Carty v. Fenton, Civ. No. 77-789.

• Decision Date: 21 November 1977
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 77-789.
• Citation: 440 F. Supp. 1161
• Parties: Charles W. CARTY, Petitioner, v. Charles E. FENTON, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and Norman Carlson, Director of Prisons, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

440 F. Supp. 1161

Charles W. CARTY, Petitioner, v. Charles E. FENTON, Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and Norman Carlson, Director of Prisons, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Respondents.

Civ. No. 77-789.

United States District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

November 21, 1977.

Charles W. Carty, pro se.

Joseph F. Cimini, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lewisburg, for respondents.

ORDER

MUIR, District Judge.

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Charles W. Carty, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed this petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking his release from prison. Petitioner claims that his mail from state courts and several other allegedly privileged sources is being opened out of his presence. Petitioner stated that he has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to this claim. In response to this Court's show-cause order, Respondents filed their answer, to which Petitioner filed a traverse. The matter is thus ripe for disposition.

Petitioner claims that he received mail from Alabama state courts, several United States district courts, and the United States Department of Justice which were opened in the Lewisburg mail room out of his presence. In response to Carty's request for administrative relief, Defendant Fenton, Warden at Lewisburg, replied, "Mail from State Courts is not considered legal mail and is processed the same as regular mail." In response to his appeal from this determination, Carty received the following statement from Clair A. Gripe, Assistant Director, General Counsel and Review:

"Current Bureau of Prisons policy does not require that your mail from State Courts be opened in your presence. There has, therefore, been no violation of current policy in the processing of your State Court mail in the same manner as general correspondence. As was noted by the Regional Director, the Bureau of Prisons is currently considering changes in the correspondence policy that would allow treating State Court mail in the same way as that from Federal Courts. There is no basis for further relief and your appeal, therefore, is denied."

Respondents claim that the Bureau of Prisons mail policy does not interfere with Petitioner's freedom of access to the Courts. In my view, it is high time that some General Counsel for the Bureau or some competent assistant reexamine all current Bureau of Prisons policies with a copy of the United States Constitution in hand. Since Petitioner's present confinement results from federal prosecution, Respondents argue, "mail bearing the return address of an alleged clerk, officer, or Judge of a State Court has, per se, `no obvious relationship to the inmate's incarceration.' As a result it is permissible to process such mail as regular inmate correspondence." The Respondents' reasoning is absurd. It is quite possible, as is alleged by Petitioner, that a federal prisoner will have state charges or detainers pending against him. Whether or not a prisoner is involved in such pending state actions, the constitutional guarantee of due process of law requires that prisoners be afforded access to the Courts. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 416, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974). Opening mail from state courts, Justice Department personnel and other prosecuting officials outside the presence of the inmate effectively chills access to the courts or a governmental entity that is intimately related to the administration of justice. No governmental interest in security or otherwise warrants this infringement of Sixth Amendment rights. Stover v. Carlson, 413 F.Supp. 718, 722 (1976). This Court will direct...