Joseph E. Glaum v. Colby Braun and Joseph Joyce

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denies Joseph E. Glaum’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court holds that NDSP’s policy directing incoming personal mail through a digital mail center was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests under Turner v. Safley and that restrictions on Glaum’s outgoing mail were justified by a no-contact order and institutional interests. The document addresses First Amendment claims involving interference with mail and access to the courts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Holdings

1. NDSP's policy requiring incoming personal mail to be sent to a digital mail center, where it was opened, inspected for contraband, scanned, and uploaded to an inmate tablet, was reasonably related to the legitimate penological interest of preventing contraband from entering the prison and did not violate the First Amendment.
2. Defendants did not violate Glaum's First Amendment rights by restricting his outgoing mail to Rebecca Woodrow because a state-court no-contact order prohibited such contact and Woodrow had requested not to receive it.
3. Glaum failed to establish a denial of access to the courts because he had filed a state postconviction application, had appointed counsel, had a hearing scheduled, and identified no actual injury or present obstacle caused by Defendants.
4. Glaum was not entitled to injunctive relief because he failed to show a constitutional violation or a real and immediate threat of future violation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether NDSP's policy requiring incoming personal mail to be processed through an outside digital mail center and delivered electronically violated Glaum's First Amendment rights.
2. Whether NDSP's restriction on Glaum's outgoing mail to a person protected by a state-court no-contact order violated the First Amendment.
3. Whether Glaum demonstrated an actionable denial of access to the courts based on alleged obstacles to pursuing state postconviction relief.
4. Whether Glaum established entitlement to prospective injunctive relief against the prison officials.

Disposition

other