Brewer v. Thompson et al

Filing 246

MEMORANDUM DECISION & Order granting Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Ninth Claim for Relief. Granting 217 Motion to Dismiss. Claim nine based on RLUIPA is DISMISSED with prejudice, under Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim ob which relief may be granted. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 09/24/2019. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
JORDAN ALAN NEVES BREWER,

v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION &
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

DAVIS COUNTY et al.,

Case No. 1:15-CV-40 TC

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

District Judge Tena Campbell

With the help of appointed counsel, Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on July 10,
2018. (Doc. No. 213.) Defendants move to dismiss his ninth claim for relief, brought under the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000cc-2000cc5 (2019).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) gives the Court power to dismiss all or part of a
plaintiff’s complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In reviewing
a complaint under a 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must consider whether there are “enough facts to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007). During its review, the Court "presumes all of plaintiff's factual allegations are true
and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1109 (10th Cir. 1991). A complaint should not be dismissed “unless it appears beyond doubt that
the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003).

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Weber County violated RLUIPA by denying him access
to religious reading materials and mail correspondence. (Doc. No. 213, at 35-36.) Defendant
Weber County rejoins that, because Plaintiff was transferred from its jail on December 6, 2012,
its challenged policies no longer apply to him, mooting his RLUIPA claim. (Doc. No. 217.)
RLUIPA is limited to official capacity claims for equitable
relief. See Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277, 278-79 (2011)
(holding Eleventh Amendment immunity bars RLUIPA claims for
money damages); Stewart v. Beach, 701 F.3d 1322, 1335 (10th
Cir. 2012) (noting RLUIPA does not permit individual capacity
claims). Consequently, RLUIPA claims regarding prison
conditions become moot if the inmate plaintiff is released from
custody. See Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1063-65 (9th Cir.
2012).
Pfeil v. Lampert, 603 F. App’x 665, 668 (10th Cir. 2015). Thus, Weber County is correct: Once
Plaintiff was released from Weber County custody, his RLUIPA claim against Weber County
became moot.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 217.)
Claim nine based on RLUIPA is DISMISSED with prejudice, under Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted.
DATED this 24th day of September, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

TENA CAMPBELL
United States District Judge

2