Jackson v. Gutzmer

Background

Ronnie Jerome Jackson, III, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a person to sue for certain constitutional violations by state officials. Jackson alleged that officials at the Minnesota Correctional Facility–Oak Park Heights improperly removed five photographs from his mail after treating them as nude images. He also challenged the confiscation of the book Lighting the Nude, which he said was educational material about photographic art. Jackson sued Jeff Gutzmer, Natalie Leseman, Michelle Smith, and Tammy Wherley in their individual capacities, and Tom Roy in his official capacity.

The court had consolidated this case with two related lawsuits involving an art catalog and the book. In opposing summary judgment, Jackson voluntarily dismissed Tom Roy, all retaliation claims, and all claims related to the art catalog. The court stated that it would dismiss those claims. The remaining claims concerned the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s procedural protections.

Prison mail policies and appeals

The Minnesota Department of Corrections policies prohibited mail and other materials featuring nudity or sexually explicit content when the materials promoted prohibited content or created specified safety, security, workplace, or rehabilitation concerns. The policy defined nudity and included an exception for published material containing nudity that illustrated medical, educational, or anthropological content.

The policies provided notice when mail was withheld and allowed an appeal to the mailroom supervisor, followed by review by the facility’s Correspondence Review Authority, or CRA. Jackson received a notice regarding the five photographs. He submitted multiple appeals and prisoner communications about photographs that had been confiscated. The record contained some confusion about the dates and numbers of photographs involved, but the court concluded that the CRA reviewed the five photographs at issue. The photographs were later destroyed.

Standard of review

Jackson objected to Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s report and recommendation, which recommended granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The district court reviewed specific objections from the report and recommendation anew, and reviewed Jackson’s general objection for clear error. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

First Amendment claims

The court held that Jackson did not provide evidence creating a genuine factual dispute about whether the five photographs depicted nudity under the prison policy. Defendants submitted affidavits stating that they did. The court rejected Jackson’s reliance on the allegations in his complaint because allegations alone were not enough to defeat summary judgment.

As to Lighting the Nude, the court reviewed pages from the book and concluded that the book clearly violated the policy because the female breast was visible on several pages. The court did not decide whether the book should also be characterized as sexually explicit because the nudity provision was sufficient.

The court then considered the policy’s exception for educational material. It concluded that, even if the book was designed to teach photographers how to use lighting when taking nude photographs, applying the policy to the book was not an exaggerated response to prison concerns. In the court’s view, treating a book that featured nudity as educational material covered by the exception would undermine the general prohibition. The court therefore granted summary judgment to defendants on the First Amendment claims.

Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim

The court explained that violating a prison regulation by itself does not establish a constitutional violation. But it also held that Jackson was entitled to basic procedural protections when his photographs were withheld: notice, a reasonable opportunity to appeal, and review by an official other than the person who made the original decision.

The court found that Jackson received those protections. He received a notice of non-delivery. He could appeal to Jeff Gutzmer, who had not made the original confiscation decision, and could seek further review by the CRA. Based on the CRA’s response and the warden’s representative’s response, the court concluded that the photographs had been reviewed and that Jackson had received an adequate appeals process. It therefore granted summary judgment to defendants on the due-process claim.

Other objections and order

The court rejected Jackson’s objections concerning alleged credibility determinations and alleged bias by Magistrate Judge Thorson. It also held that issues concerning qualified immunity, punitive damages, and injunctive relief did not need separate consideration because summary judgment disposed of the action.

The court overruled Jackson’s objections, adopted the report and recommendation, and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.