James R. Pesci v. Tim Budz, 935 F.3d 1159

James Pesci is a civilly committed resident at the Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC) who published newsletters critical of facility staff and operations (Duck Soup; later The Instigator).
FCCC initially allowed printing under a 2006 page-limit policy (20 pages every other day using facility paper; 40 if inmate supplied paper); in 2009 Budz limited printing of Duck Soup absent inmate-supplied paper; in 2010 Budz banned Duck Soup entirely as contraband.
After administrative changes Pesci began publishing The Instigator; FCCC removed internet access and file‑sharing and continued enforcing the 2006 page-limit against individual inmate publications (The Instigator), while staff‑sponsored social clubs received an exemption.
Pesci sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming First and Fourteenth Amendment violations challenging: (1) the 2010 ban on Duck Soup and (2) the 2006 page‑limit policy as applied to The Instigator.
The district court granted summary judgment for FCCC; on remand (applying a modified Turner standard for civil detainees) the court again granted summary judgment to FCCC; the Eleventh Circuit affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of 2010 ban on Duck Soup (First Amendment)	Pesci: ban is content/viewpoint suppression not justified by security; insufficient evidence of threat; pretextual.	FCCC (Budz): ban reasonably related to legitimate security interests because Duck Soup published inflammatory, named allegations that raised tensions and led to threatening encounters.	Court: Ban upheld under modified Turner—rational connection to security; alternatives exist; impact and lack of less‑restrictive effective options support reasonableness.
Constitutionality of 2006 page‑limit policy as applied to The Instigator (First Amendment)	Pesci: page limit burdens speech; inconsistent application (social clubs exempt) shows content/viewpoint discrimination; alternatives feasible (supply ink, online distribution).	FCCC: policy is content‑neutral, adopted to conserve Resident Welfare Fund resources and protect equipment; social clubs are a categorical, staff‑sponsored exemption for pro‑social programs; internet/file sharing restricted for security.	Court: Policy is content‑neutral and reasonably related to conserving resources under Turner; exemptions permissible; policy not an exaggerated response.

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (standard for reviewing restrictions on inmate/detainee constitutional rights; regulation valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (applies Turner factors and emphasizes individualized determinations and substantial governmental interests)
Pesci v. Budz, 730 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir.) (earlier panel establishing modified Turner standard for civil detainees)
Prison Legal News v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 890 F.3d 954 (11th Cir.) (deference to prison officials to anticipate security problems; no requirement for prior incidents)
Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (deference to prison regulations; burden on inmate to disprove regulation)
Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (plurality) (consideration of security and institutional impact under Turner)
Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119 (deference to prison administrators to prevent disturbances)
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (civilly committed persons entitled to more considerate treatment but Turner standard still applicable)