Bakambia v. Schnell

Background

Marc Amouri Bakambia, a prisoner at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Stillwater, challenged changes to the Minnesota Department of Corrections’ prison-mail policies. The policies reclassified mail to and from courts, court staff, and government officials as “Special Mail,” required prisoners not to seal that mail before sending it, and required identified legal mail to be opened and copied in the prisoner’s presence before the originals were placed in a box marked “shred it.” The Department also contracted with TexBehind to process and scan regular mail.

Bakambia brought the case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing claims for constitutional violations by people acting under state law. He named Paul P. Schnell, Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections, only in his official capacity. The report therefore treated the claims as claims against the State of Minnesota. Bakambia asserted that the new policy was unconstitutional and described three mail incidents: a delay involving mail weighing more than 13 ounces, an order from the Court that was initially delivered to the wrong inmate, and certified mail that was not submitted to the post office when he was initially told it had been sent.

Screening standard

Because Bakambia was a prisoner, the Court reviewed the complaint before service under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim for relief. The report applied the standard that a complaint must allege enough facts to make a plausible claim. It also construed the self-represented complaint liberally.

Analysis

The report explained that prisoners retain First Amendment protections, including protections for sending and receiving mail, but prison officials may regulate mail when the regulation is reasonably related to a legitimate prison-security interest. It distinguished confidential mail from an inmate’s attorney— which receives heightened protection—from mail merely coming from a court or other legal source.

The report concluded that treating mail from courts, court staff, and government officials as something other than confidential attorney mail met the minimum constitutional requirements. It also concluded that Bakambia’s challenge to the “shred it” procedure lacked standing because he alleged only that staff might someday access and read confidential legal mail; he did not allege that this had happened or that staff had threatened to do it. The report further stated that inconsistent information about the Department’s policies and the proper TexBehind return address did not itself establish a constitutional violation.

As to the individual mail incidents, the report concluded that the three described events were isolated and did not establish a pattern of intentional delay or interference. Bakambia also did not allege that the delays actually hindered a nonfrivolous legal claim or otherwise harmed his access to the courts. The report therefore concluded that he had not stated a plausible constitutional violation.

Recommended disposition

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended that Bakambia’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim. She also recommended that his application to proceed without paying the full filing fee be denied as moot and that he be required to pay the unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee, identified as $255.80, through the procedure in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

The document is a Report and Recommendation rather than a final district court order. It states that it was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit and that objections could be filed under the applicable local rule.