Yang v. Mo. Dep't of Corr.

Citation833 F.3d 890
Decision Date15 August 2016
Docket NumberNo. 15-2231,15-2231
Parties Richard Yang, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Missouri Department of Corrections ; George Lombardi, Director, MDOC; John Doe; Tom Clements, Director of Division of Adult Institutions ; Mariann Atwell, Director, Division of Offender Rehabilitative Services; Patricia Cornell, Deputy Division Director; Fred Johnson, Deputy Warden, Potosi Correctional Center ; Don Roper, Warden, Potosi Correctional Center ; Omer L. Clark, Deputy Warden, Southeast Correctional Center ; William (Bill) Stange, Deputy Warden, Southeast Correctional Center ; Allan Hughes, Committee Member, Southeast Correctional Center ; Angela Riddell, CCA, Southeast Correctional Center ; Dwayne Kempker, Deputy Director, Division of Adult Institutions ; K. Malloy, Functional Unit Manager, Potosi Correctional Center ; G. Phagley, Committee Member, Potosi Correctional Center ; Cindy Griffin, Functional Unit Manager, Potosi Correctional Center, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

833 F.3d 890

Richard Yang, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Missouri Department of Corrections ; George Lombardi, Director, MDOC; John Doe; Tom Clements, Director of Division of Adult Institutions ; Mariann Atwell, Director, Division of Offender Rehabilitative Services; Patricia Cornell, Deputy Division Director; Fred Johnson, Deputy Warden, Potosi Correctional Center ; Don Roper, Warden, Potosi Correctional Center ; Omer L. Clark, Deputy Warden, Southeast Correctional Center ; William (Bill) Stange, Deputy Warden, Southeast Correctional Center ; Allan Hughes, Committee Member, Southeast Correctional Center ; Angela Riddell, CCA, Southeast Correctional Center ; Dwayne Kempker, Deputy Director, Division of Adult Institutions ; K. Malloy, Functional Unit Manager, Potosi Correctional Center ; G. Phagley, Committee Member, Potosi Correctional Center ; Cindy Griffin, Functional Unit Manager, Potosi Correctional Center, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-2231

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 14, 2016
Filed: August 15, 2016
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied September 23, 2016


Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Christopher Swiecicki, of Chesterfield, MO. Appellant's brief was filed pro se by Richard Yang.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Katherine S. Walsh, AAG, of Saint Louis, MO. The following attorney(s) appeared on the appellee brief; Katherine S. Walsh, AAG, of Saint Louis, MO.

Before COLLOTON and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and MOODY,1 District Judge.

833 F.3d 893

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Richard Yang, an inmate in Missouri, appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against several officials of the Missouri Department of Corrections under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Yang alleged that the officials violated his constitutional rights when they censored his Chinese-language mail and denied him the ability to place telephone calls to China. The district court2 granted summary judgment for the officials, and we affirm.

I.

Yang was born in China in 1940. He moved to the United States in 1984 and is now a citizen. Yang has been incarcerated in the Missouri Department of Corrections since 2005, when he was sentenced to twenty years in prison for second-degree murder.

Yang's first language is Mandarin Chinese. He can speak, read, and write English, although he claims he cannot fully express himself in English. Yang's relatives remain in China, and none of them understands English.

When he was first imprisoned, the Department allowed Yang to correspond in Chinese. But from late 2007 to some point in 2008, and again after January 2011, Department officials refused for security reasons to deliver Yang's incoming and outgoing mail written in Chinese.

The officials restricted Yang's Chinese-language mail pursuant to the Department's censorship and mail policies. Those policies provide for censoring of mail that poses a threat to the security of the penal institution. Items written in a “language that staff are unable to interpret with current available resources” are said to present such a threat. Thus, all mail in a foreign language is sent to a committee that determines whether an employee-interpreter is available by reviewing the Department's “institutional translator list.” If an employee can interpret the mail, it is sent to that employee for review and screening before delivery to its intended destination. But if no employee on the list can interpret the mail, the committee censors the mail and informs the inmate of the basis for its decision.

At all times relevant to this litigation, no Department employees could read or translate Mandarin Chinese. Because several employees knew Spanish, however, the Department screened other inmates' Spanish-language mail during the periods when Yang's Chinese-language mail was rejected.

Yang twice complained about the treatment of his mail through the Department's grievance process. He explained that his family was unable to understand English, requested permission to send and receive Chinese-language mail, and demanded that the Department provide an interpreter who could review the mail and clear it for delivery. Department officials denied Yang's grievances.

Yang also sought to place telephone calls to his family and friends in China. Before February 2012, the Department prohibited all international calls. After that date, international calling was permitted, but Yang temporarily remained unable to call people in China due to technical difficulties. The Department's international-calling provider resolved those issues, and Yang may now call his family in China.

Throughout his time in prison, Yang has been able to place domestic telephone calls and to send and receive English-language

833 F.3d 894

mail. Yang mailed a couple letters in English to his family in China. Yang also attempted to contact a few acquaintances in the United States by mail and telephone. The recipients of Yang's communications, including family members in China, neither responded to his letters nor accepted his phone calls.

In May 2012, Yang, proceeding pro se , brought a § 1983 action against the Department and several officials. Yang alleged that the defendants had infringed his rights under the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause by denying him the ability to correspond in Chinese or to place telephone calls to his family and friends in China. Yang sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as money damages for past constitutional violations.

The district court dismissed Yang's complaint against the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Prison Legal News, Ctr., Charitable Corp. v. Sec'y
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • May 17, 2018
    ...inmates). Sending alternate publications might not be "ideal" for PLN, but Turner does not demand the ideal. See Yang v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 833 F.3d 890, 894–95 (8th Cir. 2016) (upholding a prison regulation that prohibited a Chinese inmate from corresponding in Chinese with his Chinese-sp......
  • Boyd v. Bureau of Prisons
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • August 8, 2022
    ... ... entity of which an officer is an agent.'”) (quoting ... Monell v. Dept of SocialServices , 436 U.S. 658, 690, ... n.55 (1981)). Under the doctrine of sovereign ... , Heyer v. United States Bureau ofPrisons , ... 849 F.3d 202, 213 (4th Cir. 2017); Yang v. Missouri ... Dep't of Corr. , 833 F.3d 890, 894 (8th Cir. 2016) ... (The rights ... ...
  • Boyd v. Bureau of Prisons
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • August 8, 2022
    ... ... entity of which an officer is an agent.'”) (quoting ... Monell v. Dept of SocialServices , 436 U.S. 658, 690, ... n.55 (1981)). Under the doctrine of sovereign ... , Heyer v. United States Bureau ofPrisons , ... 849 F.3d 202, 213 (4th Cir. 2017); Yang v. Missouri ... Dep't of Corr. , 833 F.3d 890, 894 (8th Cir. 2016) ... (The rights ... ...
  • Scharnhorst v. Cantrell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas
    • February 10, 2023
    ...with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.” Yang v. Missouri Dept. of Corr., 833 F.3d 890, 894 (8th Cir. 2016). These rights include “the right to communicate with persons outside the prison walls ....” Id. Plaintiff's First Amendm......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...to Ku Klux Klan justif‌ied because letter frustrated rehabilitation through positive social interaction); Yang v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 833 F.3d 890, 895 (8th Cir. 2016) (banning prisoner’s outgoing mail written in Chinese justif‌ied because prison unable to detect plots to escape or smuggle ......

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