19 F.3d 1427 (1st Cir. 1994), 93-1924, Lena v. DuBois

Docket Nº:93-1924
Citation:19 F.3d 1427
Party Name:Robert P. LENA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Larry E. DUBOIS, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.
Case Date:March 23, 1994
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Page 1427

19 F.3d 1427 (1st Cir. 1994)

Robert P. LENA, Plaintiff, Appellant,


Larry E. DUBOIS, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.

No. 93-1924

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

March 23, 1994

         Editorial Note:

         This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA1 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge ]

        Robert P. Lena on brief pro se.

        Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and Charles M. Wyzanski, Senior Litigation Counsel, Department of Correction, on brief for appellees.



        Before Breyer, Chief Judge, Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.

        Per Curiam.

        Plaintiff Robert Lena, an inmate at the Norfolk Correctional Institution in Massachusetts, challenges the constitutionality of prison rules barring the receipt of publications, ordered through the mail, that have not been paid for in advance. See 103 NOR § 403.25 ("All orders must be pre- paid. Any order arriving with a balance due will be returned to the company."). Below, plaintiff advanced two claims: (1) that this policy abridged his rights under the First Amendment; and (2) that prison officials violated his due process rights by failing to follow applicable procedures, see 103 CMR § 481.16, prior to returning a "bill later" book he had ordered. As plaintiff has offered no sustained argumentation on appeal in support of either of these claims, we affirm largely for the reasons recited by the Magistrate-Judge in her decision dated July 16, 1993. We note only the following.

        With respect to plaintiff's First Amendment claim, it is clear that the restriction on "bill later" materials is "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987); see Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413 (1989) (prison restrictions on incoming correspondence are to be assessed under Turner test). The superintendent here explained that the pre-payment requirement was implemented in order to prevent inmates from committing fraud on businesses and obligating funds beyond their means. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the legitimacy of these justifications "cannot seriously be...

To continue reading