Crime Justice & America, Inc. v. Kory Honea
876 F.3d 966
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- CJ&A publishes a free, advertisement-supported magazine for jail inmates and sought to distribute paper copies at Butte County Jail; the jail forbids unsolicited commercial mail to inmates.
- Butte County Jail houses ~580–590 inmates, uses remote/linear supervision with limited officer presence, and reports frequent inmate misuse of non-personal paper (covering vents, clogging toilets, hiding contraband, starting fires).
- CJ&A previously sued; this Court in Hrdlicka reversed summary judgment and remanded, finding factual disputes about security impacts.
- At a four-day bench trial, jail officials testified that kiosks (installed during litigation) can host PDF versions of the magazine; the district court admitted a post-trial declaration that kiosks became fully operational.
- The district court found the unsolicited-mail ban reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and that electronic kiosks provide an adequate alternative; judgment for Sheriff affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unsolicited commercial mail ban violates First Amendment under Turner | CJ&A: ban unreasonably restricts communication; ban not rationally related to security and conflicts with precedents protecting inmate mail | Sheriff: ban promotes jail security by reducing access to non-personal paper that inmates misuse; conserves staff resources; kiosks provide alternatives | Ban upheld as reasonably related to legitimate penological interests; Turner factors favor Sheriff |
| Whether adequate alternative means of communication exist | CJ&A: kiosks/library are inadequate substitutes for paper distribution | Sheriff: kiosks (31+ locations) and limited library access provide available alternatives | Kiosks are an adequate alternative; second Turner factor favors Sheriff |
| Whether accommodation would unduly burden staff and inmates (ripple effects) | CJ&A: distribution manageable; district court previously granted partial summary judgment on processing burden | Sheriff: thousands of pages weekly would increase paper-related violations and burden scarce staff | Court finds meaningful adverse impact and defers to corrections officials; third Turner factor favors Sheriff |
| Whether obvious, easy alternatives show the policy is exaggerated | CJ&A: other jails distribute similar magazines, so policy is excessive | Sheriff: Butte’s supervision model and kiosk program distinguish its situation from other jails; paper problems are acute locally | No obvious, feasible alternatives undermining policy; fourth Turner factor favors Sheriff |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (Sup. Ct. 1987) (establishes four-factor test for prison regulations affecting constitutional rights)
- Hrdlicka v. Reniff, 631 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2011) (publisher and inmates have First Amendment interest; remanded summary judgment due to factual disputes)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (government objective must be neutral and unrelated to suppressing expression)
- Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001) (struck down arbitrary mail restrictions tied to postage classifications)
- Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2001) (rejected mail restriction based on postage rate; emphasized distinction between solicited and unsolicited mail)
- Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005) (invalidated ban on non-subscription bulk mail requested by inmates where connection to security was inadequate)
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (Sup. Ct. 2003) (alternatives need only be available, not ideal)
- O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (Sup. Ct. 1987) (deference to prison administrators on institutional matters)
- Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (rational connection required between regulation and legitimate objective)
- Cal. First Amendment Coal. v. Woodford, 299 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (standards of review: de novo for legal/conmixed questions; clear-error for factual findings)
- Ashker v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 350 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2003) (first Turner factor is a threshold requirement)