Pepperling v. Crist, 81-3086

• Decision Date: 02 June 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-3086,81-3086
• Citation: 678 F.2d 787
• Parties: Richard G. PEPPERLING, Lee Pendergrass, and Gary Quigg, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Roger W. CRIST, Warden of Montana State Prison; James Blodgett, Deputy Warden; Gary Weer, Associate Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 787

678 F.2d 787

Richard G. PEPPERLING, Lee Pendergrass, and Gary Quigg Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Roger W. CRIST, Warden of Montana State Prison; James Blodgett, Deputy Warden; Gary Weer, Associate Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 81-3086.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 3, 1981.

Decided June 2, 1982.

Gary Quigg, pro se.

Nick A. Rotering, Dept. of Institutions, Helena, Mont., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana.

Before GOODWIN and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and PANNER, ^* District Judge.

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:

Appellants are prisoners confined in the Montana State Prison. Their appeal challenges the constitutionality of conditions inside that institution. They object specifically to the use of mass punishments, confiscation of inmate property, and mail censorship. We note jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

1. MASS PUNISHMENTS

Careful review of the record reveals that the only evidence of mass punishments presented at trial described an incident which took place in April of 1980. A guard was hit and injured by a homemade dart. Prison officials immediately instituted a general lock-up in the cell block and began an investigation to determine who had committed the offense. The lock-up remained in effect for approximately 48 hours. Appellants contend that this action constituted a deprivation of constitutional rights. Essentially the claim is that such actions violate fundamental prohibitions against punishing the innocent. However, nothing in the actions of the prison officials indicates that the lock-up was intended to be disciplinary. The prisoners were not told, for example, that everyone would be confined until the guilty party confessed. There had been a major infraction of prison rules. Presumably, a prisoner was armed with some sort of weapon. The lock-up was instituted in order to maintain security within the cell block.

The courts accord the decisions of prison officials extreme deference, see Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 126, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 2538, 53 L.Ed.2d 629 (1977), especially in matters of internal security, see Phillips v. Bureau of Prisoners, 591 F.2d 966, 972 (D.C.Cir.1979).

The deprivations associated with an institutional lock-up, including twenty-four hour confinement, and curtailment of all association, exercise and normal vocational and educational activity, may constitute a due process violation, as well as a violation of the Eighth Amendment, if they persist too long. Necessarily, the determination of when emergency action, by its severity or prolongation, reaches a point requiring due process protection must be based on a careful analysis of the unique factual situations presented by each case. On the facts of the present case, we find no constitutional violation.

2. CONFISCATION OF INMATE PROPERTY

Appellants allege that prison guards conduct random searches of the cell block, and that during the course of these searches, prisoners' property is often damaged or stolen. Appellants are not complaining of the searches themselves, but that the manner in which they are conducted results in deprivations of property without due process.

The district court found that the allegations as to the takings were not proved. It determined that in most of the cases complained of, prisoners were in possession of contraband, items they knew were subject to confiscation. In others, there was some question as to whether the prison guards were, in fact, responsible. On the basis of the record before us, we cannot conclude that these findings by the district court were clearly erroneous; we therefore affirm its judgment as to this issue.

3. CENSORSHIP OF INMATE MAIL

The framework for analyzing First Amendment claims of prisoners was first identified in Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2804, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974), where the Court stated:

(A) prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system. Thus, challenges to prison restrictions that are asserted to prohibit First Amendment interests must be analyzed in terms of the legitimate policies and goals of the corrections system, to whose custody and care the prisoner has been committed in accordance with due process of law.

The legitimate penal objectives identified in Pell were deterrence of crime by the rehabilitation process and by the confinement of criminal offenders in a facility isolated from the rest of society, and the maintenance of internal security within the institution. Id. at 822-23, 94 S.Ct. at 2804.

Censorship of prisoners' mail, therefore, may be justified where the regulation or practice in question furthers one of these important or substantial governmental interests and is unrelated to the suppression of expression. But the limitation must be no greater than necessary to protect the governmental interest involved. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1811, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974).

Included in appellants' claims are issues involving the handling of prisoner mail, the prohibition on prisoners' receipt of nude pictures of wives and girlfriends, and the prohibition on receipt of certain publications, specifically Hustler and High Times.

Appellants contend that since prison officials do not eavesdrop on prisoner conversations with visitors, there is no rational reason for them to censor prisoner mail at all. Presumably, the kind of information which is considered a threat to prison security when contained in a letter poses the same threat when communicated orally. Admittedly, the logic of appellants' argument is attractive. However, censorship of prisoners' mail is, in some circumstances at least, entirely consistent with the rule that First Amendment rights must be protected by the least restrictive rule. Procunier, 416 U.S. at...