Colorado prisoner Said Ahmad is an "adherent to the Sunni branch of Islam." He brought suit, challenging a prison policy "of refusing to allow prisoners to congregate for prayer outside their assigned cells without prior approval."
Ahmad filed a pro se complaint and two subsequent amended complaints alleging several federal constitutional claims. Defendants asserted a qualified immunity defense in their answer to Ahmad's Third Amended Complaint.
Ahmad retained counsel, who filed a Fourth Amended Complaint alleging a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) for the first time. Defendants filed an Amended Answer setting out various affirmative defenses to the RLUIPA claim but not asserting qualified immunity on the claim. It did, however, reassert the qualified immunity defense alleged in the initial Answer concerning the constitutional claims.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity but not addressing any specific claims. "Ahmad's responsive brief, however, specifically argues that Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the RLUIPA claim." He did not argue that Defendants waived the defense or that he was prejudiced by the late assertion of the defense.
The district court held that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the constitutional claims. It denied the defense on the RLUIPA claim, however, noting that Defendants failed to raise the defense with respect to RLUIPA.
The Tenth Circuit noted that Defendants' Amended Answer and summary judgment motion were "both ambiguous with respect to whether they are raising a qualified immunity defense to the RLUIPA claim." The appeals court concluded, however, that "a less rigid approach is required" than the district court's conclusion "that the failure to plead the defense barred its consideration by the court." Rather, it held "as a matter of law that the defense was adequately presented to the court and should have been decided." The appellate court explained that had Ahmad failed to respond to the defense, "the district court could have properly determined that it would be unfair to him to decide the issue." But he did respond, and failed to allege prejudice, so the Tenth Circuit reversed. See: Ahmed v. Furlong, 435 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2006).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Ahmed v. Furlong
|Cite||435 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2006)|
|Level||Court of Appeals|