenth Amendment and RLUIPA) and ban on publications (First Amendment and RLUIPA).
Warner moved for summary judgment on the surviving claims; the district court found defendants who denied fast-boxes and banned publications had violated Warner’s constitutional rights and RLUIPA, awarded nominal damages on the constitutional claims, but denied injunctive relief because Warner had left UDOC custody.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgments in favor of defendants on the § 1983 claims (finding Warner inadequately briefed those issues) and dismissed the RLUIPA appeal as moot because Warner was no longer in UDOC custody; the court vacated the district court’s RLUIPA judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether defendants violated § 1983 free exercise/due process/equal protection rights by denying religious items and group worship	Warner argued denials burdened his free exercise and other constitutional rights	Defendants relied on security concerns and prevailed at summary judgment	Affirmed — Warner waived these § 1983 challenges by failing to adequately brief them on appeal
2. Whether RLUIPA claims for fast-boxes and publication access survive on appeal	Warner argued RLUIPA prohibits substantial burdens on religious exercise and cited authorities	Defendants argued the case was moot because Warner left UDOC custody	Dismissed as moot — Warner’s release/transfer forecloses injunctive/declaratory relief under RLUIPA
3. Whether the mootness exception (capable of repetition yet evading review) applies	Warner suggested possible return to UDOC and that the issue could recur	Defendants argued transfer/release removes live controversy and exception does not apply	Exception not satisfied — no reasonable expectation of recurrence or evasion; appeal moot
4. Appropriate remedy for moot RLUIPA claims on appeal	Warner sought review and relief under RLUIPA	Defendants argued dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; district court had already entered partial relief before Warner’s custody change	Vacatur and remand to dismiss RLUIPA claims for lack of jurisdiction; nominal damages on § 1983 remain as entered by district court

Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir.) (summary judgment de novo review and mootness principles)
MacArthur v. San Juan Cnty., 495 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir.) (appellate briefing requirements under Fed. R. App. P. 28)
Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651 (U.S. 2011) (RLUIPA does not waive state sovereign immunity for money damages)
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir.) (mootness and vacatur practice)
McAlpine v. Thompson, 187 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir.) (parole/transfer generally moots claims for injunctive relief)