United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1180
___________
Warith T. A. Zajrael, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Arkansas.
Greg Harmon, Warden, East Arkansas *
Regional Unit, ADC; Robert Jackson, *
Assistant Warden, East Arkansas * [PUBLISHED]
Regional Unit, ADC; Valerie *
Westbrook, Sgt., East Arkansas *
Regional Unit, ADC, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: April 17, 2012
Filed: May 2, 2012
___________
Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
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, thikr 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
1
The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Joe
J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
2
Zajrael also brought a state-law conversion claim, but he acknowledges that
he must pursue this claim with the Arkansas State Claims Commission, and the claim
is not a subject of this appeal.
-2-
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 (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 (1989), and
sovereign immunity bars Zajrael’s claim for damages under RLUIPA. Sossamon v.
Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651, 1658-60 (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, 190 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir. 1999); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337
(8th Cir. 1985). The exception to the mootness doctrine for claims capable of
repetition yet evading review is not applicable, because Zajrael made no showing that
a retransfer to the EARU is likely. See City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 109 (1983);
Smith, 190 F.3d at 855. Although this court might exercise jurisdiction after a
transfer if there were proof that officials moved an inmate for the purpose of mooting
his claim, see Smith, 190 F.3d at 855, there is no evidence of such motivation in this
case.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-3-