Michael Hansler v. Wendy Kelley, No. 19-1267 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Loken, Wollman, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Civil Rights. Denial of prospective injunctive relief as moot upon inmate's transfer and dismissal of constitutional claims and claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act on grounds that inmate's ability to practice Wiccan religion was not substantially burdened are summarily affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1267 ___________________________ Michael Hansler lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, et al. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________ Submitted: October 31, 2019 Filed: November 5, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Michael Hansler appeals the November 13, 2018, Order of the district court1 dismissing his claims against numerous Arkansas correctional officials 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. for violating his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc-1 et seq. Hansler argues the district court erred in ruling that his claims for prospective injunctive relief became moot when he was transferred to another correctional facility, and in dismissing his constitutional and RLUIPA claims on the ground that defendants’ actions had not placed a substantial burden of his ability to practice the Wiccan religion. After careful review, we affirm the district court’s rulings on these issues for the reasons stated in the Order being appealed. Hansler’s additional contention that the district court denied him due process by failing to adopt certain recommendations in a July 20, 2017, Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge is without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
