Braun v. Walz
- David Doty
- 0:20-cv-00333
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Braun v. Walz, Judge Doty denied requests to add claims, appoint counsel, and obtain preliminary injunctions, while overruling Braun’s objections.
Nathan Christopher Braun’s requests to add claims, obtain appointed counsel, and receive preliminary injunctions were denied; the underlying constitutional claims were not decided in this order.
What happened
Braun v. Walz concerns Nathan Christopher Braun’s claims that officials at Minnesota Correctional Facility–Oak Park Heights improperly censored or confiscated his mail, violating constitutional rights. He asked to add claims about other mail and publications, obtain a lawyer, and stop alleged retaliation.
The court agreed with Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson that the proposed additional claims involved different publications, times, facts, and prison policies, and adding them would prejudice the defendants. The court also found that the issues were not complex enough to require appointed counsel and that Braun had shown he could present his claims. It rejected the requests for preliminary injunctions because they concerned unrelated allegations and prison administration.
Judge Doty overruled Braun’s objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full. As a result, the motions to supplement, the motion for appointment of counsel, and the two motions for preliminary injunctions were denied.
The detailed version
- Braun v. Walz · No. 0:20-cv-00333
- David Doty
- Sept. 8, 2021
Background
Nathan Christopher Braun sued Tim Walz, the Minnesota Commission of Corrections, and officials connected with Minnesota Correctional Facility–Oak Park Heights. He alleged that confiscation or denial of mail violated his rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The order addressed Braun’s objections to Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s August 9, 2021, report and recommendation (R&R), which recommended denying two motions to supplement the pleadings, a motion for appointment of counsel, and two motions for preliminary injunctions.
Motions to Supplement
Braun sought to add claims concerning two pieces of mail allegedly not delivered by S. Henry and his alleged failure to receive a publication titled “Criminal Legal News.” The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), which allows supplemental pleadings for events occurring after the original pleading when they relate to the original cause of action.
The court denied the motions to supplement. It held that Braun’s original claims concerned different publications, different events, and different Minnesota Department of Corrections policies than the proposed new claims. The court also agreed that adding the claims nearly a year and a half after the action began, with discovery scheduled to close on September 30, 2021, would prejudice the defendants’ ability to respond effectively.
Appointment of Counsel
The court denied Braun’s request for appointed counsel. It explained that civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to counsel, although a court may appoint counsel when both the litigant and the court would benefit from that assistance. The court found that the factual and legal issues were not sufficiently complex and that Braun had demonstrated an ability to explain and pursue his claims during the case.
Preliminary Injunctions
Braun filed two motions initially described as requests for temporary restraining orders, asking the court to stop the defendants from retaliating against him. Because the defendants had notice and an opportunity to respond, the court treated the motions as requests for preliminary injunctions.
The court denied both motions. It held that the facts supporting the requested relief concerned allegations unrelated to the original action. It also concluded that the alleged mail confiscation involved prison administration and was insufficient to justify preliminary injunctive relief.
Disposition
The court overruled Braun’s objections and adopted Magistrate Judge Thorson’s R&R in its entirety. The order therefore denied the two motions to supplement, the motion for appointment of counsel, and the two motions for preliminary injunctions. It did not decide the merits of Braun’s underlying constitutional claims in this order.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.