Sisney v. Kaemingk, No. 20-2460 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit challenging the South Dakota State Penitentiary's pornography policy under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff named as defendants four South Dakota corrections officials in their official capacities. The district court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions for summary judgment.
In regard to plaintiff's as-applied challenges, the Eighth Circuit applied the Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), factors and concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for plaintiff on his claim that the policy is unconstitutional as applied to two erotic novels because defendants were within their discretion to censor these books. However, the district court properly granted summary judgment for plaintiff on his claim that the policy is unconstitutional as applied to the art book and nine pictures of Renaissance artwork.
In regard to plaintiff's facial challenges, the court dismissed as moot plaintiff's claim that the prohibition on nudity is overbroad, but plaintiff's claim that the prohibition on sexually explicit content is overbroad remains a live case or controversy based on the court's reversal of the district court's ruling on his as-applied challenges regarding the erotic novels. The court read the policy in light of the doctrine of constitutional avoidance and concluded that plaintiff failed to show that the policy's prohibition on sexually explicit content is "substantially overbroad." The court concluded that although plaintiff's resolution of plaintiff's as-applied challenges does not moot his claim that the policy's prohibition on sexually explicit content is overbroad, this claim fails on the merits. Finally, the court dismissed as moot plaintiff's request for coercive sanctions, denied his request for compensatory sanctions, and denied plaintiff's request for sanctions for defendants' alleged violations of the district court's orders. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Benton and Stras, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. For the court's prior opinion in this case involving challenges to the South Dakota prison system's policy on pornography, see Sisney v. Kaemingsk, 886 F.3e 692 (8th Cir. 2018). The policy was constitutional as applied to two erotic novels plaintiff sought to obtain and the district court erred in granting summary judgment to plaintiff on his claim that the policy was unconstitutional as applied to the books; the defendants' censorship of an art book and nine pictures of Renaissance artwork failed to meet the threshold requirements set out in Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), and the district court properly granted summary judgment for plaintiff on his claim that the policy was unconstitutional as applied to these materials; the district court should have dismissed as moot plaintiff's overbreadth challenge in its entirety without reaching the merits as it had concluded that a limited judicial remedy was available for the alleged overbreadth that would not bar enforcement of the policy as to a Coppertone ad and some comics; the case is remanded with directions to dismiss as moot plaintiff's claim that the prohibition on nudity is overbroad; the district court's remedy order on this claim is also vacated; however, plaintiff's claim that the prohibition on sexually explicit materials is overbroad remains a live controversy because of this court's reversal of the district court's ruling on his as-applied challenges to the two erotic novels; however, reading the prison policy in light of the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, the court concludes that plaintiff failed to show the policy's prohibition on sexually explicit content is overbroad; as a result, the district court's summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed, and its remedy order is vacated; plaintiff is not entitled to coercive or compensatory sanctions for the defendants' alleged violations of this court's order denying defendants' motion for a stay; plaintiff's request for sanctions for the defendants' alleged violations of the district court's orders is denied. Judge Stras, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.