03-3227 -- Joseph E. Jacklovich, Sr., Appellant v. Charles E. Simmons, etc., et al.; 03-3229 -- Prison Legal News, Appellant v. Charles Simmons, etc., et al.; 03-3230 -- Kris Zimmerman, Appellant v. Charles Simmons, etc., et al.; American Civil Liberties
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
(October 6, 2004; morning docket)
SUMMARY OF ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellants' oral argument first reminded the court of its de novo standard of review. This was a good argument because it pointed out the wide latitude that the judges had with the standard of review. Then, Appellants argued that the regulation at Kansas correctional facilities disallowing gift subscriptions was unconstitutional as applied and on its face. At first, the court’s questioning implied that Prison News should lose on the as applied analysis, but this turned out to be a strong argument for Prison News. The judges were interested to learn that an inmate’s monthly budget allowed him or her to spend at least $100 on cigarettes, but only $30 on outside reading sources, such as magazines. In support of this argument, Prison Legal News also pointed out that the regulation against gift subscriptions was haphazardly applied at the corrections facility. As for the facial challenge to the regulation, Appellants argued that it was unconstitutional because the regulation required notification to the inmate that he or she was not going to receive the publication, but did not require notification to the publisher that the inmate did not in fact receive the publication.
Appellee’s theory was that the regulations were necessary because of the State’s legitimate need to keep order and prevent insurrection in the prison system. The judges, however, were not swayed from their concern that magazines seemed to be more restricted than other items, such as cigarettes. One judge seemed to think that there were other ways to achieve Appellee’s goal with less restrictive means and that Appellee’s regulation did not strike an appropriate balance.
CASE SUMMARY (prepared at Washburn Law)
Prison Legal News, Kris Zimmerman, and Joseph Jacklovich, Sr., brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas claiming that the Kansas Department of Corrections regulations concerning gift subscriptions, expenditure limits, and notice of censorship were unconstitutional. The district court granted summary judgment to the state correction official defendants, holding that the regulations of the Kansas Department of Corrections in question were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. The plaintiffs, prisoners and a publisher, appeal from that judgment.
FACTS
The Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) requires that inmates have a facility banking account where inmate funds are deposited. All items purchased for an inmate’s use, such as electronic equipment and canteen items, for example, must be purchased through the inmate’s facility account. Consequently, KDOC requires that all purchased books, newspapers, and periodicals be purchased through the inmate’s facility bank account. Friends and family of inmates seeking to give gifts to the inmate must deposit funds in the inmate’s facility account. KDOC regulations limit the amount of outside source expenditures to $30 per month.
KDOC regulations provide that whenever communication to or from an inmate is censored, the inmate shall receive written notice of the censorship, the reason for the censorship, and the name and address of the incoming mail sender. KDOC officials specifically inform the inmate of his/her responsibility to contact the sender if he/she desires.
Prison Legal News, Inc. publishes a monthly magazine called Prison Legal News (PLN). Friends and family of inmates Jacklovich and Zimmerman paid for subscriptions to have PLN sent to them in prison. KDOC officials prevented Jacklovich and Zimmerman from receiving the magazine because the inmates themselves did not purchase the subscriptions. KDOC officials did not notify the publisher that the magazine was not reaching the inmates.
ISSUES
- May KDOC officials constitutionally require that all items purchased for use by inmates, including books and periodicals, be purchased through the inmate’s facility account?
- Does the KDOC regulation requiring notice of censorship to the inmate rather than the publisher violate the publisher’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and due process?
- Is the $30 per month limit on outside source expenditures for publications constitutional?
ARGUMENTS
» Appellants' Argument
Appellants Jacklovich and Zimmerman argue that the KDOC’s ban on gift subscriptions violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and to receive communications from outside the prison. Appellant Prison Legal News, Inc. argues that the ban violates its right to communicate with inmates. Prison Legal News, Inc. also argues that the prison’s failure to notify publishers when the prison has censored its publication violates Prison Legal News, Inc.’s fundamental rights of due process and free speech. Finally, all appellants argue that the $30 per month limit on outside source expenditures violates their First Amendment rights to the free flow of information.
» Appellee's Argument
Appellees’ arguments focus on the standard of reasonableness the Supreme Court set out in Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987): 'When a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.' Appellees argue that the requirement that publications be purchased through the inmate banking system serves legitimate purposes: it permits KDOC to trace the source of any transaction that involves items of value and it permits the management and control of purchases and the tracking of property inside the facility. KDOC argues that these purposes are important because property may be connected to prohibited activities and because “eligibility” to possess property is used as an incentive within the facility. Appellees argue that notice of censorship to the inmate, rather than the publisher (1) is “reasonably related to correctional interests” because the inmate knows his or her privilege status and whether the purchase was made in accordance with KDOC rules. (2) recognizes that the publisher has no right to communicate with a person who is not interested in receiving the publication, and (3) reasonably balances the costs to the state of notice to publishers against the benefit to either the publisher or the inmate. Finally, appellees argue that the limit on outside expenditures is “central to the management of a correctional facility,” that the cost of a PLN subscription is well below the spending limit, and that exceptions are available.
WHY THIS CASE IS INTERESTING
This case is important because the court must determine the validity of regulations that can directly affect inmates’ access to information from outside the correctional facility by barring gift subscriptions and limiting expenditures. In addition, the court must determine whether publishers have a due process right to receive notice and an opportunity to protest when their publications are not delivered to inmates.
INFORMAL CASE SUMMARY
Please Note: This informal case summary is not intended for official use and does not purport to be exhaustive of the issues or defenses presented by the parties.
The plaintiffs, two prisoners and a non-profit corporation which publishes a monthly periodical, alleged that the defendants violated their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and due process by their enforcement of regulations and policies which place restrictions on the receipt by prisoner of certain publications. The challenged regulations provide: that the inmates at the lowest level of privileges are prohibited form purchasing books, unless it is a "primary religious text," magazines or newspapers; that other prisoners are limited to $30 per month for purchase of items outside the facility canteen, including books, unless it is a "primary religious text," magazines or newspapers; and no prisoners are allowed to receive gift or free publications or subscriptions.
The district court determined that the regulations are rationally related to the legitimate governmental interests of promoting internal security of the prisons, deterring prisoners from committing future crimes or rules violations, and aiding in prisoner rehabilitation.
