Payne v. Hopkins
A-15-1126
| Neb. Ct. App. | May 23, 2017Background
- Christopher M. Payne, an inmate at Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (TSCI), sued the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and three DCS employees in their individual and official capacities after prison staff confiscated his drawings depicting nudity and refused requests to return or mail them in 2012–2013.
- TSCI had an operational memorandum prohibiting items that depict nudity; Payne alleged other DCS facilities (e.g., Lincoln Correctional Center) did not have the same ban and claimed unequal treatment.
- Payne asserted First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims (interference with mail/free speech; unlawful seizure/deprivation without due process; equal protection) and sought damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief invalidating the memorandum.
- The district court dismissed individual-capacity claims against two defendants on qualified-immunity grounds (Oct. 2013) and later dismissed the remaining individual-capacity claim similarly; official-capacity claims were dismissed for failure of service.
- The district court granted DCS’s motion to dismiss under § 1983, ruling DCS is not a ‘‘person’’ for damages, that confiscation and mailing restrictions did not violate the First or Fourth Amendments given prison security deference, and that differences across institutions did not establish an equal protection violation.
- Payne appealed the denial of his individual-capacity claims based on qualified immunity; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS officials are entitled to qualified immunity on First Amendment claim | Payne: had a clearly established right to send the drawings out; Keup establishes the right to mail drawings | Officials: drawing was contraband or implicates security; no clearly established right to possess or mail; qualified immunity applies | Officials entitled to qualified immunity; First Amendment claim dismissed |
| Whether DCS officials are entitled to qualified immunity on Fourth Amendment claim | Payne: confiscation violated his Fourth Amendment/property rights | Officials: inmates lack a protectable Fourth Amendment interest in their cells/artwork; security-based regulation justified | Officials entitled to qualified immunity; Fourth Amendment claim dismissed (plaintiff did not press further) |
| Whether differences in practice among institutions violate Fourteenth Amendment/equal protection or defeat qualified immunity | Payne: prohibition at TSCI but not elsewhere shows unconstitutional discrimination and clearly established rights | Officials: Constitution does not require uniform practices across institutions; Turner deference to penological interests; not clearly established | Court found no clearly established right and affirmed qualified immunity; equal protection claim rejected |
| Whether DCS is subject to damage suit under § 1983 | Payne: sought damages from DCS | DCS: municipal-type entity defense—DCS not a "person" for § 1983 damages in this posture | District court dismissed DCS as not a person under § 1983 for damages; appellate decision focused on officials' qualified immunity and affirmed dismissal of individual-capacity claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) (prison officials may censor mail to protect security and order)
- Smith v. Delo, 995 F.2d 827 (8th Cir.) (prison mail inspection regulation upheld as related to legitimate security interests)
- Leonard v. Nix, 55 F.3d 370 (8th Cir.) (personal outgoing mail generally protected absent security-related categories)
- Keup v. Hopkins, 596 F.3d 899 (8th Cir.) (prisoner’s challenge to mailing/drawing prohibitions and remedies for pre-amendment harms)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (Due Process does not require uniform practices in all penal institutions)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity requires that precedent place the constitutional question beyond debate)
- Potter v. Board of Regents, 287 Neb. 732 (state qualified immunity standard and application)
- Carney v. Miller, 287 Neb. 400 (clarifies requirement that existing precedent place constitutional question beyond debate)
- Meis v. Grammer, 226 Neb. 360 (prison security may justify limiting inmate constitutional rights)
- Hill v. State, 296 Neb. 10 (standard of review for dismissal motions)