Jason A. Czekalski v. William R. Hart, Jr., Individually and as Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Corrections, et al.

Whether, under RLUIPA, the defendants may claim a compelling penalogical interest and least restrictive means in their restrictions on re­ ligious activities where they allow greater leeway and opportunity for secular activities they chose to support.

Whether plaintiff is entitled to receive compensatory sanctions under Rule 11(b) where defendants made substantive changes to policy that could have benefitted plaintiff and shortened litigation by years but failed to amend filings to disclose the policy change.

Whether plaintiff’s award of costs should have reflected the actual monetary benefit he received from the final judgment in his favor rather than having been based only on the number of claims he prevailed > on. ... J . . . . . .

Whether summary judgment may be granted for defendants based on failure of plaintiff to show deliberate indifference where deliberate indiffer­ ence is a state-of-mind question that can only be demonstrated through in-court testimony and crossexamination.

Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is a question of. fact that must be submitted to the trier of fact.

Whether, in light of the Court's recent decision in Landor, inmates may, under RLUIPA, .recover actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred due to de­ fendants' violations of religious rights. - i -