× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Wisconsin Appeals Court Orders Photos Delivered to Prisoner
Johnny Lacy Jr., a prisoner at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF), purchased photographs from a commercial vendor on September 9, 2005. On April 5, 2006, WSPF personnel refused to deliver a total of 15 photos to Lacy, contending they were pornographic under the DOC’s pornography ban set forth in Wisconsin Administrative Code 30904(4).
Additionally, in September 2006, the DOC implemented a policy prohibiting possession of any commercially produced photographs. Lacy subsequently filed suit in small claims court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the DOC’s ban on commercially produced photographs, the limitation on the number of photographs a prisoner can possess to 50, and non-delivery of 15 photographs violated his civil rights and his rights under the First Amendment. Prison officials moved for summary judgment, which the court granted, and Lacy appealed.
The court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions. First, the court held that the three prison employees named in Lacy’s suit were entitled to qualified immunity. Moreover, the court held that the policy banning commercially produced photographs was constitutional and that the limit of 50 personal photographs was reasonably related to legitimate penological interest. However, Lacy did prevail on one issue: the court held that four of the 15 pictures withheld from Lacy were not pornographic pursuant to the DOC’s definition of pornography [see: Wis. Admin. Code §§ DOC 309.02 (16)(b) and (14)], and ordered those pictures delivered to Lacy. See: Lacy v. Huibregtse, 329 Wis.2d 268 (Wis.App., 2010), (unpublished) 2010 WL 2852709.
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
Lacy v. Huibregtse
|Cite||329 Wis.2d 268 (Wis.App., 2010), (unpublished) 2010 WL 2852709|
|Level||State Court of Appeals|