Santos v. Allen et al

Filing 159

ORDER that 143 Motion for Order Permitting Plaintiff to Communicate via "Legal Mail" with Four Jewish Inmates re: Obtaining Affidavits as Evidence is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/16/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

RONALD R. SANTOS,

12

Plaintiff(s),

13

vs.

14

ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
Defendant(s).

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-01251-KJD-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 143)

16
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a court order permitting him to communicate
17
with four fellow inmates using “legal mail.” Docket No. 143. Defendants filed a Response, and
18
Plaintiff replied. Docket Nos. 146, 153.
19
I.

BACKGROUND

20
This a prisoner’s civil rights case. Plaintiff claims that, inter alia, various policies at the Nevada
21
Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) have unconstitutionally and unlawfully limited the expression
22
of his Jewish faith. Docket No. 36. Plaintiff’s motion therefore seeks an order from the Court granting
23
him the ability to communicate with four other Jewish inmates for the purpose of obtaining evidence
24
relating to his claims using “legal mail.” Docket No. 143 at 1. NDOC’s Administrative Regulation
25
722.08 defines “legal mail” as privileged, confidential mail addressed to an attorney or legal
26
representative. Docket No. 146-1 at 26. See also http://doc.nv.gov/About/Administrative_Regulations
27
/Administrative_ Regulations__ 700_Series/. Plaintiff seeks to use legal mail because it would permit
28

1

him to have confidential communications with his fellow inmates. Docket No. 143 at 2.

2

II.

ANALYSIS

3

Prison inmates enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive mail. Thornburgh v. Abbot,

4

490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989). “However, these rights must be exercised with due regard for the

5

inordinately difficult undertaking that is modern prison administration.” Id. (citing Turner v. Safley,

6

482 U.S. 78, 85 (1987)) (internal quotations omitted). “Running a prison . . . requires expertise,

7

planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the

8

legislative and executive branches of government.” Turner, 482 U.S at 84-85. “Prison administration

9

is, moreover, a task that has been committed to the responsibility of those branches, and separation of

10

powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint.” Id. Courts recognize that they “are ill equipped

11

to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform, and, therefore, accord

12

deference to the appropriate prison authorities. Id. (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, “a

13

prison may adopt regulations which impinge on an inmate’s constitutional rights if those regulations are

14

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir.

15

1995). “Legitimate penological interests include security, order, and rehabilitation.” Id.; see also

16

Turner, 482 U.S. at 93 (holding limitation on inmate-to-inmate correspondence was reasonably related

17

to the valid goals of institutional security and safety).

18

Plaintiff’s request violates two NDOC Administrative Regulations (“AR”): AR 750.4 and AR

19

722.8. Docket No. 146 at 2-3. AR 750.04 prohibits correspondence between incarcerated persons who

20

are unrelated and are not co-defendants, while AR 722.8 limits the use of legal mail to correspondence

21

with an attorney or legal representative. Docket No. 146-1, 146-2. See also http://doc.nv.gov/About/

22

Administrative_Regulations/Administrative_ Regulations__ 700_Series/.

23

Here, Plaintiff does not seek leave to communicate with co-defendants or relatives, nor does he

24

desire to correspond with an attorney or a legal representative. Rather, he desires this Court to issue an

25

order granting him the ability to have confidential correspondence with four fellow inmates. Docket

26

No. 143 at 2. Thus, Plaintiff asks this Court to authorize correspondence that would be violation of

27

NDOC’s regulations. Consistent with the deference that courts accord prison authorities, the Court finds

28

that NDOC reasonably concluded that permitting confidential correspondence between inmates would
2

1

create obvious security risks. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion seeking a court order permitting him to

2

communicate via legal mail with four fellow inmates is hereby DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED: September 16, 2015

5
6

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3