Prison Legal News v. Livingston
683 F.3d 201
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- PLN, a non-profit, sues the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and three TDCJ officials under §1983 for First Amendment and due process violations stemming from TDCJ’s censorship of PLN-published books distributed to inmates.
- TDCJ uses a mail-review system at 96 units; new books are reviewed if not in the database, with 6 listed content-based reasons to deny, plus prohibitions on certain content; initial denials are usually final with limited opportunities to appeal.
- MSCP, headed by Smith, provides guidance; appeal goes to the Director’s Review Committee, typically a single MSCP member, with possible second MSCP review and potential full DRC review; reviews focus on the denial form and the book itself, not a full weighing of all content.
- When a denial is upheld, notices go to the prisoner; later denials do not routinely notify senders after final DRC/MSCP denial; PLN distributes five PLN books that have been denied in various ways (including Soledad Brother, Women Behind Bars, Prison Masculinities, The Perpetual Prison Machine, and Lockdown America).
- PLN argued these policies violate First Amendment rights and that PLN has standing to challenge unsolicited correspondence; the district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all claims; PLN appeals.
- In 2010, TDCJ amended its policy to provide notices to senders and allow appeals by senders, which the district court deemed moot for prospective relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PLN has standing to challenge unsolicited books | PLN has injury-in-fact from censorship of its unsolicited materials | Standing depends on an injury caused by violation of a right | PLN has standing to challenge unsolicited books |
| Whether internet (Turner-Thornburgh) framework supports TDCJ’s censorship as reasonable | Rights to sending unsolicited material should be protected; censorship not reasonably related to penological goals | Policy is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests; deference to administrators | Summary judgment affirmed; policy reasonably related to penological objectives; deference to prison officials upheld |
| Whether specific book exclusions were reasonably related to penological interests | Exclusions lack a demonstrated rational basis; PLN bears burden to disprove reasonableness | Administrators may rely on reasonable assessments of potential dangers; deference due | Exclusions upheld as reasonable given potential dangers and context; deference to officials maintained |
| Whether PLN is entitled to due process for notices/appeals by subsequent senders | Due process requires notice and participation for subsequent senders | Procedures apply to non-individualized, mass-book denials; no right to notice for every sender | Due process not implicated for subsequent non-individualized denials; policy permissible |
| Whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity | Rights were clearly established; denial violated First Amendment | No clearly established right violated; officials acted reasonably | Qualified immunity applies; officials not liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulation restraints must be reasonably related to legitimate penological interests; deference to officials)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) (right to access to prisoners' written communications balanced with penological interests; framework for reasonableness of censorship)
- Martinez v. Procunier, 416 U.S. 394 (1974) (origin of Turner framework; balanced rights for exchanges with outsiders)
- Overton v. Bazetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) (burden on prisoner to disprove regulation’s reasonableness; substantial deference to prison officials)
- Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963) (standing for distributors challenging censorship schemes)