Braun v. Walz
- David Doty
- 0:20-cv-00333
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 13
In Braun v. Walz, Judge Doty denied four preliminary-injunction requests and upheld denials of added claims and discovery in Braun’s prison-publications case.
Nathan Christopher Braun’s pending claims and motions were affected. The defendants were not required to respond to the proposed supplemental claims or produce the requested discovery, and the requested preliminary injunctions were denied.
What happened
Nathan Christopher Braun sued Tim Walz and Minnesota corrections officials, alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights by restricting access to publications and failing to provide notice. The case involved three publication-related incidents, and some claims had already been dismissed before this order.
Judge Doty reviewed Braun’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendations and orders. He upheld the denials of five motions to add later events to the case and the denial of Braun’s discovery motion. The court also denied three preliminary-injunction requests connected to those proposed additions and denied Braun’s emergency request concerning prison rules for keeping mail and legal materials in his cell.
Judge Doty overruled Braun’s objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full. The court said the proposed additions were futile, unrelated to the original claims, or unsupported by valid discovery requests, and that the emergency request concerned conduct not connected to the complaint.
The detailed version
- Braun v. Walz · No. 0:20-cv-00333
- David Doty
- July 1, 2021
Background
Nathan Christopher Braun sued Tim Walz, the Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections, other corrections officials, and officials at Minnesota Correctional Facility–Oak Park Heights. Braun alleged violations of his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights arising from restrictions on publications while he was incarcerated.
The complaint described three incidents: officials prevented Braun from receiving “The Abolitionist” and “MIM (Prisons)” after identifying them as security risks, and officials did not notify him of decisions to deny publications from “News & Letters.” After an earlier motion to dismiss was granted in part, Braun’s remaining claims were a First Amendment claim and a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim concerning the third incident.
The order addressed Braun’s objections to a May 6, 2021, report and recommendation and related orders by Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. The report and recommendation recommended denying four preliminary-injunction motions. The magistrate judge had also denied five motions to supplement the pleadings and a motion seeking discovery.
Motions to Supplement the Pleadings
A supplemental pleading adds events occurring after the original pleading. The court affirmed the denial of all five motions to supplement:
- The first motion challenged the Minnesota Department of Corrections’ policy concerning sexually explicit materials. The court held that Braun’s facial challenge to that policy was futile because Eighth Circuit precedent had previously rejected similar challenges.
- The second motion concerned communications among inmates and alleged that officials misinterpreted department policy to prohibit inmates from sending photographs. The court held that Braun was challenging department policy and that a violation of department policy alone does not create civil liability.
- The third motion concerned denial of access to Us Weekly because of restricted voucher use. The court held that the allegations were unrelated to the original complaint because they involved new allegations, new defendants, and a different department policy.
- The fourth motion concerned an envelope marked “LEGAL MAIL” that was opened outside Braun’s presence. The court held that Braun did not identify specific personal involvement by a named defendant, that mail from MIM Distributors was not legal mail because MIM Distributors was a publishing company rather than Braun’s attorney, and that the allegations did not show improper motive or interference with counsel or access to the courts. The court also reiterated that failure to follow department policy alone does not create civil liability.
- The fifth motion concerned printed materials that officials allegedly withheld as unauthorized transfers of property between inmates. The court held that Braun’s motion challenged department policy and did not plead that officials failed to notify the sender that the materials had been censored.
Discovery Motion
The court affirmed the denial of Braun’s motion to produce discovery. It agreed that Braun had not served valid discovery requests on the defendants, so he could not move to compel production before serving requests. The court also held that much of the requested discovery concerned proposed supplemental claims that were not part of the case and therefore was not relevant. The court noted that Braun was correct that his claims concerning “The Abolitionist” and “MIM (Prisons)” had not been dismissed, but this did not change the discovery ruling.
Preliminary-Injunction Motions
A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order intended to preserve existing conditions and prevent irreparable harm before the court decides the lawsuit’s merits. The court denied the preliminary-injunction requests connected to the first, third, and fifth motions to supplement, identified in the order as ECF Nos. 93, 105, and 114. Because the proposed supplemental claims were denied, the court found no need to preserve conditions while awaiting a merits ruling on those proposed claims.
The court also denied Braun’s emergency motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 122. That motion concerned a prison cell search, photographs allegedly taken by staff, alleged harassment about legal materials, and Braun’s request that legal materials be placed in storage if he could not keep them in his cell. The court held that this conduct was not related to the three incidents in the complaint and that the motion amounted to a broad challenge to prison administration. The court also stated that less convenient access to legal materials did not warrant preliminary relief on the allegations presented.
Disposition
Judge David S. Doty overruled Braun’s objections and adopted Magistrate Judge Thorson’s report and recommendation in its entirety. The court affirmed the orders denying the five motions to supplement and the motion to produce discovery. It separately denied the portions of three motions to supplement that sought preliminary injunctions and denied the emergency motion for a preliminary injunction.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.