Emily Hari v. James Stuart ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                 United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 22-1742
    ___________________________
    Malik Laughlin; Kenneth Lewis
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs
    Emily Claire Hari, formerly known as Michael Hari
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    James Stuart, Sheriff of Anoka County; Jonathon Evans, Deputy Sheriff of Anoka
    County; Lt. S. Larson, Deputy Sheriff of Anoka County; SGT Carrie Wood,
    Deputy Sheriff of Anoka County; Tessa Villergas, Anoka County Deputy Sheriff;
    Jesse Rasmussen, Anoka County Sheriff
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota
    ____________
    Submitted: October 5, 2022
    Filed: October 21, 2022
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Emily Hari appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
    judgment in her 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action. Upon careful de novo review, see Gareis
    v. 3M Co., 
    9 F.4th 812
    , 818 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review), we affirm. We find
    that summary judgment was proper as to the claims against defendants Stuart and
    Wood, as the record did not show that they were personally involved in the alleged
    violations of Hari’s rights. See White v. Jackson, 
    865 F.3d 1064
    , 1081 (8th Cir.
    2017) (to prevail on § 1983 claim, plaintiff must show individual defendant’s
    personal involvement in alleged violation).
    We agree with the district court that summary judgment was proper on Hari’s
    First Amendment claims against defendants Rasmussen, Evans, and Larson, as--even
    assuming the documents seized from Hari’s cell were legal mail--defendants’ actions
    were isolated incidents insufficient to establish a free speech violation. See Davis v.
    Goord, 
    320 F.3d 346
    , 351 (2d Cir. 2003) (isolated incident of mail tampering is
    usually insufficient to establish constitutional violation; rather, inmate must show that
    prison officials regularly and unjustifiably interfered with legal mail); Gardner v.
    Howard, 
    109 F.3d 427
    , 431 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting generally that isolated instance
    of opening legal mail will not support § 1983 action). We also agree that summary
    judgment was proper on Hari’s Sixth Amendment claim against Rasmussen and
    Larson, as she did not show that she was prejudiced by the disclosure of the encrypted
    letter. See Ervin v. Busby, 
    992 F.2d 147
    , 150 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (evidence
    of actual prejudice is necessary to show interference with right to counsel in § 1983
    Sixth Amendment claim). We find that Hari’s Sixth Amendment claims against
    Evans and Larson regarding the notes seized from her cell on July 11 are Heck-
    barred, see Heck v. Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
    , 487 (1994); Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 
    302 F.3d 1039
    , 1049 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment claim, alleging
    1
    The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Tony N.
    Leung, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
    -2-
    that he was denied adequate contact with attorney while pretrial detainee, was Heck-
    barred, as it would necessarily imply invalidity of his conviction); however, we
    modify the dismissal of these claims to be without prejudice, see Sheldon v. Hundley,
    
    83 F.3d 231
    , 234 (8th Cir. 1996). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in excluding
    the documents that Hari did not disclose during discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37,
    see Vanderberg v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., 
    906 F.3d 698
    , 702 (8th Cir.
    2018) (standard of review); and we note that the outcome of the summary judgment
    motion would have been the same even if the documents were considered, cf. United
    States v. Ameren Mo., 
    9 F.4th 989
    , 1008 (8th Cir. 2021) (even if district court abused
    its discretion by admitting undisclosed evidence, that error was harmless because
    court expressly stated that result would not be different without evidence).
    The judgment is affirmed as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -3-