Hayzlett v. Johnson

Background

Jason A. Hayzlett, Kevin T. Cox, and Joseph A. Herr, proceeding without lawyers, are civilly committed in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). They sued Susan Johnson, Terry Kneisel, Steve Sajdak, Scott Benoit, and Sarah Kulas in their individual and official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint challenged MSOP Policy 420-5250, which identifies approved vendors for certain durable goods.

The plaintiffs alleged that MSOP allowed clients to purchase first-generation Xbox 360 gaming systems only from one GameStop location in Texas. They said that location ran out of those systems and did not plan to restock. They also alleged that clients with an “outside resource person” could obtain the systems and that requiring payment by credit or debit card disadvantaged some clients.

Procedural History and Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court noted that the defendants did not present substantive argument under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and therefore analyzed the motion only under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer recommended granting the motion and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs objected. Judge Tunheim reviewed the properly challenged portions of the recommendation under the applicable standard and considered the pro se complaint liberally.

First Amendment Claim

The plaintiffs claimed that limiting the sources from which they could purchase Xbox 360 systems violated freedom of speech. The court recognized that civilly committed people retain First Amendment rights, but held that the First Amendment does not create a right for civilly detained people to purchase or use gaming consoles, computers, or unrestricted internet access. The court further observed that the plaintiffs alleged only that the specific Xbox system they wanted was unavailable from the approved vendor, not that they were prohibited from purchasing game consoles generally. The court therefore held that the complaint did not plausibly allege a First Amendment violation.

Fourteenth Amendment Claims

For equal protection, the plaintiffs alleged that clients with outside resource persons were able to obtain Xbox systems and that clients without credit or debit cards were disadvantaged. The court held that the plaintiffs did not allege that the policy created an exception for people with outside resource persons or that similarly situated people were treated differently. It also held that equal protection does not require MSOP to provide equal opportunities for differently situated clients to purchase recreational goods. The equal protection claim therefore failed.

For procedural due process, the court explained that a plaintiff must identify a protected liberty or property interest. It held that the plaintiffs had not identified such an interest in MSOP’s approved-vendor policy and noted that courts have generally found no constitutionally protected interest in electronics, computers, gaming systems, or similar devices for civilly committed people. The procedural due process claim therefore failed.

For substantive due process, the court stated that the plaintiffs had to show both a fundamental right and conduct that was truly egregious or conscience-shocking. The court held that the plaintiffs had not asserted a fundamental right to possess or purchase first-generation Xbox 360 systems and had not alleged conduct meeting that high standard. The substantive due process claim therefore failed.

Disposition

The court did not address the magistrate judge’s qualified-immunity recommendation because it found that the constitutional claims were deficient. Judge Tunheim overruled the plaintiffs’ objections, adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court also encouraged the defendants to try to find alternative acceptable vendors for the product.