United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-3294
___________________________
James Eric Mansfield; Bernie L. Farmer; David Tate
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
Missouri Department of Corrections; Doug Worsham, Reverend; George
Lombardi; Vicki Myers; Melissa Massman; Jill McGuire; John C. Swisher,
Reverend; Mariann Atwell; Brian Jamison; David Rost, Deputy Director; James
Cushshon-Bey; Larry Lee-Bey; Janice Webb; George Garner; Joseph Landa; Lou
Dorn; Chuck Stanford; Dolores Santha; Steve Long
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: June 5, 2013
Filed: June 10, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Missouri Department of Corrections inmates James Mansfield, Bernie Farmer,
and David Tate, all members of the Christian Separatist Church Society, filed this
action claiming that defendants, by denying plaintiffs group worship services,
substantially burdened their practice of their religion in violation of the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and violated their free-
exercise and equal protection rights under the Constitution. The district court1
granted defendants summary judgment, and plaintiffs appeal. Following careful de
novo review, we agree with the district court that plaintiffs’ free-exercise claim failed
under the factors of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), for essentially the same
reasons cited in Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 983-84 (8th Cir. 2004);
the equal protection claim failed in part because plaintiffs did not show they were
similarly situated to any groups that had been afforded communal worship services;
and the RLUIPA claim failed because, assuming for summary judgment purposes that
plaintiffs’ religious practices had been substantially burdened, defendants had a
compelling interest in institutional security, and they provided sufficient evidentiary
support for their position that solitary-practitioner status was the least restrictive
means by which to alleviate their security concerns.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of district court for the reasons provided
in the court’s order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-2-