United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Crow U.S. Senior District Judge.
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this prisoner civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time of
filing, Plaintiff was in custody at the El Dorado
Correctional Facility in El Dorado, Kansas. Plaintiff's
single-count Complaint alleges that his authored book was
ordered censored and banned without good cause. Plaintiff
alleges that his agent sent a picture of the cover of
Plaintiff's authored book over JPay and JPay censored it
in its entirety, claiming it was sexually explicit. Defendant
Snyder, Warden at EDCF, concurred and upheld the ban.
Plaintiff appealed to the Secretary of Corrections and
Defendant Norwood also concurred. The censorship was
allegedly based on sexually explicit material contained in
the book. Plaintiff alleges that the book contained no
“sexually explicit gestures, no penetration or anything
considered vulgar in nature.” (Doc. 1, at 2.)
seeks injunctive relief by way of an order allowing
Plaintiff's authored books into the KDOC. Plaintiff also
seeks $5, 000, 000 in compensatory damages and $50, 000, 000
in punitive damages. Plaintiff names as Defendants: JPay, the
communications provider for the Kansas Department of
Corrections; Paul Snyder, Warden at EDCF; and Joe Norwood,
Secretary of Corrections.
Court entered a Memorandum and Order and Order to Show Cause
(Doc. 6) (“MOSC”), granting Plaintiff the
opportunity to either show good cause why his Complaint
should not be dismissed or to file a proper amended
complaint. This matter is before the Court for screening of
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 7). The Court's
screening standards were set out in the Court's MOSC.
MOSC, the Court found that the governmental objectives
underlying K.A.R. § 44-12-313 have been found to be
legitimate and neutral and the regulation has been found to
rationally relate to those objectives. See Sperry v.
Werholtz, 413 Fed.Appx. 31, 40 (10th Cir. 2011)
(unpublished). The Court also found that Plaintiff fails to
even identify or describe what was contained in the banned
materials. Plaintiff does not state a federal constitutional
violation by alleging that his materials were withheld as
sexually explicit without more. See Meredith v.
Roberts, No. 12-3027-SAC, 2012 WL 1380330, at *5 (D.
Kan. April 20, 2012). As the Tenth Circuit has noted:
[S]uch restrictions are sufficiently commonplace in the
prison setting, see, e.g., Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at
415-19, 109 S.Ct. 1874 (upholding restrictions on
prisoners' incoming mail); Smith, 899 F.2d at
944 (complaint about undelivered catalogues did not raise a
constitutional issue), that his claim is not plausible absent
allegations showing that the restrictions were imposed in
violation of prison regulations or that the regulations
invoked were unconstitutional in the circumstances.
Id. (quoting Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178,
1190 (10th Cir. 2010)).
Amended Complaint fails to address the deficiencies discussed
in the MOSC. Plaintiff continues to allege that the censored
items were not sexually explicit without any factual support
or allegations regarding the content of the banned items.
Plaintiff fails to state a claim for a violation of his First
also filed a “supplement” to his Complaint (Doc.
8) where he attempts to add new claims and new defendants
based on the subsequent destruction of his manuscripts, which
he claims was done without a confiscation form “as
Kansas law requires.” Plaintiff also alleges that some
of his personal pictures and other property have been lost or
“broken intentionally.” Deprivations of property
do not deny due process as long as there is an adequate
post-deprivation remedy. A due process claim will arise only
if there is no such procedure or it is inadequate. See
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); see also
Smith v. Colorado Dept. of Corr., 23 F.3d 339, 340 (10th
Cir. 1994) (“Fourteenth Amendment due process
guarantees pertaining to property are satisfied when an
adequate, state postdeprivation remedy exists for
deprivations occasioned by state employees.”). Kansas
prisoners have an adequate state post-deprivation remedy.
See generally, Sawyer v. Green, 316 Fed.Appx. 715,
717, 2008 WL 2470915, at *2 (10th Cir. 2008) (finding Kansas
county prisoner could seek relief in state courts to redress
alleged deprivation of property). Plaintiff fails to state a
claim for relief.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this matter
is dismissed for failure to state a claim.