Hrdlicka v. Reniff
656 F.3d 942
9th Cir.2011Background
- Ray Hrdlicka publishes Crime, Justice & America (CJA) since 2002; CJA targets jail inmates and features articles on criminal justice with some ads; distribution is unsolicited, weekly, at about one copy per ten inmates.
- CJA is distributed in jails across more than 60 counties in 13 states, including 32 California county jails; materials are delivered either generally or to individually addressed inmates depending on jail policy.
- In Sacramento County, CJA began mailing individually addressed unsolicited copies in Dec 2004 after requests for inmate rosters were denied, but Sacramento sheriff halted unsolicited delivery in May 2005 based on an Operations Order prohibiting unsolicited publications.
- In Butte County, a September 2004 Departmental Order banned all unsolicited commercial mail to inmates; plaintiffs sued Sheriff Reniff in Feb 2008 for injunctive relief seeking distribution of CJA.
- District courts granted summary judgment for the sheriffs under Turner v. Safley four-factor test; Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding material facts precluded summary judgment and Turner applied to unsolicited publications.
- The court remanded for further proceedings; the opinion discusses First Amendment interests in distributing and receiving unsolicited publications and whether California bail-licensee regulations may also apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether publishers/inmates have a First Amendment interest in unsolicited distribution/receiving | Hrdlicka asserts a First Amendment interest in distributing and inmates' receiving unsolicited CJA. | Prisons are non-public fora; no right to unsolicited distribution; Turner analysis applies if any interest exists. | First Amendment interest recognized; Turner four-factor test applies |
| Whether the Turner four-factor test supports a summary judgment against plaintiffs | Evidence shows genuine disputes about penological justifications and resource impact; opponents fail to prove reasonableness. | Policies are rationally related to security, resource, and administrative concerns; alternatives limited or insufficient. | Material facts present; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether alternative avenues exist to exercise the right | General or targeted distribution (one per ten inmates) is feasible; inmates can learn of and request CJA. | As a practical matter, awareness and access are limited; mail policies and turnout hinder access. | Fact questions remain about practicality of alternatives |
| What is the impact of accommodating the right on prison resources and operations | Distribution at limited scale would impose minimal burden; plaintiff offers workable distribution | Unspecified resource impacts; distribution could burden staff and disrupt operations | Material facts for resource impact unresolved |
| Whether California bail-licensee regulations justify the ban | California bail-licensing rules may render unsolicited distribution unlawful | California law defense not decided below; not central to Turner analysis at this stage | Court declines to decide California law issue; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (establishes four-factor test for scrutinizing prison regulations restricting rights)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (U.S. 1989) (recognizes First Amendment interest in communications with inmates and limits on regulation)
- Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (U.S. 1974) (prison administration interests govern restrictions on access to information by the press)
- Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005) (struck down ban on non-subscription bulk mail; reiterated Turner factors)
- Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) (struck down blanket ban on receipt of gift publications)
- Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001) (invalidated ban on bulk-rate mail for subscription non-profit publications)
- Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2001) (struck down restrictions on bulk-rate, for-profit, subscription publications)
- Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005) (non-subscription bulk mail ban not related to neutral objective)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (9th Cir. 1989) (context for applying Turner to prison communications)