×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Prison May Not Open Identifiable Legal Mail Outside Prisoner's Presence
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held that a
prison's practice of opening legal mail that was not labeled in a specific
manner, but otherwise readily identifiable as legal mail was unconstitutional.
Policy at the Lompoc federal prison in California dictated that legal mail
is labeled "Special Mail--Open Only in the Presence of Inmate." Any
deviation in the labeling and the mail was treated as general mail and
opened outside the prisoner's presence.
Plaintiff, Benton Burt, brought civil rights action against prison
officials after his legal mail was opened outside of his presence because
it was not labeled with the exact wording required by Lompoc. Prison
officials moved for summary judgment.
The district court held that opening legal mail that was readily
identifiable as such, but did not use the precise language required by
Lompoc, violated Benton's "constitutionally-protected right of access to
the court and to assistance of counsel." The court therefore enjoined the
practice.
The district court further held that prison officials were entitled to
qualified immunity because they had acted on the belief that the mail
practice was constitutional and at the time there was no established law to
the contrary. See: Burt v. Carlson., 752 F.Supp. 346 (CD CA 1990).
prison's practice of opening legal mail that was not labeled in a specific
manner, but otherwise readily identifiable as legal mail was unconstitutional.
Policy at the Lompoc federal prison in California dictated that legal mail
is labeled "Special Mail--Open Only in the Presence of Inmate." Any
deviation in the labeling and the mail was treated as general mail and
opened outside the prisoner's presence.
Plaintiff, Benton Burt, brought civil rights action against prison
officials after his legal mail was opened outside of his presence because
it was not labeled with the exact wording required by Lompoc. Prison
officials moved for summary judgment.
The district court held that opening legal mail that was readily
identifiable as such, but did not use the precise language required by
Lompoc, violated Benton's "constitutionally-protected right of access to
the court and to assistance of counsel." The court therefore enjoined the
practice.
The district court further held that prison officials were entitled to
qualified immunity because they had acted on the belief that the mail
practice was constitutional and at the time there was no established law to
the contrary. See: Burt v. Carlson., 752 F.Supp. 346 (CD CA 1990).
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
Burt v. Carlson
| Year | 1990 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 752 F.Supp. 346 (CD CA 1990). |
| Level | District Court |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | Granted |
BURT v. CARLSON, 752 F. Supp. 346 (C.D.Cal. 09/17/1990)
[1] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
[2] 86-2186-MRP(G)
[3] 752 F. Supp. 346, 1990
[4] September 17, 1990
[5] BENTON D. BURT, Plaintiff,
v.
NORMAN CARLSON, Director Federal Bureau of Prisons; ROBERT CHRISTENSEN, Warden, United States Prison, Lompoc, California, Defendants
[6] Ralph J. Geffen, United States Magistrate.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: GEFFEN
[8] Original Opinion of, Reported at: 752 F. Supp. 346.
[1] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
[2] 86-2186-MRP(G)
[3] 752 F. Supp. 346, 1990
[4] September 17, 1990
[5] BENTON D. BURT, Plaintiff,
v.
NORMAN CARLSON, Director Federal Bureau of Prisons; ROBERT CHRISTENSEN, Warden, United States Prison, Lompoc, California, Defendants
[6] Ralph J. Geffen, United States Magistrate.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: GEFFEN
[8] Original Opinion of, Reported at: 752 F. Supp. 346.