Nordstrom v. Ryan
128 F. Supp. 3d 1201
D. Ariz.2016Background
- Plaintiff Scott Nordstrom, an Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) inmate on death row, sued ADC Director Charles Ryan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming ADC’s inspection of outgoing legal mail violated his Sixth, First, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- On May 2, 2011, Officer Hawthorne inspected a two-page outgoing letter Nordstrom gave for mailing to his appellate counsel; Nordstrom alleges Hawthorne read it and that the incident chilled attorney-client communications. ADC policy allowed inspection/scan of legal mail for contraband.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal of Nordstrom’s Sixth Amendment claim, holding that reading attorney-client mail (as opposed to scanning/inspecting) can violate the Sixth Amendment. Nordstrom v. Ryan was remanded for further proceedings.
- After an evidentiary hearing and discovery, the district court found ADC faces pervasive misuse of “legal mail” by gangs and inmates (examples included micro-writing, disguised contraband, and corrupt attorneys), and that ADC trains officers to scan but not read legal mail and follows Director’s Instruction 333 and Order 902.11.
- The court found Nordstrom’s communications were chilled as to some sensitive written content but he retained adequate alternative means (phone and in-person meetings) and that ADC’s policies permit scanning/inspection (not line-by-line reading) in the inmate’s presence.
- The court entered judgment for Defendant, denying declaratory and injunctive relief on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sixth Amendment: May officials read outgoing attorney-client mail? | Nordstrom: Any reading, even a few words, violates the Sixth Amendment and chills counsel communications. | Ryan: ADC may scan/inspect legal mail for contraband or non-legal communications; scanning necessarily involves reading some words and is necessary for security. | Court: ADC policy permitting scanning/inspection (not line-by-line reading) in inmate's presence does not violate the Sixth Amendment; no injunction. |
| First Amendment: Does inspection unlawfully abridge speech? | Nordstrom: Policy chills written attorney communications, violating free speech. | Ryan: Policy is reasonably related to penological interests (security, preventing contraband and criminal coordination). | Court: Policy is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and thus valid under Turner. |
| Fourteenth Amendment — Access to Courts: Does inspection hinder court access? | Nordstrom: Chilled written communications impair his ability to pursue collateral litigation and mitigation. | Ryan: Nordstrom has not shown actual injury; alternative means (visits, phone) preserve meaningful access. | Court: No actual injury shown; access-to-courts claim fails under Lewis v. Casey. |
| Whether Director Ryan’s grievance response and policy authorize reading | Nordstrom: Ryan’s grievance response admitted officers are authorized to read. | Ryan: The response distinguishes scanning/inspection from prohibited line-by-line reading; policy and training prohibit reading. | Court: Response is consistent with scanning/inspection; evidence shows policy and practice comply with Ninth Circuit guidance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2014) (distinguishes permissible inspection/scanning from impermissible reading of attorney-client mail)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (permitted opening/inspection of incoming legal mail in inmate's presence to check for contraband)
- Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) (recognized penological interests justify some censorship of prisoner correspondence)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations are valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires showing of actual injury)
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (prisoners have right to meaningful access to the courts)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) (limits on Martinez distinguish outgoing vs incoming correspondence)
- Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801 (7th Cir. 2010) (recognizes limited scanning may be necessary to protect prison security)