202460P.pdf   10/15/2021  Charles Sisney  v.  Denny Kaemingk
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  20-2460
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Southern   
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Benton and Stras, Circuit Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. For the court's prior opinion in 
   this case involving challenges to the South Dakota prison system's policy 
   on pornography, see Sisney v. Kaemingsk, 886 F.3e 692 (8th Cir. 2018). The 
   policy was constitutional as applied to two erotic novels plaintiff sought 
   to obtain and the district court erred in granting summary judgment to 
   plaintiff on his claim that the policy was unconstitutional as applied to 
   the books; the defendants' censorship of an art book and nine pictures of 
   Renaissance artwork failed to meet the threshold requirements set out in 
   Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), and the district court properly 
   granted summary judgment for plaintiff on his claim that the policy was 
   unconstitutional as applied to these materials; the district court should 
   have dismissed as moot plaintiff's overbreadth challenge in its entirety 
   without reaching the merits as it had concluded that a limited judicial 
   remedy was available for the alleged overbreadth that would not bar 
   enforcement of the policy as to a Coppertone ad and some comics; the case 
   is remanded with directions to dismiss as moot plaintiff's claim that the 
   prohibition on nudity is overbroad; the district court's remedy order on 
   this claim is also vacated; however, plaintiff's claim that the 
   prohibition on sexually explicit materials is overbroad remains a live 
   controversy because of this court's reversal of the district court's 
   ruling on his as-applied challenges to the two erotic novels; however, 
   reading the prison policy in light of the doctrine of constitutional 
   avoidance, the court concludes that plaintiff failed to show the policy's 
   prohibition on sexually explicit content is overbroad; as a result, the 
   district court's summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed, and its 
   remedy order is vacated; plaintiff is not entitled to coercive or 
   compensatory sanctions for the defendants' alleged violations of this 
   court's order denying defendants' motion for a stay; plaintiff's request 
   for sanctions for the defendants' alleged violations of the district 
   court's orders is denied. Judge Stras, concurring in part and dissenting 
   in part.