610 F. App'x 628
9th Cir.2015Background
- Lane, a federal prisoner, challenged three denials of his §2241 petitions stemming from loss of 27 days of good-conduct time.
- Disciplinary decisions held Lane threatened another with bodily harm in outgoing mail per BOP Prohibited Act Code 203, 28 C.F.R. § 541.3 Table 1, 203.
- The district court record lacked sufficient development to adjudicate the Procunier v. Martinez First Amendment standard for outgoing mail regulations.
- The government urged review limited to whether there was some evidence supporting the DHO's threats finding under Hill, but the court noted the need to define 'threat'.
- The court adopted BOP's interpretation that section 203 prohibits all threatening communications, potentially implicating First Amendment rights.
- Because the Procunier issue was undeveloped, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to assess whether §203 satisfies Procunier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §203 satisfy Procunier v. Martinez for First Amendment validity? | Lane argues held to scrutinize true threats only. | BOP interpretation prohibits all threatening communications. | Remand to evaluate Procunier compliance. |
| Should the court address 'some evidence' standard before Procunier analysis? | Lane contends there is evidence of threats supporting the DHO findings. | Only issue on appeal is Hillewan 'some evidence' review. | Court declines final ruling on 'some evidence' until Procunier issue is resolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (U.S. 1974) (prison-mail regulation must further an important government interest with narrowly tailored limits)
- Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2008) (prisoner First Amendment right to mail is implicated by outgoing-mail regulations)
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (U.S. 2003) (true threats concept in threat analysis)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (textual interpretation governs statutory enforcement; cannot avoid text)
- Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264 (9th Cir. 1995) (prisoners have First Amendment rights to mail)
- Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985) (some evidence as standard for disciplinary actions in prison)