Jesse Loor v. Jenny Bailey, 708 F. App'x 992

Pro se state prisoner Jesse Loor filed a § 1983 action claiming denial of incoming mailed materials violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and Florida negligence law.
Loor received printed pages of a medical textbook that were rejected by the detention center because photocopies of printed books were barred as potential copyright infringement.
His family later sent three books that were impounded as obscene; a clerk mistakenly returned the books rather than retaining them under facility policy.
Loor argued the materials were non-obscene and protected by fair use, and that denial hampered his ability to educate himself about child sexual abuse.
The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim; Loor appealed.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the prison regulations were reasonably related to penological interests and that Loor had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under state law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment — denial of mailed materials	Loor: materials not obscene; fair use protects copies; denial infringed free expression	Prison: regulation barring obscene and copyrighted materials is necessary for security and order	Regulation is reasonable under Turner/Thornburgh; dismissal affirmed
Fourteenth Amendment — procedural due process for property loss	Loor: clerk’s return deprived him of property and liberty interest in education	Defendant: clerk’s mistaken act is not a § 1983 due-process violation; state provides post-deprivation remedy	No § 1983 violation; meaningful post-deprivation remedy exists under Florida law
Availability of alternative access	Loor: denial prevented educational access on abuse issues	Prison: allowing such materials risks circulation and disruption; costly to verify or redact materials	Alternatives insufficient; officials’ discretion entitled to deference
Fair use / copyright defense to prison prohibition	Loor: photocopies qualify as fair use, so prohibition is improper	Prison: burden to verify fair use would be costly and unworkable in detention setting	Court accepted prison’s position; regulation stands

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) (incoming publication restrictions may be justified by security and order concerns)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires factual allegations supporting entitlement to relief)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Porter v. White, 483 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2007) (negligent acts by officials do not automatically give rise to due process claim)
Case v. Eslinger, 555 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2009) (no procedural due process violation where meaningful post-deprivation remedy exists)
Pope v. Hightower, 101 F.3d 1382 (11th Cir. 1996) (deference to prison officials when asserted rights would have significant ripple effects)
Harden v. Pataki, 320 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for dismissal under § 1915A)
Maddox v. Stephens, 727 F.3d 1109 (11th Cir. 2013) (discussion of protected property or liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment)