Smith v. Beard
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 339
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Smith filed a Petition for Review challenging DC-ADM-803 Inmate Mail and Incoming Publication Policy as applied to Playboy Magazine.
- Petition asserts First and Fourteenth Amendment class-action concerns, seeking broad relief including amendment of the Policy and injunctive relief.
- Policy bans Playboy while allowing other magazines/books; alleges overbreadth, vagueness, and discriminatory treatment.
- Secretary filed preliminary objections (demurrers) to each claim, asserting the Policy is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
- Court applies demurrer standard: accepts only well-pled facts and determines if law permits recovery; cites Turner, Brittain, and Overton to defer to penological rationale.
- Court dismisses all claims, finds no sufficient pled facts to defeat penological interests or establish equal-protection/overbreadth violations, denies class-action certification, and sustains the objections; petition dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment challenge to Policy | Smith asserts Policy bans Playboy violates First Amendment rights. | Beard argues Policy satisfies Turner/Brittain standards; specific facts insufficient to defeat penological interests. | Grant of demurrer to First Amendment claim; policy deemed reasonably related to penological interests. |
| Equal protection and overbreadth challenges | Smith argues policy is overbroad and discriminates against Playboy compared to Maxim/Curves/Bible. | Policy applies to all inmates; no suspect class; claims lack factual support on similarity to Playboy; overbreadth not shown. | Demurrer sustained; equal-protection and overbreadth claims dismissed. |
| Overly restrictive nature of Policy | Policy more restrictive than Obscenity Law and infringes inmates' rights. | Prison regulations may be more restrictive; policy reasonably related to penological interests. | Demurrer sustained; policy not unconstitutionally overrestrictive. |
| Class action status | Certification requested to resolve issues impacting all inmates. | Class action unnecessary because decision would bind Department nationwide; no adequate class allegations. | Demurrer sustained; no class action certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations reviewed for reasonable relationship to penological interests)
- Brittain v. Beard, 601 Pa. 409 (2009) (policy sustained as reasonably related to penological interests)
- Payne v. Department of Corrections, 582 Pa. 375 (2005) (presumptively reasonable policy; burden on inmate to disprove validity)
- Overton v. Bazetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) (courts defer to professional judgment of prison administrators; burden on prisoner to disprove policy)
- Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307 (2001) (inmates not a suspect class; rational basis review applies)