Wickner v. Department of Human Services, The

Background

Lance Wickner, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Minnesota Department of Human Services, Shelby R. Richardson, and unidentified mailroom staff. He challenged the constitutionality of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program’s Client Mail Policy. His complaint alleged that the defendants applied the policy as written, including treating mail to and from the Attorney General’s Office as non-legal mail. The opinion describes Wickner as a civilly committed person and states that his claim was based on his status in that program.

Report and Recommendation and Objections

A magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The recommendation concluded that claim preclusion—also called res judicata, a rule generally barring a party from relitigating a claim resolved by an earlier judgment—applied because an earlier class action had upheld the same Client Mail Policy. That earlier case included claims that the policy violated class members’ First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association.

Wickner objected. He argued that the earlier case had addressed only class-wide systemic claims, not his individual claim concerning mail to and from the Attorney General’s Office. He also argued that there had been no final, valid judgment on that issue and that he had not received a full and fair opportunity to litigate it. The defendants responded that the earlier judgment resolved the constitutionality of the policy and barred Wickner’s challenge.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the record and the objections independently. It agreed with the magistrate judge that the policies in the two cases were the same in all material respects and that both excluded mail to and from the Attorney General’s Office from the definition of legal mail. The court stated that the earlier court had upheld the Client Mail Policy in its entirety.

The court also relied on Wickner’s allegation that the defendants applied the policy as written rather than in an individualized manner. In the court’s view, that allegation meant the present claim was encompassed by the earlier class judgment rather than being a distinct individual claim. Because the earlier judgment found that the policy did not violate the class members’ First Amendment rights, the court held that claim preclusion barred Wickner’s claim.

Order

The court overruled Wickner’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.