United States Eighth Circuit

In a prisoners' action against South Dakota prison officials claiming violations of their free exercise of religion under the First Amendment and Section 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), the court has jurisdiction to consider legal issues of whether Section 3 of RLUIPA is constitutional under Congress' Spending Clause authority and whether the state waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity from monetary damages by accepting federal funds under RLUIPA because the issues are intertwined with the district court's denial of sovereign immunity. The court also has jurisdiction to consider the merits of RLUIPA and First Amendment claims regarding the succah, the tape player, the additional time, and the retaliation claims only to the extent that they turn on issues of law. The district court's judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) district court correctly concluded that Section 3 of RLUIPA is a constitutional exercise of legislative authority under the Spending Clause; 2) district court's denial of prison officials' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Van Whye's suit is reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of defendants on the RLUIPA official-capacity claims as South Dakota did not waive immunity from suit for monetary damages by accepting funds under the conditions set forth in Section 3 of the RLUIPA; 3) prison officials are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff Sisney's official-capacity RLUIPA claims for money damages; 4) defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the the claims for injunctive relief by Sisney as he failed to show the officials' decisions on issues relating to the use of succah and tape player and for additional study time substantially burdened his religious exercise; 5) First Amendment claims failed with respect to the group study time and the tape player, but the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the court's refusal to grant the jail officials' motion for summary judgment on the succah issue because there were material questions of fact in dispute and the issue could not be considered in this interlocutory appeal; and 6) retaliation claims would not be considered on interlocutory appeal because of the exercise of genuine fact disputes.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/10/2009
• Published 09/10/2009

Judges

• HANSEN, Circuit Judge., Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Jeffrey L. Bratkiewicz, argued, James Ellis Moore, Sioux Falls, SD, for appellants Wagner, Weber, Reisch, Slykhuis and Block., Melissa N. Patterson, USDOJ, argued, Washington, D.C., Michael S. Raab, USDOJ, on the brief, Washington, D.C., for the Government.


• For Appellees:
  
• Richard L. Johnson, argued, Sioux Falls, SD, for appellee Sisney.