Beau Morris v. Judy Morrison

Eighth Circuit

Beau Morris v. Judy Morrison

486 F. App'x 615

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 31, 2012

Docket19-1129

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 486 F. App'x 615 (Beau Morris v. Judy Morrison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beau Morris v. Judy Morrison, 486 F. App'x 615 (8th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action based on alleged damage to religious property during a prison cell search, Iowa inmate Beau Morris appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. For reversal, Morris argues that a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether defendants’ conduct infringed on his free-exercise rights and violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUI-PA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc.

After careful de novo review, see Schoelch v. Mitchell, 625 F.3d 1041, 1045-46 (8th Cir.2010), we agree with the district court’s summary judgment decision, see Gladson v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 551 F.3d 825, 832-33 (8th Cir.2009) (when faced with both First Amendment and RLUIPA claims, threshold inquiry is whether prison has substantially burdened prisoner’s ability to practice religion; if prisoner fails to put forth sufficient evidence of substantial burden, court need not further analyze claim; to constitute substantial burden, government policy or actions must significantly inhibit or constrain religious conduct or expression, meaningfully curtail person’s ability to express adherence to his faith, or deny him reasonable opportunities to engage in activities fundamental to his religion); Richmond v. City of Brooklyn Ctr., 490 F.3d 1002, 1006 (8th Cir.2007) (qualified immunity protects government official unless official’s conduct violated clearly established constitutional or statutory right at time of deprivation).

To the extent Morris advances a new claim that defendants denied him access to the courts, we decline to consider it. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004) (declining to consider claims advanced for first time on appeal).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action based on alleged damage to religious property during a prison cell search, Iowa inmate Beau Morris appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. For reversal, Morris argues that a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether defendants’ conduct infringed on his free-exercise rights and violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUI-PA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc.

After careful de novo review, see Schoelch v. Mitchell, 625 F.3d 1041, 1045-46 (8th Cir.2010), we agree with the district court’s summary judgment decision, see Gladson v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 551 F.3d 825, 832-33 (8th Cir.2009) (when faced with both First Amendment and RLUIPA claims, threshold inquiry is whether prison has substantially burdened prisoner’s ability to practice religion; if prisoner fails to put forth sufficient evidence of substantial burden, court need not further analyze claim; to constitute substantial burden, government policy or actions must significantly inhibit or constrain religious conduct or expression, meaningfully curtail person’s ability to express adherence to his faith, or deny him reasonable opportunities to engage in activities fundamental to his religion); Richmond v. City of Brooklyn Ctr., 490 F.3d 1002, 1006 (8th Cir.2007) (qualified immunity protects government official unless official’s conduct violated clearly established constitutional or statutory right at time of deprivation).

To the extent Morris advances a new claim that defendants denied him access to the courts, we decline to consider it. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004) (declining to consider claims advanced for first time on appeal).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

486 F. App'x 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beau-morris-v-judy-morrison-ca8-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack