Van Den Bosch v. Raemisch, 658 F.3d 778

Consolidated appeals challenge Wisconsin DOC regulations restricting incoming prisoner mail, including a ban on the March 2007 issue of The New Abolitionist published by Van den Bosch.
Van den Bosch, publisher of The New Abolitionist, sued DOC officials under §1983 alleging First Amendment and due process violations after the March 2007 edition was censored as injurious to prison security and rehabilitation.
Jones-El, a Wisconsin inmate, challenged the DOC's censorship of his May 2006 article and other related mail, alleging First Amendment violations for restricting his incoming and third-party mail.
Westfield, DOC Security Chief, declared the March 2007 issue injurious under Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.04(4)(c)(8) and notified prison mailrooms to enforce the ban.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on both plaintiffs’ claims, and on appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the censorship reasonably related to legitimate penological interests under Turner v. Safley.
The court emphasized deference to prison administrators and applied Turner’s four-factor test, concluding no constitutional violation was shown and that the third-party mail restriction was not an exaggerated response to prison concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the DOC censorship of Van den Bosch’s mail violates First Amendment rights.	Van den Bosch argues no rational connection to security/rehabilitation; censorship is pretextual.	Westfield affidavit shows article content threatened security/rehabilitation; ban reasonably related to penological interests.	No First Amendment violation; censorship reasonably related to penological interests.
Whether the DOC third-party mail restriction to Jones-El is constitutional under Turner.	Jones-El asserts broader speech rights; policy overly broad and punitive.	Policy prevents misuse of third-party mail, protecting safety; alternatives exist for legal aid via direct correspondence.	Not a constitutional violation; policy reasonably related to security with available alternatives.
Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment given Turner factors and deference to prison officials.	Disagreement with Westfield’s reasoning shows no rational connection.	Turner factors support reasonableness; deference owed to administrator judgments.	Summary judgment affirmed; no genuine issue as to reasonable connection.

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (four Turner factors govern prison regulation reasonableness)
Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (U.S. 1989) (publishers have a First Amendment interest in access to prisoners)
Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (U.S. 2003) (deference to prison administrators in penological interests)
Mays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2009) (Turner factors may be satisfied without explicit articulation of each factor)
Singer v. Raemisch, 593 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 2010) (upholding censorship of materials tied to security concerns)
Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2005) (pornography/obscene materials may be restricted when tied to penological interests)
Koutnik v. Brown, 456 F.3d 777 (7th Cir. 2006) (inmate speech restrictions must be reasonably related to rehabilitation and safety)