28. Mail.

U.S. Appeals Court CORRESPONDENCE-COURT PACKAGES MEDIA

Brown v. Williams, 36 Fed.Appx. 361 (10th Cir. 2002). A state prisoner brought a pro se [section] 1983 action against prison officials, challenging the handling of his mail from his attorney and from a radio station. The district court dismissed the case and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the fact that a mail package sent by an attorney was never received by the prisoner, and that another package from the attorney was opened in the prisoner's presence by prison officials, did not amount to a deprivation of the prisoner's First Amendment right or his right to counsel or right of access to the courts. The court also found that prison officials' interception of incoming correspondence addressed to the prisoner from a radio station and an outgoing letter to the radio station's address, was reasonable in light of the personal nature of the correspondence. The incoming letter contained a check for the prisoner and was sent by his godmother, who worked for the radio station. The court noted that prison officials may regulate correspondence thought to be disguised as privileged mail. (Lea County Correctional Facility, Oregon)

U.S. Appeals Court PROHIBITION-PUBLICATIONS

Rogers v. Morris, 34 Fed.Appx. 481 (7th Cir. 2002). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action alleging that prison regulations violated his First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that prison regulations banning pornography and material that teaches or advocates behavior consistent with a gang did not violate the prisoner's First Amendment rights. Under the regulation, prison officials had withheld various magazines devoted to hip-hop music and culture, and certain "internet materials" sent to him by mail. (Wisconsin)

U.S. Appeals Court PROHIBITION-PUBLICATIONS

Sorrels v. McKee, 287 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action challenging a prison policy that prohibited prisoners from receiving publications as gifts. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the prison's no-gift publications policy violated the prisoner's First Amendment rights but that prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity. According to the court, the policy of rejecting gift publications was not rationally related to a legitimate penological interest. The appeals court found no procedural due procession violation in the officials' failure to notify the prisoner that his gift subscription to a law journal was being withheld. (Airway Heights Corrections Center, Washington)