Braun v. Walz

Background

Nathan Christopher Braun sued Governor Tim Walz, the Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections, and officials at Minnesota Correctional Facility–Oak Park Heights. He alleged that prison authorities unlawfully censored or failed to notify him about rejected publications, violating the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court previously dismissed or rejected some claims and determined that discovery was needed on his First Amendment claims. The remaining claims concerned “News & Letters” and involved a First Amendment claim and a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim against Henry, Leseman, and Hills.

This filing is an order and report and recommendation addressing several pending pretrial motions. Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson entered the order portions and recommended rulings on the requests for preliminary injunctions. The opinion states that a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit; objections could be filed under the local rules.

Rulings on the Motions

- Motion to strike, Doc. No. 91: Braun sought to prevent any reference to his conviction. The court found that the complaint and answer did not specifically mention the conviction and that Braun sought a broad trial-related ruling rather than a proper motion to strike a pleading. The motion was denied without prejudice. The opinion states that Braun could raise the request at the appropriate time if the case proceeded to trial. - First motion to supplement, Doc. No. 93: Braun sought to add a claim concerning a photo sheet and brochure that Defendant Henry allegedly withheld because they displayed nudity. The court found the proposed facial challenge to the Department of Corrections’ ban on sexually explicit materials futile because the Eighth Circuit had rejected such a challenge. The motion was denied to the extent it sought supplementation. The court recommended that the related preliminary-injunction request be denied, stating that the materials had already been preserved and that supplementation was futile. - Second motion to supplement, Doc. No. 98: Braun sought to add allegations concerning photographs sent by another inmate. The court found that the proposed claim was another blanket challenge to prison-policy implementation and would be futile because violating prison policy alone does not create civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The motion was denied. - Third motion to supplement, Doc. No. 103: Braun sought to add a claim concerning the denial of a magazine subscription and requested punitive damages. The court found that the proposed allegations involved different defendants, a different policy, and a different cause of action from the existing case. The motion was denied. - Fourth motion to supplement, Doc. No. 105: Braun sought to add allegations that prison staff opened mail marked “LEGAL MAIL” and requested related injunctive relief and punitive damages. The court found that he did not identify the personal involvement of any individual defendant, that a letter from a publishing company was not protected legal mail, and that an isolated opening of mail would not establish a constitutional violation on the facts described. The court also rejected a claim based only on alleged violations of Department of Corrections policy. The motion was denied to the extent it sought supplementation, and the court recommended that the related preliminary-injunction request be denied. - Motion to compel discovery, Doc. No. 110: The court found that Braun had not served valid, specific discovery requests before seeking an order compelling responses. It denied requests concerning claims that had been dismissed or rejected as irrelevant or improperly presented. Although discovery about the “News & Letters” claim could be relevant, the court stated that Braun first had to serve an appropriate discovery request and allow Defendants an opportunity to respond. The motion was denied. - Motion for a more definite statement, Doc. No. 112: Braun challenged the detail and defenses in Defendants’ answer. The court held that the answer did not contain counterclaims and was not unintelligible. The motion was denied. - Fifth motion to supplement, Doc. No. 114: Braun sought to add claims concerning rejected mail containing beadwork and astrology material and an Oregon senate bill. The court found that the proposed claims again challenged alleged violations of Department of Corrections policy without more. The motion was denied to the extent it sought supplementation. The court recommended that the related preliminary-injunction request be denied. - Emergency motion for preliminary injunction, Doc. No. 122: Braun sought relief concerning prison searches of his cell, photographs, storage of legal materials, and instructions about legal mail. The court found that these allegations were not directly related to the existing “News & Letters” claims and that the requested relief improperly sought to expand the litigation to other prison-policy issues. The court recommended that the motion be denied.

Classification and Effect

This is a procedural order because it resolves motions about adding claims, discovery, pleadings, and preliminary relief without deciding the merits of Braun’s surviving First Amendment and procedural due process claims. The case’s remaining claims, as described in the opinion, were not resolved by this filing.