Free speech, expression, association.

19. Free Speech, Expression, Association U.S. Appeals Court Bear v. Kautzky, 305 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2002). State prisoners brought a [section] 1983 action PRISONERS against prison officials, challenging a prison policy that prohibits prisoners from communicating with other prisoners who serve as jailhouse lawyers. The district court entered a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the policy. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the prisoners demonstrated that they had suffered actual injury for the purpose of a right-of-access to court claim. The prisoners had testified that they had pending post- conviction proceedings and they did not have the knowledge or skill to pursue those claims without legal assistance, and that they were receiving or had sought such assistance from jailhouse lawyers. According to the court, a prison system may experiment with prison libraries, jailhouse lawyers, private lawyers on contract with the prison, or some combination of these and other devices, as long as there is no actual harm to the constitutional access rights of particular inmates to the courts. (Iowa State Penitentiary) U.S. Appeals Court Dewitt v. Wall, 41 Fed.Appx. 481 (1st Cir. 2002). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action VISITS against prison officials, challenging a prison policy that prohibits former correctional employees from visiting prisoners. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the policy was rationally connected to legitimate concerns about prison security. (Adult Correctional Institution, Rhode Island) U.S. Appeals Court Duamutef v. Hollins, 297 F.3d 108 (2nd Cir. 2002). A prison inmate brought a pro se [section] CENSORSHIP 1983 action against prison officials alleging arbitrary censorship of his mail. The district court denied summary judgment for the officials and they appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that prison officials had acted in pursuit of legitimate penological interests by imposing a temporary mail watch on the inmate. The mail watch was imposed after the inmate received a book with the phrase "Blood in the Streets" in its title. Even though the book was a "harmless economics book" the appeals court held that the title could easily arouse concern in the prison officials, and they could base a security decision on the title alone. The court noted that the inmate had an extensive disciplinary...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT