USCA11 Case: 21-10879 Date Filed: 08/26/2021 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 21-10879
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:20-cv-01272-TJC-JRK
EDWARD J. RUTLAND, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RUSSELL M. NELSON,
President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 26, 2021)
Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 21-10879 Date Filed: 08/26/2021 Page: 2 of 4
Edward J. Rutland, Sr., proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his civil rights complaint against Russell Nelson, President of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (“LDS Church”), for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
This case arises out of a series of disciplinary actions the LDS Church took
against Rutland, a church member. According to Rutland’s complaint and
attachments thereto, in 2013 the LDS Church’s “disciplinary council” placed
Rutland on “disfellowshipment for conduct contrary to the laws and order of the
Church.” Doc. 1-1 at 22.1 Rutland appealed the decision through the LDS
Church’s disciplinary review structure, and ultimately the disfellowshipment was
upheld. In 2015, the LDS Church released Rutland from disfellowshipment. In
2018, however, the LDS Church again disciplined Rutland, allegedly for “[s]inging
[t]oo [l]oud” and “answering too many questions.” Id. at 4. The LDS Church
placed Rutland “on unconditional probation,” and as a result he was not permitted
to enter any LDS Church property or contact any church leaders. Id. at 16. In his
complaint, Rutland alleged that the LDS Church’s actions were discriminatory
based on his disability, veteran status, and religion.
The district court sua sponte dismissed Rutland’s complaint without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that Rutland’s
1
“Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
2
USCA11 Case: 21-10879 Date Filed: 08/26/2021 Page: 3 of 4
allegations against the LDS Church stemmed from its disciplinary actions against
him, and so the “case ask[ed] the [c]ourt to answer questions of internal church
governance” in contravention of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution. Doc. 5 at 2. The court further concluded that no
amendment to the complaint would “cure this problem.” Id. Rutland appealed.
On appeal, Rutland appears to argue that the district court had subject matter
jurisdiction to entertain his complaint because the LDS Church, as an organization
that accepts resources from the government, is subject to the laws of the United
States. We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint for lack of jurisdiction and
related factual findings for clear error. Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc.,
733
F.3d 1323, 1328 (11th Cir. 2013). 2
Civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain disputes involving church doctrine
and polity. See Crowder v. S. Baptist Convention,
828 F.2d 718, 727 (11th Cir.
1987). Under this ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, civil courts must accept as
2
Although we read briefs by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal are
deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Rutland’s only
mention of the district court’s jurisdictional ruling is in a single sentence at the outset of his brief
arguing that the LDS Church is subject to the laws of the United States because it accepts
resources from the government. Because he addressed it in such a perfunctory manner, Rutland
arguably has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s ruling. See Sapuppo v. Allstate
Floridian Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d 678, 681–82 (11th Cir. 2014) (An appellant abandons a claim
when: (a) he makes only passing references to it, (b) he raises it in a perfunctory manner without
supporting arguments and authority, (c) he refers to it only in the “statement of the case” or
“summary of the argument,” (d) the references to the issue are mere background to the
appellant’s main arguments or are buried within those arguments). In an abundance of caution,
and since he is pro se, we address the merits of Rutland’s challenge to the extent we can discern
it.
3
USCA11 Case: 21-10879 Date Filed: 08/26/2021 Page: 4 of 4
binding the decisions of religious organizations regarding the governance and
discipline of their members. Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich,
426
U.S. 696, 724–25 (1976) (holding that civil courts could not review a church’s
disciplinary decision regarding one of its members). Under a narrow exception to
this doctrine, however, civil courts may still review church disputes under neutral
principles if the dispute does not require consideration of religious doctrinal
matters. Jones v. Wolf,
443 U.S. 595, 602–03 (1979).
The district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to entertain
Rutland’s complaint. The subject matter of his dispute was purely ecclesiastical in
character and necessarily would require consideration of doctrinal matters. There
is no exception to the abstention doctrine based on a church receiving resources
from the government. Thus, the district court did not err in dismissing the
complaint.3
AFFIRMED.
3
Rutland’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
4
