Tenth Circuit: Colorado Governor Unentitled to Eleventh Amendment Immunity on Claim Related to DOC Religious Policies
by David Reutter
On March 4, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a prisoner’s religious rights claims were not moot because the prisoner transferred to another prison but was subjected to nearly the same restrictions at the new prison. The Court also held that Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D) was not entitled to sovereign immunity on the claims.
Colorado prisoner Rodney Douglas Eaves is a Native American who practiced the Sac and Fox religious faith. Eaves asserted First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claims stemming from the policy and practices put in place by Governor Polis, six Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) officials, and eleven employees at Bent County Correctional Facility (BCCF).
Specifically, Eaves claimed he was: (1) denied possession of sacred items for his personal religious practices, (2) disallowed to spiritually cleanse his cell and to embellish his headband and medicine bag with beads and stones, (3) suffered confiscation of firewood for religious ceremonies that were purchased with funds he donated to the DOC for the purchase, and (4) denied access to BCCF faith grounds during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The Colorado federal district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the Governor appealed.
The Tenth Circuit rejected the Governor’s argument that the matter was moot because Eaves was transferred to Sterling Correctional Facility (SCF). In accordance with the holding in Morganroth and Morganroth v. DeLorean, 213 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir. 2000), the Court accepted Eaves’ post judgment affidavit that his conditions at SCF were the same, with the exception of access to faith grounds, as when he was held at BCCF. That raised a question of whether Eaves’ action was constitutionally or prudentially moot.
The Court wrote, “To obtain dismissal on the basis of constitutional mootness, defendant bears the burden that a grant of at least some meaningful relief to plaintiff is not possible.” See: Knox v. Serv. Employ. Int’l Union, 568 U.S. 298 (2012). On the other hand, “to avoid dismissal on the basis of prudential mootness, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that a recurrent violation of the wrongs about which he complained are more than an abstract possibility.” See: United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953). The Tenth Circuit concluded the record demonstrated that Eaves met his burden while the Governor failed to meet his.
The Court’s analysis then turned to decide whether Governor Polis was entitled to Eleventh Amendment Immunity. Raven v. Polis, 479 P.3d 918 (Colo. 2021) concerned a lawsuit relating to DOC actions and resulted in the Governor claiming sovereign immunity. The Colorado Supreme Court found that under Colorado law, the Governor “has final authority to order executive directors of all state agencies to commence or cease any action on behalf of the state … the Governor has appropriately been named as a defendant in this type of action on many occasions.”
The Raven court held that the Governor was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity because he may be involved in development of and enforcement of the DOC’s policies. Therefore, the district court’s order denying the motion to dismiss was affirmed. See: Eaves v. Polis, 167 F.4th 1304 (10th Cir. 2026).
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
Eaves v. Polis
| Year | 2026 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 167 F.4th 1304 (10th Cir. 2026) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |