Perry v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
664 F.3d 1359
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Perry and WriteAPrisoner.com sued the FDOC challenging the Pen Pal Solicitation Rule prohibiting inmates from soliciting pen pals.
- Rule bars inmate ads soliciting pen pals and purports to curb fraud; Christian Pen Pals, offering one-to-one matching, is allowed.
- Perry operates two pen pal services; WAP offers pen pal and non-pen pal services and charges inmates a fee for ads on its site.
- FDOC argued the Rule protects public safety and prison security; mail ads from appellants have been returned since the Rule’s adoption.
- District court granted summary judgment for FDOC; on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit analyzes standing, First Amendment, and due process.
- Court applies Turner v. Safley framework to determine if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to contest the Rule | Perry has a First Amendment interest in correspondence with inmates as a publisher. | FDOC rule regulates inmate communications, not publishers’ access rights. | Perry has standing; publishers have liberty interest in access to inmates. |
| Applicable First Amendment standard for prison regulations | Martinez governs censorship of prisoner mail and requires heightened scrutiny. | Thornburgh limits Martinez to outgoing mail; Turner governs incoming/outgoing publication-related regulations. | Turner reasonableness standard applies to the FDOC Rule. |
| Due process for mass mailings | Martinez provides procedural safeguards for personal letters; mass mailings require similar protections. | Mass mailings require a Mathews v. Eldridge analysis with lesser safeguards. | Mass mailings are governed by Mathews; meaningful process protects due process; safeguards present were adequate. |
| Constitutionality of the Rule under Turner | Rule is not rationally related to penological interests and unduly burdens speech. | Rule is rationally related to preventing pen pal scams and protecting security. | Rule is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests; district court proper in granting summary judgment for FDOC. |
Key Cases Cited
- Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) (outgoing mail subjected to Martinez standard)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) (limits Martinez; applies Turner framework for publications to prisoners)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (reasonableness test with four-factor Turner framework)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (deference to prison administrators; security interests permit restrictions)
- Lawson v. Singletary, 85 F.3d 502 (11th Cir.1996) (evolution toward rational basis review in prison context)
- Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119 (1977) (recognizes deference to prison administration decisions)