Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03582/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03582-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sharon Britten
Appellee
James W. Detmer
Appellant
Charlene Coe Gilmore
Appellee
Dan Sullivan
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of

Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3582

___________

James W. Detmer, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Charlene Coe Gilmore; Sharon Britten; *

Dan Sullivan, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 29, 2010

Filed: July 1, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James Detmer appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging mail restrictions implemented by Fulton

State Hospital staff. Following de novo review with respect to those claims that

Detmer did not abandon on appeal, see Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733,

Appellate Case: 09-3582 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2010 Entry ID: 3679855
-2-

739 (8th Cir. 2004) (claims not briefed on appeal deemed abandoned);Anderson v.

Larson, 327 F.3d 762, 767 (8th Cir. 2003) (summary judgment standard of review),

we conclude that Detmer--by merely questioning whether his mail screen was part of

his treatment plan--did not meet his burden of establishing a genuine issue of material

fact so as to defeat summary judgment, given defendants’ evidence that the mail

screen was reasonably related to institutional security and Detmer’s therapeutic gain,

see Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-22 (1982) (in determining whether

constitutional rights of involuntarily committed individual have been violated, court

must balance individual’s liberty interests against relevant state interests with

deference shown to judgment exercised by qualified professionals); Revels v.

Vincenz, 382 F3d 870, 874 (8th Cir. 2004) (although involuntarily committed patient

of state hospital is not prisoner per se, his confinement is subject to same safety and

security concerns as that of prisoner); cf. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 415-19

(1989) (policy that allows prison officials to reject incoming mail deemed detrimental

to security does not violate First Amendment); Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372

F.3d 979, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2004) (regulations involving review of incoming mail must

be reasonably related to legitimate penological interests); Holloway v. Pigman, 884

F.2d 365, 367 (8th Cir. 1989) (summary judgment is not defeated by “a random

misapplication of a reasonable regulation”). 

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3582 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2010 Entry ID: 3679855