Braun v. Walz

Background

Nathan Christopher Braun sued Minnesota prison officials over his access to publications while incarcerated at Minnesota Correctional Facility–Oak Park Heights. He alleged that officials refused or returned publications, failed to follow prison procedures, and violated the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The case involved three sets of incidents. First, officials denied Braun access to The Abolitionist and processed his appeals. Second, officials denied access to MIM (Prisons) and processed or failed to respond to his appeals. Third, Braun alleged that officials returned more than ten other publications without notifying him or giving a reason.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation because both sides objected. It agreed that the Eleventh Amendment barred Braun’s official-capacity claims for damages. The court also concluded that claims based on violations of prison policies, the Fifth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process could not proceed. The court stated that prison-policy violations do not independently create liability under Section 1983, the Fifth Amendment due-process clause applies to federal—not state—conduct, and the alleged conduct did not meet the demanding standard for a substantive due-process claim.

The court allowed Braun’s First Amendment claim to proceed. Applying the standard that prison restrictions must be reasonably related to legitimate prison interests, the court held that deciding the claim required a developed factual record about the publications and the prison’s reasons for restricting them. The court therefore did not resolve that claim on the merits at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The court dismissed Braun’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due-process claims concerning The Abolitionist and MIM (Prisons) without prejudice. Although Braun alleged a protected interest in receiving uncensored communications, the court concluded that the complaint described notice of the denials, opportunities to object, and multiple appeals, and therefore did not adequately allege violation of a clearly established right for purposes of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity generally protects officials from damages unless the plaintiff alleges both a constitutional violation and violation of a right that was clearly established at the time.

The court allowed Braun’s procedural due-process claim concerning the other publications to continue against Henry, Leseman, and Hills. It held that Braun plausibly alleged that those officials returned publications without notice, without reasons, and without minimal procedural protections. The court also held that those officials were not entitled to qualified immunity at that stage because a reasonable official would have known that censoring communications without notice or procedural protections was unlawful.

Disposition

The court overruled Braun’s objections and the defendants’ objections, adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety, and held that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The two remaining claims were Braun’s First Amendment claim and his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due-process claim concerning the other publications against Henry, Leseman, and Hills. The official-capacity claims were dismissed without prejudice; the claims based on prison policies and the Fifth Amendment were dismissed with prejudice; the substantive Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims were dismissed without prejudice; and the procedural due-process claims concerning The Abolitionist and MIM (Prisons) were dismissed without prejudice. Judge David S. Doty signed the order.