Opinion
No. 5-013 / 04-0091
Filed April 13, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Glenn E. Pille, Judge.
The appellants, all inmates at the Iowa State Penitentiary in Fort Madison, appeal an order denying their request for declaratory relief and injunctive relief stemming from a prison policy prohibiting the possession of electric razors and beard trimmers. AFFIRMED.
Gary Buck, Fort Madison, and Ernest Walters, Fort Madison, appellants pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and William Hill, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
On June 23, 2003, ten inmates (inmates) of the Iowa State Penitentiary in Fort Madison filed a complaint against Gary Maynard, director of the Iowa Department of Corrections, in the Iowa District Court for Polk County. Their complaint noted a May 23, 2003, prison newsletter informing inmates that they could no longer possess beard trimmers and electric razors. The newsletter informed them that unless they surrendered the items by June 30, they would be subject to disciplinary sanctions. The inmates alleged this policy change violated their constitutional rights and they requested declaratory and injunctive relief, prohibiting the prison from enforcing the new policy.
Maynard responded by filing a resistance and motion to dismiss which argued the inmates could not establish a constitutional violation. The district court later granted the motion to dismiss and denied the request for injunctive relief. In particular, the court concluded the inmates had not established that either a constitutional "property" or a "liberty" deprivation had occurred. The court further rejected the inmates' claim of "imminent and irreparable" harm. The inmates appeal this ruling.
We review the district court's granting of a motion to dismiss for errors of law. See Iowa Tel. Ass'n v. City of Hawarden, 589 N.W.2d 245, 250 (Iowa 1999). Our review of actions for injunctive relief is de novo. Owens v. Brownlie, 610 N.W.2d 860, 865 (Iowa 2000).
We first address the district court's conclusion that the policy prohibiting beard trimmers and electric razors did not violate the constitutional rights of the inmates. The inmates' complaint alleged the policy (1) violates their "property rights" under Article I section 1 of the Iowa Constitution, and (2) subjects them to an unreasonable seizure of their property in violation of Article I section 8 of the Iowa Constitution.
We must first note that prisons generally have broad authority to limit property pursuant to prison policy. See Hosna v. Groose, 80 F.3d 298, 305 (8th Cir. 1996) (upholding a prison policy which limited the type of personal property in administrative segregation cells). We also acknowledge that "[p]rison administrators . . . should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security." Lyon v. Farrier, 730 F.2d 525, 527 (8th Cir. 1984) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547, 99 S. Ct. 1861, 1878, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447, 474 (1979)).
Accordingly, we conclude the inmates cannot claim a constitutionally protected property interest in either the razors and trimmers themselves or in the change from the previous policy allowing them to possess those items. See Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 482, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2299, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418, 432 (1995) (concluding that in order to qualify as a liberty interest a prison deprivation must impose an "atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life"); Cosco v. Uphoff, 195 F.3d 1221, 1224 (10th Cir. 1999) (finding the "atypical and significant hardship" methodology announced in Sandin applied to property claims brought by prisoners).
We further conclude the court properly denied the inmates' request for injunctive relief, restraining prison authorities from enforcing the policy change. Injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that is granted with caution and only when required to avoid irreparable damage. Sear v. Clayton County Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 590 N.W.2d 512, 515 (Iowa 1999). A party seeking an injunction must establish (1) an invasion or threatened invasion of a right, (2) substantial injury or damages will result unless an injunction is granted, and (3) no adequate legal remedy is available. Id.
Here, the district court found the inmates' claim of "irreparable harm" to be without merit. We concur in this determination. As the district court noted, and contrary to the inmates' assertion, they do possess additional legal remedies to which they could avail themselves. For instance, they could bring an action under the Iowa Tort Claims Act. See Iowa Code chapter 669 (2003); see also Iowa Code § 904.311 (Inmate Tort Claim Fund). We further conclude the inmates would not suffer "substantial injury or damages" because of the policy. On appeal, the inmates allege "they have incurred substantial injury in the matter of loss of hygiene and grooming. Plaintiffs Walters and Buck sustained serious rashes, ingrown hairs, and nicks and cuts occasioned by the use of safety razors in place of beard trimmers." We conclude, as did the district court, this allegation simply does not rise to the level of a "substantial injury."