David Weatherspoon v. John Ferguson, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-60964 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: FPB , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 10/15/2010 [09-60964]

David Weatherspoon v. John Ferguson, et al

Doc. 0

Case: 09-60964

Document: 00511244067

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/24/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60964 S u m m a r y Calendar September 24, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

D A V I D WEATHERSPOON, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t v. J O H N D. FERGUSON, President, CCA; CHRISTOPHER EPPS, C O M M IS S I O N E R , MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; R A Y M O N D BYRD, Warden for CCA; KIMBERLY KENT ROKASKY, Mailroom C le r k for CCA, D e fe n d a n t s -A p p e lle e s

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Mississippi U S D C No. 4:08-CV-3

B e fo r e KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* D a v id Weatherspoon, Mississippi prisoner # 39891, appeals the district c o u r t's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees and d is m is s in g his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. He argues that the mail policy of the M ississip p i Department of Corrections (MDOC) impinges upon his constitutional r ig h t s . He specifically challenges the policy with respect to its treatment of legal
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-60964

Document: 00511244067 Page: 2 No. 09-60964

Date Filed: 09/24/2010

a n d official mail. He argues that the policy, which states that all legal or official m a il must be sealed in the presence of a staff member of the Inmate Legal A s s is t a n c e Program (ILAP) before mailing, and that legal mail not bearing an I L A P stamp will be returned to the inmate to comply with MDOC policy, violates t h e Fourth Amendment. He asserts that the appellees improperly returned a p ie c e of his legal or official mail to him because he failed to comply with the p o lic y and that this refusal to process his mail was tantamount to an illegal s e a r c h or seizure. T h is court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Cousin v. S m a ll, 325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is proper "if the p le a d in g s , the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show t h a t there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is e n tit le d to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(2). "[T]he party m o v in g for summary judgment must demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue o f material fact, but need not negate the elements of the nonmovant's case." L ittle v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (internal q u o t a t io n marks and citation omitted). We have set forth that in determining the validity of prison practices that im p in g e upon a prisoner's constitutional rights with respect to mail, the proper in q u ir y is whether the practice is reasonably related to a legitimate penological in t e r e s t . See Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 824-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (adopting s t a n d a r d set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987)). We consider t h e reasonableness of a prison practice by evaluating: (1) whether a valid, r a t io n a l connection exists between the prison regulation and the legitimate g o v e r n m e n t a l interest put forward to justify it; (2) whether there are alternative m e a n s of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates; (3) the impact t h a t accommodation will have on guards, other inmates, and the allocation of p r i s o n resources generally; and (4) whether there are ready alternatives that c o u ld fully accommodate the prisoner's rights at de minimis cost to penological 2

Case: 09-60964

Document: 00511244067 Page: 3 No. 09-60964

Date Filed: 09/24/2010

in t e r e s t s . Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-91. "[R]ationality is the controlling factor, and a court need not weigh each factor equally." Mayfield v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal J u s tic e , 529 F.3d 599, 607 (5th Cir. 2008). Due regard also must be given to the d e c is io n s of prison officials because "prison administrators . . . , and not the c o u r ts , [are] to make the difficult judgments concerning institutional o p e r a t io n s .'" Turner, 482 U.S. at 89 (omission and alteration in original). T h e record in this case establishes that the MDOC policy concerning legal o r official mail is rationally related to prison officials' legitimate penological in t e r e s t s in advancing the orderly administration of prisons and preventing and d is c o v e r in g mail containing contraband or offensive content. Moreover, there is a close relationship between these interests and the means by which the MDOC p o lic y seeks to accomplish them; only by discovering the contents of the mail and in s u r in g that the mail in fact is legal or official in nature can prison officials g u a r a n t e e that harmful matters are not sent outside the prison and that the m a il is properly categorized. The policy also does not categorically preclude in m a t e s from communicating with those on the legal or official mailing list, and t h e record supports that the policy is designed to minimize the burden on others. There also is no indication that there exists a less-restrictive manner by which p r is o n officials can vindicate their penological interests. Thus, the MDOC mail policy with respect to legal or official mail does not im p e rm issib ly impinge upon Weatherspoon's Fourth Amendment rights, and the a p p e lle e s did not commit an illegal search or seizure in this case. Id. at 89-91. Given this determination, we pretermit discussion of whether certain defendants w e r e not liable because they were not personally involved in the alleged c o n s t it u t io n a l violations. To the extent that Weatherspoon alleges that the MDOC policy denied him a c c e s s to the courts, we previously denied that claim on the ground that he did n o t show that he was prejudiced by the appellees' purported interference. Weatherspoon v. Ferguson, 302 F. App'x 231 (5th Cir. 2008). To the extent that 3

Case: 09-60964

Document: 00511244067 Page: 4 No. 09-60964

Date Filed: 09/24/2010

h e seeks to raise a new claim that the mail policy violated the First Amendment b y interrupting the free flow of mail, he has not shown that he raised this issue e x p r e s s ly in the district court, see Williams v. Ballard, 466 F.3d 330, 335 (5th C ir . 2006) (noting that issues raised for the first time on appeal need not be c o n sid er e d ), or that the policy is unconstitutional for the above-detailed reasons. He also has not established that the MDOC policy violates federal criminal s t a t u t e s related to the processing of mail. See generally Adams v. Ellis, 197 F.2d 4 8 3 , 484-85 (5th Cir. 1952) (noting that statutes punishing theft or receipt of s t o le n mail likely are inapplicable to prison administrators handling prisoner m a il). A c c o r d in g ly , the district court did not err in granting the appellees' motion fo r summary judgment and in dismissing Weatherspoon's § 1983 complaint. The ju d g m e n t is AFFIRMED.

4