Thornley v. Edwards, Civ. No. 86-1503.
Decision Date | 20 March 1987 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 86-1503. |
Citation | 671 F. Supp. 339 |
Parties | Ronald THORNLEY, Plaintiff, v. C.R. EDWARDS, Warden, U.S.P., Lewisburg, PA, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Ronald Thornley, pro se.
Barbara L. Kosik, Asst. U.S. Atty., Scranton, Pa., for defendant.
Ronald Thornley, a prisoner at the U.S. Penitentiary at Lewisburg, PA (Lewisburg), filed a Request for Mandamus and a request to proceed in forma pauperis on October 22, 1986. Thornley alleged that prison officials "on a daily basis, open outside the presence of the addressee/inmate all incoming mail, clearly marked as originating from United States Courts, State and Municipal Courts, United States Department of Justice, and Department of State Attorney Generals." Document 1 of the record at p. 2. He further asserted that legal mail is opened by an automatic device which at times damages the envelope's contents. He requested injunctive relief compelling prison officials to cease this practice.
Magistrate Joseph F. Cimini filed a Report in this case on January 9, 1987. He recommended that on the basis of financial information submitted, Thornley be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. After noting that Thornley has exhausted his administrative remedies and that the court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the Magistrate recommended summary dismissal of the action. He concluded that Thornley's mandamus request is frivolous as a matter of law in light of the regulations set forth at 28 C.F.R. §§ 540.18 and 540.19. On January 26, 1987, Thornley filed Exceptions in which he argued that the opening of his legal mail outside his presence violates his constitutional right of free access to the courts.
For the reasons set forth below, the court determines that Thornley's allegation that prison officials open his legal mail outside his presence states a colorable violation of his sixth amendment right of free access to the courts. This case will be remanded to Magistrate Cimini to determine, by a rule to show cause or otherwise, whether any factual disputes exist and to recommend a proper disposition.
The relevant regulations of the Bureau of Prisons, 28 C.F.R. §§ 540.18 and 540.19, read as follows:
The above regulations indicate that "special mail" is opened in the inmate's presence. Correspondence qualifies as "special mail" only if it meets two requirements: (1) the sender is adequately identified on the envelope and (2) the "special mail" marking is inscribed on the front of the envelope. Legal mail is opened in the presence of the inmate only if it satisfies the criteria for "special mail."2
Prior to the adoption of §§ 540.18 and 540.19, case law had recognized that opening prisoners' legal mail outside of their presence chills their constitutional right of free access to the courts. For example, in Carty v. Fenton, 440 F.Supp. 1161 (M.D. Pa.1977) (Muir, J.), the court ordered the Warden at Lewisburg and the Director of Prisons to refrain from opening the petitioner's mail from state or local courts or the U.S. Department of Justice. Prison officials had maintained that federal prisoners' mail from state courts is not legal mail and should be processed as regular mail. The court responded:
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.... Whether or not a prisoner is involved in ... pending state actions, the constitutional guarantee of due process of law requires that prisoners be afforded access to the Courts citation omitted. 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.
440 F.Supp. at 1162-63. The court concluded that it was confident that the U.S. Supreme Court would condemn the practice of opening prisoners' legal mail outside their presence as an infringement of the Constitution. Id. at 1163.
Similarly, the court in Stover v. Carlson, 413 F.Supp. 718 (D.Conn.1976), issued a writ of mandamus directing prison officials at F.C.I.-Danbury, Conn. not to open legal mail outside the presence of the addressee/inmate. Legal mail was defined as correspondence from U.S. courts, attorneys, state courts, the U.S. Department of Justice, local prosecutors or state or foreign government officers. The court stated, "When mail from any court is opened outside the presence of the inmate, and the inmate knows that such mail may be read by prison officials, the `chilling effect' on the right of access to the courts is substantial." 413 F.Supp. at 722. The motivation of prison officials is irrelevant, i.e., "it is the fact of the opening outside the inmate's presence, not the official's motivation, that deters effective access to the courts." Id. at 721. The court also pointed out that the danger that legal mail which bears the name and return address of the sender may contain contraband is minimal and does not justify the general opening of such mail outside the presence of the addressee. Id. at 722. Thus, the court concluded that opening legal mail outside the presence of the prisoner "furthers no substantial governmental interest of security, order, or rehabilitation while limiting Sixth Amendment freedoms significantly." Id. Legal mail, therefore, "must be opened only in the presence of the inmate." Id.3
For other relevant cases on this issue, see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576-77, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2984-85, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) ( ); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974) ( );4Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 582 (10th Cir.1980) ( ); Guajardo v. Estelle, 580 F.2d 748, 757-59 (5th Cir.1978) ( ); Intersimone v. Carlson, 512 F.Supp. 526 (M.D.Pa. 1980) (Herman, J.) ( ); Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F.Supp. 269, 322 (D.N.H.1977) ( ); and Craig v. Hocker, 405 F.Supp. 656, 667 (D.Nev.1975) ( ).5
In his Report, the Magistrate noted that 28 C.F.R. §§ 540.18 and 540.19 were promulgated after the above-cited cases were decided.6 Nonetheless, these cases clearly establish that opening legal mail outside the presence of the addressee/inmate chills his sixth amendment right of free access to the courts....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bieregu v. Reno
...attorney and court mail in presence of prisoner violates inmate's rights to petition, counsel, and court access); Thornley v. Edwards, 671 F.Supp. 339, 342 (M.D.Pa.1987) (opening incoming court mail outside presence of inmate violates his rights to counsel and court access), mot. denied, su......
-
Young v. Keohane, Civ. No. 88-1995.
...relief when the inmate complained that his jailers opened mail from state and federal courts outside his presence. Thornley v. Edwards, 671 F.Supp. 339 (M.D.Pa.1987). In addition to the judge-made, constitutionally-based restrictions, federal regulations also circumscribe the ability of pri......
-
Hall v. Conklin
...from defendants' conduct. Plaintiff claims that special labeling of mail has been ruled unconstitutional since 1987 in Thornley v. Edwards, 671 F.Supp. 339 (M.D.Pa.1987). This Court has spent considerable time and effort analyzing the various legal decisions which govern on the issue of the......
-
Muhammad v. Pitcher
...Taylor v. Sterrett, 532 F.2d 462, 475 (5th Cir.1976); Faulkner v. McLocklin, 727 F.Supp. 486, 490 (N.D.Ind.1989); Thornley v. Edwards, 671 F.Supp. 339, 341 (M.D.Pa.1987); Carty v. Fenton, 440 F.Supp. 1161, 1163 (M.D.Pa.1977); Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F.Supp. 269, 322 (D.N.H.1977); Stover v. ......