Robbins v. Foster
| Decision Date | 21 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 17-3345,17-3345 |
| Parties | SHANE T. ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRIAN FOSTER, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
Submitted May 21, 2018*
Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
ORDER
Shane Robbins, an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution, mail-ordered a gynecology study guide, which prison officials confiscated before it reached him. Robbins claims that those officials violated the First Amendment by withholding his book. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants. Because thebook contains images detrimental to prison security and Robbins's rehabilitation, and alternative textbooks are available, we affirm the judgment.
Robbins was convicted of several counts of child enticement and sexually assaulting two minor girls. He ordered the Williams Gynecology Study Guide, he says, to "educate [him]self on female sex organs" to assist his litigation of a postconviction petition. The book contains images of uncovered female breasts and genitalia and at least "one full-length photograph of a naked prepubescent girl, and several images of girls' genitals," so prison officials confiscated it. They told Robbins that the book was "injurious" contraband because, under Department of Corrections policy, it included "pornography" and was inconsistent with or threatened prison security and inmate safety. See WIS. ADMIN. CODE DOC § 309.04(4)(c)(8). Robbins unsuccessfully grieved and then appealed that decision.
Robbins then claimed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that prohibiting the Williams guide violated his First Amendment rights. The judge entered summary judgment in the officials' favor primarily based on affidavits by the prison's psychologist, security director, and librarian. Robbins, the judge determined, had not countered the evidence that the Williams guide might impede the rehabilitation of Robbins and other inmates or that it likely would cause fights or theft. Therefore, the judge concluded, the officials adequately had justified their decision to prohibit the book as "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987), and that Robbins had not overcome the presumption that the officials had "acted within their 'broad discretion,'" Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 232 (2001) (quoting Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 713 (1989)). And there was no effective alternative to prohibiting the book, the judge said, because there were too many pictures to redact and Department policy bars officials from removing disallowed pages, see WISC. DIV. OF ADULT INST. POLICY § 309.20.03(I)(C)(5)(b).
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. See Jackson v. Frank, 509 F.3d 389, 391 (7th Cir. 2007). Although the First Amendment protects an inmate's access to reading material, prisons may have "valid penological reasons" for restricting certain books. Munson v. Gaetz, 673 F.3d 630, 633 (7th Cir. 2012); see also King v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 415 F.3d 634, 638-39 (7th Cir. 2005) (). We consider four factors to determine whether such a restriction is reasonably related to penological interests: "(1) the validity and rationality of the connection between a government objective and the restriction; (2) whether the prison leaves open 'alternative means of exercising' the restricted right; (3) the restriction's bearing on the guards, other inmates, and the allocation of prison resources; and (4) the existence of alternatives suggesting that the prison exaggerates its concerns." Munson, 673 F.3d at 633 (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-91). It is Robbins's burden to show that the prison's regulation is unreasonable. Jackson, 509 F.3d at 391.
As to the first factor, the officials' decision to prohibit the Williams guide is legitimately connected to their interest in promoting Robbins's rehabilitation and maintaining prison security. See WIS. ADMIN. CODE DOC § § 309.04(4)(c)(8)(c). The prison psychologist explained that Robbins still is waiting for sex-offender treatment and that, based on his specific offense history, "unfettered access to the book" and its images "could potentially feed his offense-related sexual fantasies and encourage deviant sexual behavior." Robbins responds by questioning the officials' interest in restricting nude images, citing a psychologist's statement in an unrelated case that suppressing all "sexually oriented materials does not mean that sex offenders will not have deviant urges." See Waterman v. Verniero, 12 F.Supp.2d 364, 371 (D. N.J. 1998), reversed by Waterman v. Farmer, 183 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 1999). But this general observation is not evidence, nor does it rebut the psychologist's specific finding in this case that the images of children in the Williams guide will impede Robbins's rehabilitation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); Carroll v. Lynch, 698 F.3d 561, 566 (7th Cir. 2012) (). The assessment, therefore, is undisputed.
The prison's interest in promoting a safe environment also supports prohibiting the Williams guide. The security director observed that...
To continue reading
Request your trial