Prison Legal News v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
890 F.3d 954
11th Cir.2018Background
- Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) enforces rules to prevent inmates from using phone, pen‑pal, stamp, and correspondence privileges to commit fraud, harassment, or other crimes; it screens incoming publications for ads that assist prohibited services.
- FDOC’s Admissible Reading Material Rule permits impoundment of publications that contain prominent or prevalent ads for prohibited services (e.g., three‑way calling, pen‑pal solicitation, cash‑for‑stamps, prisoner concierge, people‑locator) or otherwise threaten security.
- Prison Legal News (PLN), a monthly magazine with many inmate subscribers, carried ads FDOC deemed problematic; FDOC impounded issues from Sept. 2009–Dec. 2014 (64 issues) based on ad content and related security concerns.
- PLN sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming FDOC’s impoundments violated the First Amendment (access to inmate subscribers) and that FDOC’s failure to provide adequate notice of impoundments violated procedural due process (Fourteenth Amendment).
- After a bench trial, the district court found no First Amendment violation but ruled FDOC violated due process by failing to provide proper notice for many impounded issues and enjoined FDOC to comply with its notice rule.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it applied Turner deference and upheld impoundments as reasonably related to penological interests, but agreed that FDOC’s widespread failure to provide the statutorily required notice violated procedural due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether impounding PLN issues for ad content violated the First Amendment under Turner | Impoundments censor protected speech and are not justified because FDOC lacks direct evidence that PLN’s ads caused security breaches; Turner should be applied with less deference | Impoundments are content neutral, advance legitimate penological interests (security/public safety), and are reasonably related to those interests under Turner factors | Upheld FDOC: Turner applies with deference; all four Turner factors favor FDOC and impoundments do not violate the First Amendment |
| Whether amici’s call for diminished Turner deference should be adopted | Recent First Amendment jurisprudence requires reduced deference to prison officials | Supreme Court precedent (Turner, Beard, etc.) requires wide deference to prison administrators; only the Supreme Court can overrule its precedents | Rejected amici’s argument; Eleventh Circuit followed existing Supreme Court Turner/Beard framework and afforded deference |
| Whether FDOC’s notice procedures satisfied procedural due process when impounding issues | FDOC contends notice failures were negligent and not systemic; publishers should sue individual mailroom staff if harmed | Publisher is entitled to timely, specific notice and an opportunity to be heard; FDOC is responsible for enforcing its own rule | Held for PLN: FDOC failed to provide required notice for a large share of impounded issues; injunction requiring compliance with notice rule was appropriate |
| Scope of notice required (per‑issue vs. per‑copy) | PLN argued for copy‑by‑copy notice for each impounded copy | FDOC argued less notice suffices; administrative rule contemplates one notice per issue when all copies are impounded for same reasons | Court held per‑issue notice adequate when all copies of an issue are impounded for the same reason; FDOC still must provide specific reasons for each impounded issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (governs judicial review of prison regulations affecting constitutional rights; regulation valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (U.S. 1989) (publisher access to inmates is protected but subject to deference for prison security; regulations may be content‑neutral)
- Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (U.S. 2006) (plurality) (reaffirmed deference to prison administrators under Turner)
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (U.S. 2003) (courts must accord substantial deference to professional judgment of prison administrators)
- Perry v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, 664 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 2011) (upheld FDOC restriction on pen‑pal solicitation; notice/Turner issues addressed)
- Livingston v. Prison Legal News, 683 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2012) (upheld removal of certain prisoner‑oriented materials as reasonably related to prison safety)
- Montcalm Publishing Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) (publishers entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard when publications are disapproved)
- Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 420 (10th Cir. 2004) (followed Montcalm; publishers’ due process rights when mail blocked)