Yaritz v. Department of Corrections

Background

Harold David Yaritz, an incarcerated person at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Faribault, challenged a Minnesota Department of Corrections policy defining certain published and unpublished sexually explicit materials depicting nudity as contraband. Yaritz alleged that he had been allowed to keep a significant photograph collection at other facilities but that, after his transfer to Faribault, staff deemed the photographs contraband and removed them. He claimed that the decision was biased and retaliatory and that the policy itself was unconstitutional.

The defendants moved to dismiss Yaritz’s Second Amended Complaint. The court noted that the pleading contained substantial narration but did not clearly state claims or identify what each defendant allegedly did. Most of the individually named defendants appeared only in the caption. The court also emphasized that an amended complaint replaces, rather than supplements, an earlier complaint, so the court considered only the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint.

First Amendment claims

The court interpreted Yaritz’s allegations as presenting two First Amendment challenges: a facial challenge to the policy itself and an as-applied challenge to the policy’s use against him.

For the facial challenge, the court applied the standard asking whether a prison rule is reasonably related to legitimate prison interests. It considered four factors: whether the rule has a rational connection to a legitimate interest; whether inmates have other ways to exercise the affected right; how accommodating the right would affect prison staff, other inmates, and resources; and whether an obvious alternative rule exists.

The court concluded that the policy was rationally related to prison safety, security, and rehabilitation. Yaritz did not allege that he lacked all access to photographs; he objected to restrictions on particular photographs. The court therefore found that he had alternative means of exercising First Amendment rights that were consistent with prison interests. It also found that the policy addressed concerns about sexual aggression, the exchange of sexually explicit publications among prisoners, and rehabilitation. Because all four factors supported the policy, the court granted the motion to dismiss the facial challenge.

For the as-applied challenge, the court asked whether Yaritz plausibly alleged that officials lacked a legitimate reason to apply the policy in his circumstances. The court considered the details of Yaritz’s conviction, which involved drugging, sexually assaulting, and photographing a minor female while she was unconscious. It concluded that those details could inform prison officials’ decisions about his possession of sexually explicit material. The court found that Yaritz had not alleged facts showing that officials acted for reasons other than the policy, the details of his conviction, and their belief that possessing prohibited materials would not support his sex-offender rehabilitation. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the as-applied challenge.

Substantive due process

The court interpreted Yaritz’s due-process allegations as asserting a substantive due-process claim because he did not challenge the procedures used to apply the policy. Such a claim required allegations that a fundamental right had been violated and that the defendants’ conduct shocked the conscience, meaning that it amounted to an exceptionally severe and inhumane abuse of official power.

The court held that Yaritz had not alleged conscience-shocking conduct. At most, he alleged that one institution had allowed him to possess certain materials while staff at his current institution classified those materials as contraband under its nudity policy. The court concluded that these allegations did not plausibly establish a substantive due-process violation and granted the motion to dismiss that claim.

Filing restriction and fee

The court stated that this was Yaritz’s third civil-rights action in the district dismissed for failure to state a claim. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has had three qualifying actions or appeals dismissed generally may not bring another civil action without showing that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court ordered that Yaritz may not file additional civil-rights actions in the district unless he makes that showing.

The court also stated that Yaritz remained responsible for the full filing fee for this action. It directed the clerk to notify the authorities at the institution where he was confined so the $350 fee could be collected as provided by law.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the matter for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It also imposed the filing restriction described above and ordered collection of the filing fee.