Scott Nordstrom v. Charles Ryan
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15388
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Death-row inmate Scott Nordstrom alleges an ADC officer (Hawthorne) removed, read, and returned a clearly marked two-page letter to his appellate counsel on May 2, 2011; Nordstrom protested and filed grievances up to ADC Director Ryan.
- Director Ryan responded citing ADC Order 902.11 and stated staff "is not prohibited from reading the mail to establish the absence of contraband and ensure the content... is of legal subject matter," effectively approving reading/"scanning."
- Nordstrom sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming violations of the Sixth, First, and Fourteenth Amendments and sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop reading of legal mail.
- The district court dismissed his amended complaint under the PLRA screening statute, § 1915A, holding he failed to allege actual injury or prejudice and that scanning/reading in the inmate's presence is permitted for security.
- The Ninth Circuit reverses: it holds Nordstrom plausibly alleged a Sixth Amendment violation (reading attorney-client mail chills confidential communications) and alleged a realistic threat of repetition based on Director Ryan’s written response, so injunctive relief claims survive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reading outgoing, attorney-directed mail violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel | Reading legal mail chills confidential attorney-client communications and thus interferes with the right to counsel | Officials may inspect/scan legal mail for contraband and may read to the extent necessary; opening/reading in inmate's presence prevents censorship | Reading outgoing attorney-client mail (as alleged) plausibly states a Sixth Amendment claim because it likely chills confidential communications |
| Whether Nordstrom pleaded entitlement to prospective injunctive relief | Director Ryan’s statement that staff "is not prohibited from reading" shows an official policy/practice creating a realistic threat of future violations | The incident was isolated; policy permits limited inspection and alternate communications exist, so no realistic threat | Allegations plus Ryan’s written grievance response sufficiently allege a threat of repetition to support injunctive relief |
| Whether actual prejudice is required to state a Sixth Amendment claim in this civil-rights suit | Nordstrom alleges a chilling effect on communications sufficient to state a claim without showing conviction-tainting prejudice | Precedent (Williams/Weatherford) requires showing substantial prejudice or actual injury for Sixth Amendment interference | For an injunction suit alleging continuing practice, a plausible allegation of chilling based on intentional reading can state a claim; prejudice requirement for reversal of conviction is distinct |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (prison officials may open attorney mail in inmate's presence; presence prevents censorship/chilling)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations impinging rights are valid if reasonably related to penological interests)
- Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567 (9th Cir. 2004) (Sixth Amendment interference requires substantial prejudice; defines prejudice in confidentiality-interference context)
- Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977) (no Sixth Amendment violation absent disclosure creating realistic possibility of injury to defendant)
- Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801 (7th Cir. 2010) (reading prisoner-lawyer mail in criminal case raises serious Sixth Amendment concerns)