Otis L. Smith v. Paul Delo Debbie Reed
995 F.2d 827
8th Cir.
1993
Check Treatment

*2 ARNOLD, Before MORRIS SHEPPARD judgment. The district court adopted the GIBSON, Judge, Circuit FLOYD magistrate R. Senior judge’s report and recommenda- KYLE,* Judge, tion, Circuit Judge, District appeals. and Smith GIBSON, FLOYD R. Senior Circuit II. DISCUSSION *3 Judge. A. The Standard appeals grant Smith the district court’s1 of analyzing “When impinge actions that summary judgment against him in his chal- upon prisoners’ rights, constitutional lenge to certain regulations. We must steer between two well-established affirm. hand, principles: prisoners on the one do not lose all their constitutional while be I. BACKGROUND bars; hand, hind on the other federal courts judgment must defer to the of those officials Smith has been an inmate in the Missouri responsible for the inordinately difficult task 1983, System Correctional since and is cur- Quinn of operating prison.” Nix, a v. 983 rently incarcerated at the Potosi Correctional (8th 115, Cir.1993). F.2d 118 Typically, the 1989, Center. Prior to all inmate decisions of upheld officials are so mail addressed to members of the media or long “reasonably as are legiti related to clergy of the privileged. was classified as penological mate interests.” Turner v. This classification meant that the mail could Saf 78, ley, 89, 2254, 2261, 482 U.S. 107 S.Ct. 96 be sent mailroom sealed. After (1987). L.Ed.2d 64 This examination focuses 1989, February categories these of mail were rationally whether the upon re privileged,” reclassified as “not which meant lated to objective, a and neutral that it had to be sent to the mailroom Thornburgh 401, 414, 490 U.S. 109 inspected unsealed so it could be for contra- 1874, 1882, (1989), S.Ct. 104 L.Ed.2d 459 proper addressing.2 band and Prison offi- whether exercising alternative means for cials non-privileged read mail to deter- exist, id. at (to mine whether it contains threats either accommodation of the will have individuals) impact prison security or or evidence of prison, on others in the id. at 109 S.Ct. illegal activity. Barring inclusion of these obvious, at and whether less-restrictive matters, impermissible the mail is not cen- easy response alternatives exist to the taken sored. by the officials. Id. suit, alleging Smith filed the reclassifica- ,a arguing In exacting for more standard of tion of nonprivi- media mail as review, Smith relies on v. Mar- Procunier leged violated his First Amendment tinez, 416 U.S. 94 S.Ct. 40 L.Ed.2d (hereinafter The defendants “the offi- (1974). Martinez, 224 Smith insists that cials”) summary judgment. for moved interprets establishing which he as a “less magistrate judge initially denied the motion test, applies, restrictive means” case applied request insofar as it to Smith’s (unlike because both Martinez and this case relief, declaratory injunctive granted but Abbott) outgoing prison- Turner and involved applied the motion insofar as it to Smith’s agree er mail. We do not Smith’s inter- with request monetary damages based Martinez, pretation particularly light of qualified immunity. Upon officials’ Supreme Court’s discussion of that case reconsideration, magistrate judge con- in Abbott. change cluded the in classification did not Martinez, granted violate the First Amendment Supreme In Court struck summary officials’ prison regulations motion for down California that at- Kyle, Currently, privileged *The Honorable Richard H. United States mail is considered it is Minnesota, Judge courts, District ting by designation. for the District of sit- judges, gov- addressed to or from elected officials, officials, prison, parole ernment members, board Filippine, attorneys. 1. The Honorable Edward L. Chief or Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. deciding degree when content of mail sent to dence tempted to control 399-400, prison. involved; however, Id. at read in con- recipients outside risk when discussing S.Ct. at 1805.3 junction with the Court’s discussion Abbott it specifically stated that the Abbott paragraph, appears it in the above cited should, or that Martinez did “not believe estab- Martinez should not be understood as need, subjecting the decisions be read as only lishing special applies test that when to a strict ‘least restrictive prison officials constitutionality evaluating the noted, required no test. As Martinez means’ governing outgoing mail. Martinez should challenged that a be more than striking regula- down the understood necessary’ legitimate govern- ‘generally rationally related to a tion because was U.S., S.Ct. at [94 interest. 416 at mental objective penological and neutral at 1811].” *4 regulation than and because the went further explain on to that “a The Court went 1880. governmental inter- necessary to serve valid reading suggests that of Martinez careful analysis This is not different from the ests. rejection regulation the at issue result- our by Consequently, an- Turner. we mandated require- not from a least restrictive means ed in alyze reclassification at issue this case the ment, recognition regu- but from our that the under the Turner standard. activity centrally at issue in that case— lated personal correspondence pris- from Application of Turner not, nature, very pose B. by its oners —did security.” serious threat to order and start, required by by We (footnote omitted). Finally, the Id. Abbott examining regulation the is rational whether explained regulations that the in Mar- objec ly and neutral related ‘generally neces- “were broader than tinez deposi Through their affidavits and tive. sary5 protect the interests at stake.” Id. tions, explained the officials that the 412, 109 S.Ct. at 1881. at screening mail for prison had an interest also said that “the It is true that Abbott threats, contraband, plans, or evi escape analyses in Martinez ... re- logic of [the] illegal activity. Although there is dence of regula- quires that Martinez be limited security outgoing mail less of a risk with concerning outgoing correspondence.” tions precisely going out of the because the mail is However, 109 S.Ct. at 1881. the Id. at prison, 490 U.S. at 109 S.Ct. at it refers of this statement indicates context ’ no that offi there is also doubt implica- “[t]he to Martinez conclusion that justified discovering refusing cials are outgoing correspondence for tions of process mail contains these matters. that magni- categorically are of a lesser 1880; Martinez, Id. at 109 S.Ct. at 416 incoming implications than the mate- tude 412-13, being 1881. This U.S. at making clear that rials.” Id. The Court was case, apparent it is that the at the to further carve out areas of going it was not reasonably issue is related to this high security, as it relatively or low risks to only by discovering the contents of purpose; in- rejected proposed all distinctions between that mail the mail can officials insure incoming coming inmates and mail from words, containing improper matters is not sent out from non-inmates. Id. other prison.4 outgoing correspon- is limited to side Martinez inmates, However, precisely they prohibited sending are of let- because "unduly compIain[ed],” "magnified] incarcerated, necessarily (though ters that grievances,” "expressed] racial, surrender some , inflammatory political, all) Thus, their First Amendment not beliefs,” religious or other views or "con- though properly recognizes the dissent matter,” Martinez, foreign inap- or were "otherwise tain propriate.” might infringe procedures issue the inmates' at 416 & n. U.S. at 399 they applied were Sixth Amendment 1805 & n. 4. & n. 94 S.Ct. at 1804 & n. legal correspondence, automatically not this does procedures invalid under the render'the at issue prison, the First Amendment In the context of a applied are to me- First Amendment when equal Sixth Amendment do not sit on an and the footing. clergy dia and mail. virtually same Inmates retain Sixth protections Amendment afforded to non-inmates. anything Determining whether alternative defendants had to do with classification, exercising right changing asserted change means has complicated the diffi the inmates exist is prison system. effect over the entire Missouri right ascertaining precise that culties in problems The fact that no were encountered at issue is the is asserted. If the at Potosí does mean Potosí should be with the media and outside to communicate exempt regulation. from an otherwise valid institutions, figures there is no religious Second, importantly, prison and most officials means exist. The rec doubt that alternative problems do not need to wait to occur may phone use the ord reflects that inmates them; addressing before officials are pris people to communicate with outside preemptively pre- entitled to act in order to that, on, under and there is also an indication problems occurring vent from in the first circumstances, meetings in-person certain 404-06, place. See been) (and arranged. More have S.Ct. at 1807. over, challenged does not bar mail; per communication via the Smith Finally, examine alterna available fectly free to write to the media or regulation. argues tives to the Smith subjects (including range about a wide (as past) can it had in the maintain prison) being without matters critical of the their a list of media outlets and addresses this, Recognizing Smith seems to censored. *5 and allow mail addressed to the outlets to be for exer argue there is no alternative means premise sealed. The sent to mailroom cising his to unmonitored communica upon efficacy Smith bases the which right. not believe he has such a tion. We do procedure pre-identified is that media outlets Certainly, monitoring of communi constant plans, likely escape not be to facilitate would problem great constitu cations would be a letters, threatening and would not forward if we dealt with communica tional dimension any report prison to the authorities would non-inmates and the media or tions between doubt, activity or contraband contained in However, illegal in there is no clergy. Foltz, Burton v. pris and that mail sent inmates. light of both Martinez Cf (E.D.Mich.1984). legitimate pre 114, 116 interest in on officials have a How F.Supp. communicating venting from certain inmates ever, making prison officials contend the it, types of information. easy not as as seems. of such a list is First, great there would be a deal of difficul Thirdly, impact examine the on Obviously, identifying ty in “the media.” struck non-prisoners were Post-Dispatch News the St. Louis ABC and regulation, represents which down. If this However, the list. be included on would only identifying impermissible method of exist; instance, problematic more entities mail, allowed, containing not were group’s newsletter have would an extremist threats, pro escape plans, etc. would so, interests prison’s If to be included? knowledge cessed and delivered without undermined; seriously the list would may be This a tremendous prison officials. has satisfy necessarily prison enable officials, strong prison who have a impact on objective of constitutionally-permissible its deterring, and discov preventing, interest in communication is insuring illegitimate that escape plans. It have a ering also would upon by prison and acted not sent out of the anyone receiving threat strong impact on excluded, groups could be outsiders. If such from an inmate. in impossible an task face would deter struggled it formulating the list as in meaning Smith finds much the fact exclud groups properly could be mine which identify an officials could not ed, determina standard such impermissible matters in which instance con These barriers tions would be made. clergy mail included in media and when were not re Constitution does vince us that the privi types of mail were treated those mem prison maintain a list of quire the allegation leged. not find this factual We do First, send to which inmates of bers of the media terribly important. neither to be impose mail.5 Martinez does not a “least sealed restrictive prison regulation means” test on Smith, problems recognizing the in mail, require regulation’s it does that a “limi- deciding herent in who should should not tation of First [inmates’] Amendment free- list, suggests be included on a greater necessary be no doms must than is their constitutional officials can meet obli protection particular or essential to the of the of, instance, gations by making a list Martinez, governmental interest involved.” twenty-five media outlets. We do not find 416 U.S. at at 1811. other First, availing. Smith either this solution words, requires challenged regula- right to has or does not have a unmonitored “generally necessary” tion be media; with the the Constitu communication government Thornburgh interest. grant him a tion would not unmoni (citing 490 U.S. at 109 S.Ct. at 1880 only twenty-five tored communication with 1811). 416 U.S. at Second, a limited list members of the media. reg- The defendants here maintain that the problems does not avoid the we have re imposed counted; pris- ulations were in the interest of problems undoubtedly arise Court, security. however, The over included and Abbott ob- who should be excluded outgoing prisoner served that mail does “not from the list.6 nature, pose, by very its a serious threat to III. CONCLUSION security.” order and present- 109 S.Ct. at 1880. Defendants have regulation requiring media and nothing ed to indicate that the situation with- mail to to the be sent mailroom un- prison system materially in their different rationally related to the sealed is offi- They from that assessed Abbott. make preventing cials’ interest only general prisoners assertions that will contraband, discovering contains mail that any possible use means to breach threats, escape plans evidence of and other *6 security, proposition a that we admit activity. regulation pro- illicit does not necessarily approving without the means to communicating any per- hibit inmates from they have resorted to ensure message, might even missible those that security. unflattering prison. to also There does by appear to be a less-restrictive manner regulation The Missouri is similar to those which the officials can vindicate their inter- upheld that have been when used to screen Accordingly, ests. we affirm the district mail, incoming which is considered a much court. See, greater prison security. e.g., threat to 78, 107 Safley, Turner v. 482 U.S. S.Ct. ARNOLD, MORRIS SHEPPARD (1987) (upholding prison regu 96 L.Ed.2d 64 dissenting. disallowing lation mail between inmates ex I respectfully cept dissent. Procunier v. Mar family that between immediate mem tinez, 416 U.S. 94 S.Ct. 40 L.Ed.2d bers who are inmates at different institu (1974), tions); Abbott, by Thornburgh as limited v. Ab 490 U.S. 109 S.Ct. 1874 bott, 490 U.S. 104 (upholding prison regulation allowing warden (1989), reject any publication L.Ed.2d 459 controls this case and to ordered inmate requires publication security, us to hold that the Missouri is detrimental to order, regulations good discipline, might are unconstitutional. While or ifor facili- Morris, (8th argument, iant-Bey 5. At oral Smith's counsel seemed to 829 F.2d Cir.1987). duty waver on whether the officials had a religious groups to maintain a list of to which inmates could send inmate mail. We believe argues jobs 6. Smith also officials’ everything applies we have said about the media were easier when media and mail were equally Additionally, well to this context. privileged. This is irrelevant to our constitution- often, note officials would an face additional Very al discussion. measures are regard religious groups burden with to impose responsi- because onerous and burdens those them; officials implementing cannot enact mail ble for- this does not mean religion. they implemented. that discriminate on the basis of Val- not be should activity). type The same tate criminal generally necessary

regulation considered to hardly be incoming mail can consid-

screen necessary to screen generally

ered admittedly poses

mail because former prison security greater threat to than

far the latter. A commensurate

does security might in- the lesser threat to

with

clude mailroom verification that an addressee correspondence

of sealed is a member religious orga-

staff of a media or (just correspon-

nization do now with attorneys, judges, privi- and other

dence addressees).

leged legal Such a chilling the inevitable effect

would eliminate has on inmates’

that the current restriction Amendment

exercise of their First bottom, my disagreement with the

At my inability perceive

court has to do with

any juridical distinction between the safe-

guards required protect the First Amend- rights required asserted here and those ment See also 312 N.W.2d 907. safeguard secured the Sixth Amendment.

I therefore reverse. *7 McKEE, Appellant,

Dennis L. NIX,

Crispus Appellee. C. 92-2717.

No. Appeals, States

United

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March

Decided June