×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Minnesota Prison's Indigent, Legal Mail Policies Constitutional
The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Minnesota
prison's policy of providing indigent prisoners with writing materials and
allowing them one free mailing per week for legal correspondence met
constitutional standards.
Jerry Wayne Smith, a Kansas state prisoner transferred to Minnesota under
the Interstate Corrections Compact, brought § 1983 action against Minnesota
prison officials alleging, among other things, that prison officials
forbade him to mail legal documents using manila envelopes he had brought
with him upon his transfer. Smith's attempts to use them, and officials'
resistance to mailing them, resulted in a court document being rejected as
untimely filed and disciplinary action being taken against him. Smith
claimed the disciplinary action was in retaliation for exercising his right
of access to the courts.
Around February 28, 1988, Smith submitted his § 1983 action to the deputy
clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for
filing. Several weeks later he learned that it had not been filed. Smith
resubmitted his complaint on May 23, 1988. On June 13, 1988, the deputy
clerk filed Smith's original complaint. No explanation was given for the
filing delay.
The district court dismissed Smith's complaint for failure to state a
claim. On appeal, Smith. v. Erickson, 884 F.2d 1108 (8th Cir. 1989), the
Eighth Circuit, without ruling on the merits, reversed and remanded. The
district court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of prison
officials. Smith appealed.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding:
1) The prison's policy of providing indigent prisoners with one free
mailing per week and allowing them to maintain a negative balance on their
prisoner accounts indefinitely for additional postage met constitutional
standards, as did providing pens and paper through the prison library.
2) Policy of allowing only canteen purchased envelopes to be mailed was
facially constitutional as it was "'reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests"' since it was ostensibly imposed to prevent
prisoners "'from stealing envelopes and stamps from the institution."'
3) "[T]he district court correctly rejected Smith's retaliation claim, as
the alleged retaliatory disciplinary action was taken because Smith obeyed
a direct order."
4) "Smith's claim based on the [Interstate Corrections Compact was]
foreclosed by Stewart v. McManus, 924 F.2d 138, 141 (8th Cir. 1991). (The
court did not elaborate).
5) The deputy district court clerk was entitled to immunity. See index for
other citations in this case. See: Smith v. Erickson, 961 F.2d 1387 (8th
Cir. 1992).
prison's policy of providing indigent prisoners with writing materials and
allowing them one free mailing per week for legal correspondence met
constitutional standards.
Jerry Wayne Smith, a Kansas state prisoner transferred to Minnesota under
the Interstate Corrections Compact, brought § 1983 action against Minnesota
prison officials alleging, among other things, that prison officials
forbade him to mail legal documents using manila envelopes he had brought
with him upon his transfer. Smith's attempts to use them, and officials'
resistance to mailing them, resulted in a court document being rejected as
untimely filed and disciplinary action being taken against him. Smith
claimed the disciplinary action was in retaliation for exercising his right
of access to the courts.
Around February 28, 1988, Smith submitted his § 1983 action to the deputy
clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for
filing. Several weeks later he learned that it had not been filed. Smith
resubmitted his complaint on May 23, 1988. On June 13, 1988, the deputy
clerk filed Smith's original complaint. No explanation was given for the
filing delay.
The district court dismissed Smith's complaint for failure to state a
claim. On appeal, Smith. v. Erickson, 884 F.2d 1108 (8th Cir. 1989), the
Eighth Circuit, without ruling on the merits, reversed and remanded. The
district court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of prison
officials. Smith appealed.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding:
1) The prison's policy of providing indigent prisoners with one free
mailing per week and allowing them to maintain a negative balance on their
prisoner accounts indefinitely for additional postage met constitutional
standards, as did providing pens and paper through the prison library.
2) Policy of allowing only canteen purchased envelopes to be mailed was
facially constitutional as it was "'reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests"' since it was ostensibly imposed to prevent
prisoners "'from stealing envelopes and stamps from the institution."'
3) "[T]he district court correctly rejected Smith's retaliation claim, as
the alleged retaliatory disciplinary action was taken because Smith obeyed
a direct order."
4) "Smith's claim based on the [Interstate Corrections Compact was]
foreclosed by Stewart v. McManus, 924 F.2d 138, 141 (8th Cir. 1991). (The
court did not elaborate).
5) The deputy district court clerk was entitled to immunity. See index for
other citations in this case. See: Smith v. Erickson, 961 F.2d 1387 (8th
Cir. 1992).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Smith v. Erickson
| Year | 1992 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 961 F.2d 1387 (8th Cir. 1992). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Smith v. Erickson, 961 F.2d 1387 (8th Cir. 04/20/1992)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 91-3081
[3] 961 F.2d 1387
[4] filed: April 20, 1992.
[5] JERRY WAYNE SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT ERICKSON, HELENE HAWORTH, RICHARD CRAVEN, RUDY KOHLER, ROBERT L. AUFDERHAR, JAMES J. RYAN, HAROLD C. HANSEN, TIM SCOTT, APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Honorable Harry H. MacLaughlin, Judge.
[7] COUNSEL
[8] Appellant appeared in this case pro se.
[9] Counsel who represented the appellee was Katherine M. Brennan of St. Paul, Minnesota. The names of Hubert H. Humphrey, III and Katherine M. Brennan of St. Paul, Minnesota, appear on the brief of the appellee.
[10] Before John R. Gibson, Fagg, and Hansen, Circuit Judges.
[11] Author: Per Curiam
[12] Per Curiam.
[13] Jerry Wayne Smith, a former Minnesota prisoner, appeals from the district court's*fn1 order granting defendants summary judgment on his civil rights claims. We affirm.
[14] Smith was transferred to Minnesota from Kansas in 1986, pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC), and confined at the state prison in Stillwater. On February 25, 1988, he mailed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and a motion for a temporary restraining order to the district court in Minnesota. After learning his complaint had not been filed and unsuccessfully attempting to locate it by contacting deputy clerk Tim Scott, Smith reconstructed his documents.*fn2 Smith alleged that (1) the prison does not supply indigent inmates with free postage or writing supplies for legal correspondence; (2) the prison's policy of requiring indigent inmates to use envelopes purchased from the prison for their legal correspondence is facially unconstitutional and has been enforced against Smith in a retaliatory manner; (3) both policies are illegal as applied to Smith because they violate rights he retains under Kansas law and the ICC; (4) Scott denied Smith access to the courts by refusing to file his initial complaint and by misleading him regarding its whereabouts; and (5) defendants conspired to deny Smith access to the courts.
[15] On appeal, Smith argues the district court incorrectly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on his claims; abused its discretion by denying his motion for discovery against defendant Scott; and erroneously denied his request for injunctive relief. A substantial portion of Smith's brief is devoted to claims related to another case, and Smith has moved to supplement the record on appeal with documents from that litigation. Defendants oppose Smith's motion.
[16] The district court correctly granted Scott's motion for summary judgment on immunity grounds. Similarly, the record supports the district court's decision to grant summary judgment against Smith in connection with his facial challenge to the prison's policy on free postage and writing supplies. Contrary to Smith's allegation, the prison provides indigent inmates with one free mailing per week for legal correspondence. If an inmate needs additional financial assistance for mailing legal correspondence, he is allowed to maintain a negative balance in his account indefinitely. The prison also provides reasonable amounts of free paper and pens to all inmates through the prison library. This policy satisfies constitutional standards. See Bounds v. Smith,430 U.S. 817, 824-25, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72, 97 S. Ct. 1491 (1977); Gaines v. Lane, 790 F.2d 1299, 1308 (7th Cir. 1986).
[17] We also agree with the district court's Conclusion that the prison-envelope-only policy is not facially unconstitutional. "When a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Turner v. Safley,482 U.S. 78, 89, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64, 107 S. Ct. 2254 (1987). The purpose of the prison policy "is to maintain an efficient system for handling mail and to prevent inmates from stealing envelopes and stamps from the institution." (Appellees' App. at 52.) The policy has a logical connection to the asserted purposes of efficiency and security. See Kaestel v. Lockhart,746 F.2d 1323, 1325 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).
[18] The district court correctly rejected Smith's claim that he was denied access to the courts by operation of this policy when Helene Haworth refused to mail his legal correspondence on February 16 and 24. It was Smith's failure to follow valid prison rules, not the policy or defendants' acts, which caused the delay. Likewise, the district court correctly rejected Smith's retaliation claim, as the alleged retaliatory disciplinary action was taken because Smith disobeyed a direct order. See, e.g., Orebaugh v. Caspari,910 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). Additionally, Smith failed to show that he had any prior or pending lawsuits against prison officials at the time the discipline was imposed. Cf. Ponchik v. Bogan,929 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir. 1991) (plaintiff had previously filed two lawsuits against prison officials).
[19] Furthermore, the district court correctly determined Smith's claim based on the ICC is foreclosed by Stewart v. McManus, 924 F.2d 138, 141 (8th Cir. 1991). Smith's other arguments are meritless. Regarding the conspiracy claim, he failed sufficiently to allege that a mutual understanding or agreement existed among the defendants. See, e.g., Duvall v. Sharp,905 F.2d 1188, 1189 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith's request for discovery pending the outcome of Scott's motion for summary judgment on immunity grounds. Additionally, Smith's claim for injunctive relief is now moot because he is no longer confined in Minnesota. See Martin v. Sargent,780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). Finally, we deny Smith's motion to expand the record on appeal with documents not presented to the district court in connection with this case. See Kemlon Prods. & Dev. Co. v. United States,646 F.2d 223, 224 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 863, 102 S. Ct. 320, 70 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1981).
[20] Accordingly, we affirm.
[21] Disposition
[22] Affirmed.
Opinion Footnotes
[23] *fn1 The Honorable Harry H. MacLaughlin, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
[24] *fn2 The original complaint and motion were filed on June 13, 1988, without explanation for the delay. The second complaint included a Bivens -type claim against Scott.
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 91-3081
[3] 961 F.2d 1387
[4] filed: April 20, 1992.
[5] JERRY WAYNE SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT ERICKSON, HELENE HAWORTH, RICHARD CRAVEN, RUDY KOHLER, ROBERT L. AUFDERHAR, JAMES J. RYAN, HAROLD C. HANSEN, TIM SCOTT, APPELLEES.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Honorable Harry H. MacLaughlin, Judge.
[7] COUNSEL
[8] Appellant appeared in this case pro se.
[9] Counsel who represented the appellee was Katherine M. Brennan of St. Paul, Minnesota. The names of Hubert H. Humphrey, III and Katherine M. Brennan of St. Paul, Minnesota, appear on the brief of the appellee.
[10] Before John R. Gibson, Fagg, and Hansen, Circuit Judges.
[11] Author: Per Curiam
[12] Per Curiam.
[13] Jerry Wayne Smith, a former Minnesota prisoner, appeals from the district court's*fn1 order granting defendants summary judgment on his civil rights claims. We affirm.
[14] Smith was transferred to Minnesota from Kansas in 1986, pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC), and confined at the state prison in Stillwater. On February 25, 1988, he mailed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and a motion for a temporary restraining order to the district court in Minnesota. After learning his complaint had not been filed and unsuccessfully attempting to locate it by contacting deputy clerk Tim Scott, Smith reconstructed his documents.*fn2 Smith alleged that (1) the prison does not supply indigent inmates with free postage or writing supplies for legal correspondence; (2) the prison's policy of requiring indigent inmates to use envelopes purchased from the prison for their legal correspondence is facially unconstitutional and has been enforced against Smith in a retaliatory manner; (3) both policies are illegal as applied to Smith because they violate rights he retains under Kansas law and the ICC; (4) Scott denied Smith access to the courts by refusing to file his initial complaint and by misleading him regarding its whereabouts; and (5) defendants conspired to deny Smith access to the courts.
[15] On appeal, Smith argues the district court incorrectly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on his claims; abused its discretion by denying his motion for discovery against defendant Scott; and erroneously denied his request for injunctive relief. A substantial portion of Smith's brief is devoted to claims related to another case, and Smith has moved to supplement the record on appeal with documents from that litigation. Defendants oppose Smith's motion.
[16] The district court correctly granted Scott's motion for summary judgment on immunity grounds. Similarly, the record supports the district court's decision to grant summary judgment against Smith in connection with his facial challenge to the prison's policy on free postage and writing supplies. Contrary to Smith's allegation, the prison provides indigent inmates with one free mailing per week for legal correspondence. If an inmate needs additional financial assistance for mailing legal correspondence, he is allowed to maintain a negative balance in his account indefinitely. The prison also provides reasonable amounts of free paper and pens to all inmates through the prison library. This policy satisfies constitutional standards. See Bounds v. Smith,430 U.S. 817, 824-25, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72, 97 S. Ct. 1491 (1977); Gaines v. Lane, 790 F.2d 1299, 1308 (7th Cir. 1986).
[17] We also agree with the district court's Conclusion that the prison-envelope-only policy is not facially unconstitutional. "When a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Turner v. Safley,482 U.S. 78, 89, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64, 107 S. Ct. 2254 (1987). The purpose of the prison policy "is to maintain an efficient system for handling mail and to prevent inmates from stealing envelopes and stamps from the institution." (Appellees' App. at 52.) The policy has a logical connection to the asserted purposes of efficiency and security. See Kaestel v. Lockhart,746 F.2d 1323, 1325 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).
[18] The district court correctly rejected Smith's claim that he was denied access to the courts by operation of this policy when Helene Haworth refused to mail his legal correspondence on February 16 and 24. It was Smith's failure to follow valid prison rules, not the policy or defendants' acts, which caused the delay. Likewise, the district court correctly rejected Smith's retaliation claim, as the alleged retaliatory disciplinary action was taken because Smith disobeyed a direct order. See, e.g., Orebaugh v. Caspari,910 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). Additionally, Smith failed to show that he had any prior or pending lawsuits against prison officials at the time the discipline was imposed. Cf. Ponchik v. Bogan,929 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir. 1991) (plaintiff had previously filed two lawsuits against prison officials).
[19] Furthermore, the district court correctly determined Smith's claim based on the ICC is foreclosed by Stewart v. McManus, 924 F.2d 138, 141 (8th Cir. 1991). Smith's other arguments are meritless. Regarding the conspiracy claim, he failed sufficiently to allege that a mutual understanding or agreement existed among the defendants. See, e.g., Duvall v. Sharp,905 F.2d 1188, 1189 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith's request for discovery pending the outcome of Scott's motion for summary judgment on immunity grounds. Additionally, Smith's claim for injunctive relief is now moot because he is no longer confined in Minnesota. See Martin v. Sargent,780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). Finally, we deny Smith's motion to expand the record on appeal with documents not presented to the district court in connection with this case. See Kemlon Prods. & Dev. Co. v. United States,646 F.2d 223, 224 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 863, 102 S. Ct. 320, 70 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1981).
[20] Accordingly, we affirm.
[21] Disposition
[22] Affirmed.
Opinion Footnotes
[23] *fn1 The Honorable Harry H. MacLaughlin, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
[24] *fn2 The original complaint and motion were filed on June 13, 1988, without explanation for the delay. The second complaint included a Bivens -type claim against Scott.