Earley v. Schnell

Background

Nicholas Earley brought constitutional claims against Paul Schnell, the Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections, in his official capacity; Edward Miles, the warden of a Minnesota correctional facility, in his individual capacity; and two unidentified individuals. Earley began the case while incarcerated and was later on supervised release under the supervision of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. He represented himself.

Earley pleaded guilty in Minnesota state court to first-degree driving while impaired. The state dismissed accompanying domestic-assault charges as part of the plea agreement. His fiancée was the alleged victim of those charges.

A supervised-release condition barred Earley from direct or indirect contact with anyone the corrections department considered a victim. Under the department’s policy, a person named as a victim in a criminal complaint remained a victim for this purpose even if the related charge was dismissed through a plea agreement. As a result, Earley could not contact his fiancée during supervised release. Because she was the mother and primary caregiver of Earley’s minor son, the condition also limited Earley’s ability to spend time with his son.

Earley alleged that the condition violated his constitutional right to association under the First, Fourteenth, and Eighth Amendments. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and defendants also sought judgment on the pleadings.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the objected-to portions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation without deference and reviewed the remaining portions for clear error. It adopted the report and recommendation.

Relationship with Earley’s son. The court held that the condition’s effect on Earley’s relationship with his son was indirect. An indirect or incidental effect on a family relationship does not necessarily violate the First Amendment. The court therefore rejected Earley’s objection to granting defendants’ motion on his claims concerning his son.

Fourteenth Amendment claim. Earley argued that strict scrutiny should apply to his substantive-due-process challenge. The court rejected that argument. It explained that a challenge to a state-imposed supervised-release condition requires proof that the condition violated a fundamental right and involved exceptionally severe, conscience-shocking official conduct. The court concluded that Earley had not shown that the report and recommendation used the wrong standard or misapplied the law.

Attorney’s fees. The court held that although a represented plaintiff who succeeds in a civil-rights action may in some circumstances receive attorney’s fees, a self-represented litigant may not recover attorney’s fees in such an action. Because Earley was not represented by counsel, the court granted defendants’ motion as to his fee request.

First Amendment claim concerning Earley’s fiancée. The parties did not dispute that Earley’s relationship with his fiancée was protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of association. The court applied a modified version of the test from Turner v. Safley, which asks whether a restriction is reasonably related to legitimate governmental or correctional interests. The court rejected defendants’ argument that a Minnesota state-law standard should apply and rejected Earley’s argument that strict scrutiny should apply because he was on supervised release rather than incarcerated.

The court agreed with the report and recommendation that the record presented a genuine dispute of material fact about whether the no-contact condition had a rational connection to the state’s goals. The record was also not sufficiently developed to resolve other parts of the applicable test. Because of that factual dispute, neither side was entitled to summary judgment on Earley’s First Amendment claim concerning his fiancée.

Disposition

The court overruled both sides’ objections and adopted the August 31, 2020 report and recommendation. It denied Earley’s motion for summary judgment. It denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings as to Earley’s First Amendment claim based on his relationship with his fiancée, and granted defendants’ motion in all other respects.