Valentine v. Gray, Civ. A. No. 74-89.

• Decision Date: 31 December 1975
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 74-89.
• Citation: 410 F. Supp. 1394
• Parties: James L. VALENTINE, Plaintiff, v. Frank H. GRAY et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

410 F. Supp. 1394

James L. VALENTINE, Plaintiff, v. Frank H. GRAY et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 74-89.

United States District Court, S. D. Ohio, E. D.

December 31, 1975.

John H. Burtch, Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Frederick L. Ransier, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, for defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

DUNCAN, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court for judgment upon stipulated facts. The complaint is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1970) and its jurisdictional counterpart, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) (1970). The question presented is whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee a state prisoner the right to engage in a business enterprise through use of the United States mails while he is lawfully incarcerated by the state.

The stipulations of the parties indicate that while incarcerated in the Chillicothe Correctional Institute, Chillicothe, Ohio, plaintiff James L. Valentine began receiving inquiries through the mail concerning certain investment plans of his which had been summarized in a business magazine. Plaintiff's response to these inquiries was a form letter offering for sale a series of seven "special reports." The first report, entitled "How to Have Local Businessmen Give You $400,000 in Addition to Receiving $35,000 and a New Car," was offered at a cost of $100.00. Other reports were offered at prices ranging from $25.00 to $500.00. Plaintiff's program has not been found to be fraudulent or otherwise in violation of any law.

By use of a mail inspection procedure not challenged here, authorities at the institution learned that Mr. Valentine was engaged in this business enterprise. Plaintiff was thereafter found guilty by the Rules Infraction Committee of violating Administrative Regulation 814(a)(3)(c), which prohibits any inmate from "corresponding with any person, firm, association, or other entity for the purpose of soliciting funds or property without the prior approval of the Managing Officer." Plaintiff does not contend that he sought any prior approval as provided by the regulation. The Committee upon finding Mr. Valentine guilty ordered him reprimanded and also provided that his mail be specially censored for business communications and that all such incoming communications be returned to the sender at plaintiff's expense. On April 25, 1974, a judge of this Court ordered defendants to preserve and impound as evidence those materials seized pursuant to the decision of the Rules Infraction Committee. As a result, defendants presently have in their custody numerous boxes of materials addressed to Mr. Valentine, including some letters which are accompanied by certified checks or money orders. Also held are a few magazines such as Forbes and Business Week, and annual reports of corporations. Personal correspondence to and from Mr. Valentine is not being withheld.

Plaintiff first argues that he and those with whom he communicates have a constitutional right to correspond, even though such correspondence is in furtherance of a mail order endeavor conducted by Mr. Valentine for profit. He also argues that even if he has no federally protected right to engage in a business enterprise, the defendants have gone too far in intercepting all his commercially-oriented mail, such as business magazines and corporate reports. He correctly observes that these latter materials are not directly related to his mail order enterprise.

In Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974) the Supreme Court considered a First Amendment challenge to regulations of the California Department of Corrections which restricted the permissible content of personal communications of inmates. Prisoners were prohibited from writing letters in which they "unduly complained" or "magnified grievances." "Inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views or beliefs" were also proscribed. See 416 U.S. at 399, 94 S.Ct. at 1804, 40 L.Ed.2d at 232. Emphasizing that it had before it a case concerning "direct personal correspondence between inmates and those who have a particularized interest in communicating with them," 416 U.S. at 408, 94 S.Ct. at 1809, 40 L.Ed.2d at 237 (footnote omitted), the Court rejected "any attempt to justify censorship of inmate correspondence merely by reference to certain assumptions about the legal status of prisoners." 416 U.S. at 409, 94 S.Ct. at 1809, 40 L.Ed.2d at 238. Specifically declining to consider the question of "mass mailings," 416 U.S. at 408 n. 11, 94 S.Ct. at 1809, 40 L.Ed.2d at 237, the Court held that in the case of direct personal correspondence, "the First Amendment liberties of free citizens are implicated in censorship of prisoner mail." 416 U.S. at 409, 94 S.Ct. at 1809, 40 L.Ed.2d at 238. Applying this analysis, the Court struck down the California regulations, finding that the state officials "failed to show that these broad restrictions on prisoner mail were in any way necessary to the furtherance of a governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression," 416 U.S. at 415, 94 S.Ct. at 1812, 40 L.Ed.2d at 241, and finding that the regulations were "far broader than any legitimate interest of penal administration demands." 416 U.S. at 416, 94 S.Ct. at 1813, 40 L.Ed.2d at 242.

In addition to its disclaimer of any consideration of mass mailings and its emphasis upon "direct personal correspondence," the Supreme Court in Procunier cited in an approving manner a regulation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons which provides, "No inmate may be permitted to direct his business while he is in confinement." 416 U.S. 414 n. 14, 94 S.Ct. 1812, 40 L.Ed.2d 241. I conclude that the standards enunciated in Procunier have no bearing upon a regulation which affects not the content of expression in personal mail, but the conduct of a business enterprise by mail. In the judgment of this Court, the Constitution does not protect...