Prow v. Roy et al

Filing 164

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's Objections 161 are OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 160 is ADOPTED; 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 107 is DENIED; 4. Defendant s' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED 91 ; 5. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 115 is DENIED as moot; and 6. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion) Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 07/31/2017. (LLM) (cc: Prow) Modified on 7/31/2017 (AKL).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Matthew Prow,

Case No. 15-cv-3857 (PAM/SER)
Plaintiff,

v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Tom Roy, John King,
Sandra O’Hara, Steve Hammer,
Mary McComb, Carol Kripner,
Regina Stepney, Lieutenant Lindell,
and Sergeant Hillyard,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau dated June 21, 2017.

In the R&R,

Magistrate Judge Rau recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order as moot, and dismissing this case with prejudice. Plaintiff
filed timely objections to the R&R. According to statute, the Court must conduct a de
novo review of any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). Based on that de novo
review, the Court adopts the R&R.
BACKGROUND
The R&R extensively details the factual and procedural history of Prow’s claims
and this Court will not repeat that history in full here. In brief, Prow is an inmate at the
Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater, where he is serving a sentence for second-

degree murder.

While incarcerated, Prow requested certain books, images, and art

supplies, and also sought to mail out self-addressed stamped envelopes. Defendants
denied Prow’s requests because they violated the Minnesota Department of Corrections’
(“DOC”) Contraband Policy 301.030, which prohibits possession of sexually explicit
materials; Hobby Craft Policy 204.047, which limits access to certain art supplies; and
Mail Policy 302.020, which prohibits inmates from including self-addressed stamped
envelopes in outgoing mail. Prow then filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that Defendants violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying
his requests.
DISCUSSION
In considering the cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, Magistrate Judge Rau
thoroughly set forth the applicable legal standard.

The regulation of a prisoner’s

constitutional rights is valid if “‘it is reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests.’” (R&R (Docket No. 160) at 7 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89
(1987)).) The reasonableness of the regulation depends on four factors: (1) whether there
is a valid, rational connection between the regulation and the government interest put
forward to justify it; (2) the existence of alternative means available to the prisoner to
exercise their right; (3) the impact of an accommodation on guards, inmates, and prison
resources; and (4) the absence or availability of ready alternatives. (Id. (citing Turner,
482 U.S. at 89-90).)
The R&R identified the primary issues as the constitutionality of Defendants’
application of the Contraband Policy, the Hobby Craft Policy, and the Mail Policy.
2

Defendants explained that the policies were designed to further the legitimate penological
interests of safety, preventing sexual harassment, rehabilitating sex offenders, and
effectively managing important mailroom duties.

The R&R cited numerous cases

concluding that each of the goals articulated by Defendants are neutral and legitimate. It
also found that the regulations were reasonable in their restrictions, setting appropriate
boundaries for the three policies. (Id. at 8-26.) The R&R further concluded that Prow’s
procedural due process claim is without merit and that Defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity in any event. (Id. 27-31.)
Prow raises seventeen repetitive and often-incoherent objections to the R&R.
After conducting the required de novo review of all of Prow’s objections, only three of
those objections deserve mention here.
First, Prow argues that the R&R misconstrued Prow’s claim as a challenge to the
Contraband Policy’s ban on sexually explicit materials. Prow maintains that he does not
challenge the Contraband Policy’s ban on sexually explicit materials, rather he argues
that “not all images with nudity in them are [sexually explicit].” (Prow Decl. (Docket
No. 110) at 5.) While this may be true, nudity still falls within the category of contraband
and prison officials may bar prisoners from receiving materials that feature nudity.
Second, Prow objects to the R&R’s reliance on multiple previous decisions in this
jurisdiction that have upheld the constitutionality of the Contraband Policy. (See R&R at
9.) Although Prow maintains that his arguments are novel, this is not the first time that a
prisoner has challenged the constitutionality of the DOC’s Contraband, Hobby Craft, or
Mail Policies. Indeed, Minnesota inmates have frequently challenged these policies in
3

this District and the R&R correctly used past precedent—while addressing recent de
minimis changes in the policies—to come to a proper conclusion.
Finally, Prow objects to the R&R’s analysis on qualified immunity. Prow argues
that the analysis is cursory and prejudicial because the R&R initially stated that it would
not provide analysis on qualified immunity. But this is simply wrong. The R&R stated
that it would address the merits, including whether Defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity, without addressing other collateral issues. (R&R at 6-7.) Moreover, the R&R
correctly determined that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
CONCLUSION
Defendants did not violate Prow’s constitutional rights and are entitled to qualified
immunity in any event. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Objections (Docket No. 161) are OVERRULED;

2.

The R&R (Docket No. 160) is ADOPTED;

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 107) is DENIED;

4.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 91) is
GRANTED;

5.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Docket No. 115) is
DENIED as moot; and

6.

This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

s/ Paul A. Magnuson

Sated: July 31, 2017

Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge

4