Joseph Murchison v. John Rogers
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4056
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- In October 2010, SCCC censorship committee members Rogers and Hadley seized and censored Murchison’s October 11, 2010 Newsweek as material that "promotes violence, disorder or the violation of state or federal law," citing violent photographs and reporting on Mexican drug-cartel violence.
- SCCC policy permits censoring incoming materials that promote or incite violence, disorder, or criminal activity but forbids rejection solely for unpopular or political content.
- Murchison exhausted internal remedies (IRR, grievance, appeals to warden and DOC directors) then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against committee members and several supervisors; the district court dismissed claims against the supervisors for lack of personal involvement and granted summary judgment for the committee members.
- The district court found the censorship satisfied Turner v. Safley factors and granted qualified immunity to the officials; it also denied Murchison’s untimely motion to compel discovery.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed: it held the specific Newsweek issue’s censorship was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and that denial of the discovery motion was not a gross abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether censoring this Newsweek issue violated Murchison's First Amendment rights under Turner | Murchison: the issue did not advocate violence and censorship as-applied was unreasonable | Officials: violent images and reportage on cartel attacks are reasonably related to prison safety and order | Held: No constitutional violation; censorship was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests |
| Whether prison officials’ stated reasons were sufficiently specific (per Murphy) | Murchison: officials’ reasons were conclusory and lacked evidence specific to the item | Officials: affidavits detailed violent photos and experience that such material promotes prison disorder | Held: Officials presented specific evidence about the particular content; reasons were adequate |
| Whether alternatives existed that would accommodate Murchison at de minimis cost | Murchison: alternatives like a reading room, sign-out system, or excising pages would accommodate rights with minimal cost | Officials: each alternative imposes significant administrative burden and security risks | Held: Alternatives were not de minimis; officials need not adopt least restrictive means |
| Whether denial of Murchison’s untimely motion to compel was an abuse of discretion | Murchison: confinement impeded his discovery and the denial prejudiced his response to summary judgment | Officials: he filed motions while confined and did not specify discovery that would create a genuine issue of material fact | Held: No gross abuse of discretion; denial did not deprive him of a fair opportunity to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (establishes reasonableness standard for prisoner regulations affecting constitutional rights)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (courts must defer to prison administrators about materials likely to affect order and security)
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (substantial deference to prison administrators in defining penological goals)
- Murphy v. Missouri Dep't of Corr., 372 F.3d 979 (8th Cir.) (prison officials must give some item-specific reason for censorship)
- Dean v. Bowersox, [citation="325 F. App'x 470"] (8th Cir.) (affirming summary judgment when violent images support censorship)
- Weiler v. Purkett, 137 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (deference to prison authorities in mail and publication censorship)
- Ortiz v. Fort Dodge Corr. Facility, 368 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir.) (Turner does not require actual proof of harm to justify regulation)
- Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir.) (some evidence short of actual incident can justify censorship)