886 F.3d 692
8th Cir.2018Background
- Charles Sisney, a pro se SDSP inmate serving life, challenged the South Dakota DOC’s 2014 pornography policy (2014 Policy) after staff rejected multiple mailed items (erotic novels, manga comics, Renaissance nude images, art books, Coppertone poster).
- The 2014 Policy banned possession and receipt of "pornographic materials," broadly defined to include pictorial and written sexually explicit material and extended to outgoing correspondence; confiscated items were treated as contraband with disciplinary consequences and an administrative appeal procedure.
- Sisney sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, raising two facial overbreadth challenges (ban on sexually explicit material generally; ban on outgoing sexually explicit communications) and several as-applied challenges to the denial of specific items.
- The magistrate judge and district court found the 2014 Policy facially invalid and then, erroneously according to the panel, applied the superseded 2000 Policy to resolve Sisney’s as-applied claims—granting Sisney most relief but denying it as to four manga comics.
- The Eighth Circuit held that the court should address as-applied claims before broad facial overbreadth challenges, but vacated the district court’s summary-judgment order because it wrongly applied the 2000 Policy rather than the 2014 Policy actually challenged; remanded for the district court to evaluate as-applied claims under the 2014 Policy first.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of 2014 Policy facially (overbreadth) | 2014 Policy is unconstitutionally overbroad because it bans pictorial and written sexually explicit material and outgoing mail | Policy is comparable to 2000 Policy previously upheld; serves legitimate penological interests (security, rehabilitation, prevent sex crimes, reduce harassment) | Court declined to resolve facial claims first; remanded to decide as-applied claims under the challenged 2014 Policy before addressing overbreadth |
| As-applied challenges to censorship of specific items | Rejection of novels, Renaissance nudes, art books, poster, comics was overbroad/misapplied definitions of nudity/sexually explicit | Censorship justified by penological interests and prior policy precedent (King) | District court erred by applying the 2000 Policy; as-applied claims must be reconsidered on the 2014 Policy in the first instance |
| Use of prior (2000) policy to decide current disputes | Sisney challenged the 2014 Policy; relief should be based on that policy | Defendants argued 2014 is essentially same as 2000 and King controls | Panel held it was error to resurrect/apply the 2000 Policy because it was not the policy challenged and had been superseded |
| Standard of review for incoming vs outgoing mail restrictions | Facial challenge included outgoing-mail ban though Sisney alleged no censored outgoing correspondence | Defendants invoked Turner-level deference and King precedent | Panel emphasized Turner deference for incoming-material limits and Martinez/Procunier heightened scrutiny is applicable to outgoing mail; advised caution before resolving speculative facial outgoing-mail claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (prison regulations valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (heightened scrutiny for censorship of outgoing prisoner mail)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (prison censorship standards and incoming/outgoing mail distinctions)
- Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (overbreadth doctrine and its limits)
- Bd. of Trs. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (favoring as-applied adjudication before overbreadth rulings)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (overbreadth doctrine is "strong medicine" and used sparingly)
- Jacobsen v. Howard, 109 F.3d 1268 (Eighth Circuit preference to resolve as-applied before facial overbreadth)
- Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (First Amendment protections apply in prison context)
- Van Whye v. Reisch, 581 F.3d 639 (cited as part of Sisney’s litigation history)