From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Toler v. Leopold

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division
Feb 21, 2006
No. 2:05-CV-0082-JCH (E.D. Mo. Feb. 21, 2006)

Opinion

No. 2:05-CV-0082-JCH.

February 21, 2006


ORDER AND MEMORANDUM


This matter is plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [Doc. 11]. Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its grant of dismissal as to defendants Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) and Northeast Correctional Center (NECC), asserting that said entities are suable under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. (RLUIPA).

"Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir.), as amended, 835 F.2d 710 (7th Cir. 1987). Motions to reconsider cannot be employed to tender new legal theories that could have been raised in the original motion. Rothwell Cotton, 827 F.2d at 251 (citation omitted).

Upon reconsideration, the Court finds that MDOC is a proper defendant under RLUIPA and should have been dismissed as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 only. Congress has a limited power to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456, 96 S.Ct. 2666 (1976). Congress has required states to waive their sovereign immunity from suits filed by prisoners to enforce RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(a); see Murphy v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 372 F.3d 979, 986-87 (8th Cir. 2004).

However, plaintiff's claim against NECC fails because NECC is not a suable entity, but a building or facility with no separate legal identity. See, e.g., Powell v. Cook County Jail, 814 F. Supp. 757, 758 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (jail not a legal entity subject to suit). Accordingly, the Court will revise its Order of January 12, 2006, and dismiss NECC only; MDOC is reinstated as a defendant in this suit.

In accordance with the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [Doc. 11] be GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as set forth above.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MDOC is reinstated as a defendant in this suit as to plaintiff's RLUIPA claims only.


Summaries of

Toler v. Leopold

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division
Feb 21, 2006
No. 2:05-CV-0082-JCH (E.D. Mo. Feb. 21, 2006)
Case details for

Toler v. Leopold

Case Details

Full title:NORMAN LEE TOLER, Plaintiff, v. TIM LEOPOLD, TOMMY BARNHART, JIM MOORE…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division

Date published: Feb 21, 2006

Citations

No. 2:05-CV-0082-JCH (E.D. Mo. Feb. 21, 2006)