Gray v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs.
A-16-287
| Neb. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Gray, a pro se inmate, filed a declaratory judgment petition challenging two Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) administrative regulations (A.R. 116.01 and 205.01) as unconstitutional for requiring indigent inmates to pay postage/photocopy costs once monthly state-provided postage is exhausted.
- DCS moved to dismiss under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; the district court granted the motion and Gray appealed.
- At the dismissal hearing, the district court took judicial notice of the regulations at DCS’s request; on appeal the Nebraska Court of Appeals declined to judicially notice them because they were not filed with the Secretary of State and thus not officially promulgated.
- Although the regulations were not in the appellate record, the court accepted Gray’s recitations of their content for purposes of reviewing the sufficiency of the petition.
- The court applied the Turner v. Safley standard (prison regulations valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests) to Gray’s access-to-courts claim under Bounds v. Smith and compared the alleged regulations to an Eighth Circuit decision (Blaise v. Fenn) upholding similar restrictions.
- The court concluded Gray’s petition failed to state a plausible claim because the alleged regulations were less restrictive than those previously upheld and therefore were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.R. 116.01 and 205.01 violate the constitutional right of access to courts by requiring indigent inmates to pay postage/photocopy costs | Gray: Bounds requires provision of pens, paper, postage; regulations deprive indigent inmates of required legal mailing resources | DCS: Regulations are lawful, comparable or more lenient than regulations previously upheld; they serve legitimate penological and fiscal interests | Held: Dismissal affirmed — regulations, as pleaded, do not state a plausible constitutional violation under Turner |
Key Cases Cited
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (establishes inmates’ constitutional right of access to courts and the need for some tools to pursue legal claims)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations that impinge constitutional rights are valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- Blaise v. Fenn, 48 F.3d 337 (8th Cir. 1995) (upheld an Iowa regulation capping indigent inmates’ monthly indebtedness for legal mailings as consistent with Turner)
- Casey v. Lewis, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (limits Bounds to tools necessary to attack sentences or conditions of confinement; not a limitless right to litigate)