James R. Pesci v. Tim Budz, 730 F.3d 1291

Pesci is a civil detainee under the Jimmy Ryce Act at FCCC and publishes Duck Soup critical of the center.
April 2009 policy barred printing/copying Duck Soup in FCCC computer lab to limit dissemination.
November 2010 policy banned possession/distribution of Duck Soup as contraband.
District court granted summary judgment for Budz in Feb 2012 focusing on the 2009 policy only.
Appeal argues both 2009 and 2010 policies violated First Amendment; court vacates and remands for full consideration.
Court holds need to assess constitutionality of both policies together due to their interaction and record is limited

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What standard governs Pesci’s First Amendment claim?	Pesci seeks Turner-like scrutiny adapted for civil detainees.	Budz urges Turner-like reasonableness review; civil detainees receive deference.	Turner-style rational relation standard applies with civil-detainee modification.
Should the district court review both policies together?	Both policies jointly affect rights; no piecemeal review.	Only the 2009 policy was before judgment; 2010 policy moot.	Yes, review both policies on remand; avoid piecemeal adjudication.
Is Youngberg-based heightened review appropriate here?	Youngberg demands more protection for civil detainees.	Youngberg deference remains but not wholesale; Turner-like approach suffices.	Youngberg-inspired deference retained; not a strict standard beyond Turner.

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (four-factor Turner reasonableness standard for prisoners)
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1982) (deference to professional judgment; minimally adequate habilitation)
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1997) (civil confinement not punitive; not retribution/deterrence grounds)
Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (U.S. 1990) (civil detention safety/medical treatment with deference to professionals)
Pope v. Hightower, 101 F.3d 1382 (11th Cir. 1996) (applies Turner framework in Eleventh Circuit)