Daywitt v. Harpstead

Background

Six plaintiffs—Kenneth Daywitt, Kenneth Parks, Nicholas Luhmann, Joseph Thomas, Ramone Newell, and Allen Pyron—were civilly detained in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). The defendants were Jodi Harpstead, Nancy Johnston, Kathryn Schesso, and Peter Puffer. The opinion also identifies Jim Berg as MSOP’s deputy director, although he is not listed as a defendant in the caption.

The plaintiffs challenged MSOP Policy 420-5230, called “Media Possession by Clients.” The policy presumptively permits certain movies and television programs, categorically prohibits others, and allows the MSOP Media Review Committee to review some media that is not presumptively permitted. But it does not allow a detainee to request review of a DVD or Blu-ray video longer than 120 minutes, including television series or box sets, when the media is not on the presumptively permitted list.

The plaintiffs alleged that requests to review several television series were denied because of the policy. They claimed that the policy and related practices violated the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Sovereign immunity

The court held that state sovereign immunity barred claims seeking monetary damages from the defendants in their official capacities. The defendants were employees of Minnesota, and Minnesota had not consented to suit in federal court for these claims. The court therefore dismissed the damages aspects of the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants in their official capacities.

First Amendment claim

The court dismissed Count I. It explained that television programming can be protected speech, but concluded that the challenged policy provision restricted access based on video length, not content. The plaintiffs therefore had not alleged a restriction on protected activity under the First Amendment.

The court also analyzed the claim under a modified version of the test used for restrictions in prisons, considering MSOP’s institutional and therapeutic interests. The court concluded that the length limit was rationally related to legitimate interests in rehabilitation, security, reducing administrative burdens, and controlling costs. Detainees also had access to many categories of movies and television programs and could request review of certain other media. Reviewing the seven television-series compilations identified in the complaint would require nearly a month of staff time, according to the court’s calculation. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not stated a plausible First Amendment claim.

Equal Protection claim

The court dismissed Count II. The plaintiffs alleged that they did not receive the same media options as other civilly committed patients, but they did not identify similarly situated people who were treated differently. The court observed that the policy stated that it applied program-wide to MSOP detainees.

The court further held that, even if MSOP detainees and people in other civil-detention programs were similarly situated, the plaintiffs had not alleged membership in a suspect class or impairment of a fundamental right. The policy therefore needed only to have a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest, which the court found it did. The plaintiffs also did not allege facts showing that the defendants acted with an invidious or discriminatory purpose.

Fourth Amendment claim

The court dismissed Count III. The complaint generally alleged that the defendants violated the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights through seizures of media and related policies, but it did not identify a specific item seized from a specific person. The court further held that the plaintiffs could not maintain a Fourth Amendment claim based on MSOP’s confiscation of videos treated as contraband. The court also relied on its conclusion that the challenged policy was rationally related to MSOP’s legitimate institutional and therapeutic interests.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright signed the order on June 30, 2022.