Vanderford v. Schnell

Background

Zhi Kai H. Vanderford alleged that officials of the Minnesota Department of Corrections violated his First Amendment free-speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights by refusing to send or display artwork he submitted to an “Art from the Inside” program, delaying the mailing of artwork for a charity exhibition, requiring him to pay about $35 to mail one piece, and holding or destroying artwork. He sued Paul Schnell and the other defendants only in their official capacities.

The amended complaint concerned several pieces. Prison officials said “Who Decides?” contained health-information violations and misrepresentation; said “Love is Blind” contained contraband under Department of Corrections Policy 301.030; and said “Love is Blind Prison Maze” could not be sent separately because it was attached to “Love is Blind.” Vanderford also described a clay-and-soap project that officials confiscated and an unnamed piece delayed until after a charity exhibition. The record was unclear about whether two pieces had been destroyed or were being held.

Documents Considered

The court treated the amended complaint as the operative pleading. It also treated exhibits attached to the original complaint as attached to the amended complaint because the amended complaint referred to them. Vanderford’s memorandum was considered only as a response to the dismissal motion and could not add new legal claims. Other filings and exhibits that supplied new factual allegations were excluded from consideration on the dismissal motion.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

The defendants argued that the complaint did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), that official-capacity claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and that Vanderford failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege a legally sufficient claim.

The court construed claims about “Who Decides?” and the charity-exhibition artwork as seeking a declaration that officials had violated Vanderford’s constitutional rights by preventing timely submission. It treated his request for reimbursement of mailing expenses as a claim for money based on past conduct. Because these claims did not seek forward-looking relief, the court concluded that they were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court explained that the exception allowing suits against state officials for ongoing violations and prospective relief did not apply to these claims.

The court also concluded that any claims based on the confiscated figurines or difficulties mailing items under Vanderford’s legal name were inadequately pleaded under Rule 8(a), because the amended complaint did not clearly identify the legal basis for those claims or clearly state whether Vanderford intended to bring them.

First Amendment Claims About Sexually Explicit Artwork

The court treated Vanderford’s request to require the Department of Corrections to mail “Love is Blind” and “Love is Blind Prison Maze” at state expense as an as-applied challenge to the policy restricting sexually explicit materials. An as-applied challenge contests how a rule was used in a particular situation. The court also treated his request for a general declaration that the policy was unconstitutional as a facial challenge, meaning a challenge to the policy itself.

Applying the Supreme Court’s Turner test for prison regulations that affect constitutional rights, the court concluded that the policy was reasonably related to legitimate prison interests. The court found a rational connection between restricting sexually explicit materials and interests such as prison security and rehabilitation. It also found that prisoners retained other ways to express views about transition, sexuality, and gender expression; that allowing sexually explicit materials to be created inside the facility could affect other prisoners and prison resources; and that there were no obvious, easy alternatives to the policy.

The court further found the policy content-neutral because it prohibited depictions of sexual intercourse generally rather than targeting transgender people or any other gender or sexual identity. It distinguished artwork involving limited nudity from Vanderford’s description of “Love is Blind” as depicting “nude, sexual couplings of every variation.” The court therefore recommended rejecting the as-applied challenge and dismissing the claims for prospective and injunctive relief. It also recommended dismissing any parallel state-law claims after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Other Motions and Recommended Disposition

The report and recommendation recommended that the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED, that Vanderford’s Demand for Judgment be DENIED, and that the action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The court separately DENIED Vanderford’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. It found no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in this civil case and concluded that the factual and legal issues were not sufficiently complex, and that Vanderford had shown an ability to investigate and present his claims. The opinion was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster; the supplied case information lists David Doty as the district judge.