Ray Hrdlicka v. Perry Reniff
631 F.3d 1044
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Ray Hrdlicka and Crime, Justice & America (CJA) sue two California county jails for First Amendment violations due to refusal to distribute unsolicited CJA to inmates.
- District courts granted summary judgment to the defendants under Turner v. Safley four-factor test.
- CJA is distributed unsolicited to inmates via general jail distribution or individually addressed mail, typically one copy for every ten inmates weekly.
- Sacramento County Jail stopped unsolicited deliveries in 2005 citing an Operations Order; Butte County Jail prohibited all unsolicited commercial mail via a Departmental Order issued in 2004.
- Plaintiffs alleged the policies burden publishers’ and inmates’ First Amendment interests in distributing/receiving unsolicited publications.
- Court reverses, finding material facts preclude summary judgment and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a First Amendment interest is implicated and Turner applies. | Hrdlicka argues publishers and inmates have First Amendment interests in unsolicited distribution/receiving. | Jails contend prisons are non-public fora and Turner does not apply to unsolicited mail in that context. | Turner applies; interests implicated; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Whether the jails’ policies are rationally related to legitimate penological objectives. | Policies lack strong evidence of security/administrative burdens to justify blanket ban. | Policies rationally related to security, clutter reduction, and resource concerns. | Material facts remain; cannot conclude rational relation on record. |
| Whether alternative avenues to exercise the right remain available. | General or targeted distribution with minimal burden could reach inmates. | Inmates can only receive publications upon request; alternatives may be impractical. | Fact questions exist about practicality and effectiveness of alternatives. |
| Whether accommodating the asserted right would excessively burden staff/resources. | Plaintiffs offer limited distribution and minimal additional burden; may be manageable. | Distribution would impose significant staff time and monitoring costs. | Material disputes remain on resource impact; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Whether California bail-licensee regulations foreclose unsolicited distribution. | Not addressed below; plaintiffs argue potential conflict with state regs. | Policy compliance with California regulations is a separate issue. | Court declines to decide at this stage; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (Supreme Court 1989) (First Amendment interests with inmates; Turner framework cited)
- Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (Supreme Court 1974) (prison administration interests govern communications)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court 1987) (four-factor test for regulating inmate rights)
- Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) (gift publications ban struck down under Turner)
- Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005) (ban on non-subscription bulk mail unconstitutional under Turner)
- Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001) (bulk-rate mail ban struck down for subscription publications)
- Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2001) (pre-paid subscription mail restrictions invalid under Turner)
- PLN II, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005) (non-subscription bulk mail ban invalid under Turner)
- Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2009) (First Amendment interest in distributing unsolicited materials; public fora distinction)