Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-10272
SEPTEMBER
22, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
G RISKA,
in his individual and official capacity,
TONI BOWDEN,
in her individual and official capacity,
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
in his individual and official capacity,
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 22, 2011)
come forward with specific facts demonstrating that he had a sincere belief that a
Kosher diet is important to the free exercise of his religion, he failed to carry his
burden at summary judgment of establishing a prima facie case under section 3 of
RLUIPA. Accordingly, defendants McNeil, Riska, and Bowden are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
II.
We review the district courts sua sponte dismissal of Gardners claim
against DOC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A for an abuse of discretion. Miller v.
Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008). A civil complaint filed by a
prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity or an employee or officer of a
governmental entity must be dismissed if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1).
A claim is frivolous if and only if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact. Miller, 541 F.3d at 1100 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327
(1989)).
To establish a claim under 1983, a plaintiff must show that he was
deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. Griffin v.
City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added). A
state, a state agency, and a state official sued in his official capacity are not
5
persons within the meaning of 1983, thus damages are unavailable. Edwards
v. Wallace Cmty. Coll., 49 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995). As the DOC is a
state agency, and thus not a person within the meaning of 1983, Gardners
1983 claim for damages against the DOC is frivolous.
However, Gardners claim for injunctive relief against the DOC is not
frivolous because RLUIPA creates an express private cause of action for
injunctive and declaratory relief against the government, which includes States,
counties, municipalities, their instrumentalities and officers, and persons acting
under color of state law. Sossamon v. Texas, __ U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 1651, 1656
(2011). Nonetheless, because Gardner failed to establish a prima facie claim
under RLUIPA, the DOC is still entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
AFFIRMED.