Zajrael v. Harmon
Decision Date | 02 May 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 11-1180.,11-1180. |
Citation | 677 F.3d 353 |
Parties | Warith T.A. ZAJRAEL, Appellant, v. Greg HARMON, Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Robert Jackson, Assistant Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Valerie Westbrook, Sgt., East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Jeffrey Weber, argued, Bryant, AR, for Appellant.
Colin Jorgensen, AAG, argued, Ali Brady, AG, Gary L. Sullivan, AG, on the brief, Little Rock, AR, for Appellees.
Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Arkansas inmate Warith Zajrael sued officials of the Arkansas Department of Correction under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his statutory and constitutional rights. He named as defendants three current or former employees of the East Arkansas Regional Unit ("EARU"): former Warden Greg Harmon, Assistant Warden Randy Jackson, and Sergeant Valerie Westbrook. The district court1 granted summary judgment for the defendants on the RLUIPA and § 1983 claims. Zajrael appeals, and we affirm.2
At the time of the incidents that led to this action, Zajrael was incarcerated at the EARU. In 2006, he was transferred to the Varner Super Maximum Unit, and he is now located there. Both facilities are administered by the Arkansas Department of Correction.
While an inmate at EARU, Zajrael was assigned to administrative segregation from September 2004 to January 2006. Following a stabbing incident at the prison, prison officials conducted two shakedowns of Zajrael's cell in August 2005 and confiscated over thirty books, many of which were spiritual or religious. Prison policy limited inmates in administrative segregation to two religious texts and four additional books of any kind. Zajrael, whose religious practice incorporates elements of Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, alleges that correctional officers also seized a prayer cap, prayer rugs, dhikr beads, and prayer oil from his cell. His amended complaint alleges that these actions by prison officials violated his rights to exercise his religion under RLUIPA and the First Amendment. He seeks damages and injunctive relief.
Because Zajrael's amended complaint does not specifically name the defendants in their individual capacities, we presume that he sued them only in their official capacities. Baker v. Chisom, 501 F.3d 920, 923-24 (8th Cir.2007); Artis v. Francis Howell N. Band Booster Ass'n, 161 F.3d 1178, 1182 (8th Cir.1998). A suit against state employees in their official capacities is the functional equivalent of a suit against the State. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n. 55, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir.2010). Section 1983 provides no cause of action against agents of the State acting in their official capacities, see Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989), and sovereign immunity bars Zajrael's claim for damages under RLUIPA. Sossamon v. Texas, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 1651, 1658-60, 179 L.Ed.2d 700 (2011).
Zajrael's claim for injunctive relief under RLUIPA is moot. He complains about policies or practices at the EARU, but he was transferred out of that facility in 2006, and is now housed at the Varner facility. Because Zajrael is no longer subject to the policies that he challenges, there is no live case or controversy. See Smith v. Hundley, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sabata v. Neb. Dep't of Corr. Servs.
...found dismissal on mootness grounds warranted when the plaintiffs were no longer in custody. See, e.g., Zajrael v. Harmon, 677 F.3d 353, 355 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (holding that as to an inmate seeking injunctive relief based on a particular facility's policies, his claim became moot ......
-
Bass v. Univ. of Ark. At Pine Bluff
...against state employees in their official capacities, which is the functional equivalent of a suit against the State. Zajrael v. Harmon, 677 F.3d 353, 355 (8th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). However, under the doctrine set forth in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), state officials may b......
-
Derek Sincere Black Wolf Cryer v. Spencer
...decision, declining to reach issue because parties had not briefed it and case was being remanded to District Court); Zajrael v. Harmon, 677 F.3d 353, 355 (8th Cir.2012) (declining to consider issue because the amended complaint did not specifically name defendants in their individual capac......
-
Cavanaugh v. Bartelt
...acting in their official capacities. Sossamon v. Texas , 563 U.S. 277, 293, 131 S.Ct. 1651, 179 L.Ed.2d 700 (2011) ; Zajrael v. Harmon , 677 F.3d 353, 355 (8th Cir.2012). Therefore, Cavanaugh's claim for money damages against the defendants in their official capacities is barred by sovereig......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...because they are state officials acting in official capacity when prosecuting criminal cases under § 1983); Zajrael v. Harmon, 677 F.3d 353, 355 (8th Cir. 2012) (prisoner could not seek redress against state prison officials acting in official capacities because suit would be functional......