Owen v. Shuler
| Decision Date | 07 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. S 77-153.,S 77-153. |
| Citation | 466 F. Supp. 5 |
| Parties | Richard Lee OWEN II and David Spencer v. Cloid SHULER, Charles Adkins and Marian Miller. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Richard Lee Owen, II, pro se.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Kermit R. Hilles, Deputy Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that their sixth amendment rights of access to the courts and communication with attorneys have been violated by a temporary prison policy of checking legal mail for contraband, and request injunctive relief and damages. Plaintiffs establish in rhetorical paragraph 4 of their complaint that venue is proper in the Southern District though the complaint was filed in the Northern District.
This complaint is moot since, from the complaints and attachments, it appears that the practice complained of was stopped in April, 1976, sixteen months before the complaint was filed. The only instances alleged in the complaint concern mail received in March and early April, 1976. There is no allegation that this practice has continued to the present. The wording of the complaint establishes that this was not an on going procedure and that it has been discontinued. The attached documents also support this view. The complaint indicates past conduct, now discontinued, when it refers in paragraph 24 to "During the time that the prison was opening legal mail . . ." The attached letter of defendant Shuler, dated April 14, 1976, states that "We did open for a very short period of time attorneys' mail to determine if it contained contraband . . .", and Warden Jenkins' letter refers to it as a "temporary procedure."
Thus there is no allegation that this practice is still in effect and apparently it had not been in effect for approximately sixteen months before the complaint was filed. ; Mawhinney v. Henderson, 542 F.2d 1 at p. 2 (2d Cir. 1976). In this case the actual controversy will not exist at every stage of review since it did not even exist at the time the cause was filed. Where injunctive relief is sought, and the practice or regulation complained of has been clarified to conform to the request, such aspect of the complaint is moot. Peterson v. Davis, (D.C.Va.1976) 415 F.Supp. 198. Thus at least as far as injunctive and declaratory relief is concerned, the issue raised in this complaint is moot. In addition plaintiffs have not alleged that they suffered any actual harm or damages from these incidents. Plaintiffs have not been deprived of access to the courts, access to attorneys or any other federally protected right, and have suffered no harm from defendants' actions.
Even if this cause is not moot, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. The order in Aikens v. Lash, 371 F.Supp. 482 (N.D.Ind. 1974) referred to by plaintiffs in paragraphs 22 and 23 of their complaint states that:
At any such time as the prison authorities may have reasonable grounds to believe that any piece of attorney-client or client-attorney mail may contain contraband of any kind, then and only then may a prison official open such item of mail, but only in the immediate presence of the inmate involved, and such item of mail shall at that time be promptly handed over to the said inmate, all without reading, censoring, copying, or further interfering with the prompt deliverance or transmission of such item of mail. Aikens v. Lash, 371 F.Supp. 482 (N.D.Ind. 1974) at p. 487. (emphasis part of original)
Thus prison officials are allowed by the terms of this opinion to open legal mail if they have reasonable grounds to believe it may contain contraband and they follow...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Engblom v. Carey
...dimensions occurred. Cf. Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 648 F.2d 97, at 106 (2d Cir. 1981); Owen v. Shuler, 466 F.Supp. 5 (N.D.Ind.1977); aff'd. mem., 594 F.2d 867 (7th Cir. 1979). Plaintiffs do not specify a statute supporting this claim, and the court has foun......
-
Richardson v. Penfold
...421 F.Supp. 556 (1976). Lock v. Jenkins, 464 F.Supp. 541 (1978), aff'd in part, rev'd in part (1981) 641 F.2d 488 (1981). Owen v. Shuler, 466 F.Supp. 5 (1977), aff'd 594 F.2d 867 (1979). Owen v. Heyne, 473 F.Supp. 345 (1978), aff'd 605 F.2d 559 (1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 1090, 100 S.Ct. ......
-
Boyd v. Anderson
...mail to the facility. Mail arriving at the ISP on Friday or Saturday normally would not be delivered until Monday. See Owen v. Shuler, 466 F.Supp. 5, 7 (N.D.Ind.1977), affd, 594 F.2d 867 (7th Cir.1979). The plaintiffs describe this alleged delay in delivery of legal mail as an equal protect......
-
Rapier v. Harris
...for non-pork meals on three isolated occasions does not give rise to liability for a constitutional violation. Cf. Owen v. Shuler, 466 F.Supp. 5, 7 (N.D.Ind.1977) (holding that de minimis delays in mail delivery are unavoidable in any large institution and do not implicate the Constitution ......