ZAJRAEL v. Harmon
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8910
8th Cir.2012Background
- Zajrael, an Arkansas inmate at EARU, challenged early-2006 transfer out of EARU and prison policies allegedly restricting religious items.
- From Sep 2004 to Jan 2006, Zajrael was in administrative segregation; two 2005 cell shakedowns confiscated over thirty books, many religious.
- Policy allowed only two religious texts and four additional books; items seized included prayer cap, rugs, dhikr beads, and prayer oil.
- Zajrael alleged violations of RLUIPA and the First Amendment; asserted claims against Harman, Jackson, and Westbrook, officials at EARU.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; Zajrael sued in their official capacities, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- Court held injunctive RLUIPA claim moot due to transfer; damages claims barred by sovereign immunity and official-capacity reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RLUIPA damages viability against officials | Zajrael asserts damages under RLUIPA against officials. | Sovereign immunity bars damages and §1983 cannot sue official-capacity state actors for RLUIPA. | Damages claim barred; no individual-capacity RLUIPA damages. |
| §1983 damages against state officials in official capacity | §1983 provides relief for constitutional rights violations by state actors. | Official-capacity claims are treated as against the state; §1983 cannot be used to sue state officials for damages. | Official-capacity §1983 damages claims barred; treated as against state. |
| Injunctive relief under RLUIPA mootness | Requests for injunctive relief should remedy ongoing religious-liberty concerns. | Zajrael is no longer subjected to EARU policies after transfer; moot. | Injunctive RLUIPA claim moot; no live case or controversy. |
| Repetition-and-review exception applicability | Possibility of retransfer could recreate claims. | No showing that retransfer is likely; exception not applicable. | No repetition-and-review exception; mootness stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651 (2011) (RLUIPA damages bar via sovereign immunity)
- Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (sovereign immunity bars §1983 damages against state officers)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (mootness when now-imminent injury unlikely)
- Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852 (8th Cir.1999) (repetition and mootness in correctional settings)
- Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir.1985) (standing and mootness principles in prison cases)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (local government liable under §1983 for official policies)
- Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254 (8th Cir.2010) (official-capacity and sovereign-immunity principles in context)
- Baker v. Chisom, 501 F.3d 920 (8th Cir.2007) (official-capacity suit treated as state entity suit)
- Artis v. Francis Howell N. Band Booster Ass'n, 161 F.3d 1178 (8th Cir.1998) (claims against state actors in official capacities)