I.) WHETHER RLUIPA'S "APPROPRIATE RELIEF " CLAUSE ENCOMPASSES THE
REQUESTED RELIEF OF A TRIAL ON THE MERITS AND IF SO, DID PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST OF A TRIAL ON THE MERITS IN HIS COMPLAINT ENTITLE HIM TO THE
APPROPRIATE RELIEF OF A TRIAL ON THE MERITS CONCERNING RLUIPA, AND
DID THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN FAILING TO CONSIDER
PLAINTIFF 'S APPROPRIATE RELIEF ARGUMENT IN HIS REPLY BRIEF?

II.) WHETHER THE 1st CIRCUIT'S RULING IN SPRATT AND THE 6th CIRCUIT'S RULING IN
SPIES CONFLICT EACHOTHER CONCERNING WHETHER INMATE-LED IS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND/OR PERMISSIBLE UNDER RLUIPA, AND IF SO, IS THE
SPRATT COURT CORRECT AND IF NOT, WHY IS THE SPIES COURT CORRECT?

III.) WHETHER THE GENERAL APPELLATE RULE THAT PROHIBITS CLAIMS FROM
BEING ADDRESSED BY APPELLATE COURTS ARE NOT RAISED ON APPEAL APPLY
TO A DEFENDANT 'S DEFENSES AND A PLAINTIFF'S ISSUES, AND IF SO DID THE
DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO TAKE THEIR TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO RAISE THEIR
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS TO THE 6th CIRCUIT OF THE APPEALS IN
THE TWO APPEALS IN THIS CASE CAUSE THAT DEFENSE TO BE WAIVED ON
REMAND?

Whether RLUIPA's 'appropriate relief' clause encompasses the requested relief of a trial on the merits