Boone v. Oliveros ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES LESHAWN BOONE, Case No. 20-cv-01473-EMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. Docket No. 10 10 ELDA OLIVEROS, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 James Boone, a prisoner housed at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, 16 California, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court reviewed the 17 complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend to cure several pleading deficiencies. Mr. Boone 18 then filed an amended complaint. His amended complaint is now before the court for review 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 20 II. BACKGROUND 21 Mr. Boone alleges in his amended complaint that he received several pieces of mail that 22 had been opened and taped closed before they were delivered to him. He alleges that this occurred 23 on the following occasions: mail from the Fresno County Superior Court on July 24, 2017; mail 24 from the Attorney General’s office on September 23, 2017; mail from Fresno County Superior 25 Court on September 25, 2017; mail from the Attorney General’s office on November 6, 2017; and 26 mail from the Attorney General’s office on November 13, 2017. Docket No. 10 at 3-5. Mr. 27 Boone describes all of this mail as “legal mail.” Id. 1 mail and said the apparent opened mail was a mailroom problem; Tanya Flores was the mailroom 2 staff member who processed the incoming legal mail; Elda Oliveros was the mailroom supervisor 3 who knew of the improper processing and did not stop it; and C. Koenig was a supervisor who 4 knew of but failed to stop the improper handling of the mail. 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 7 seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 8 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 9 claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 10 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). 11 Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 12 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 13 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 14 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the 15 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 16 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 17 Inmates enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive mail. See Thornburgh v. 18 Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989). However, a prison or jail may adopt regulations or practices 19 that impinge on a prisoner's First Amendment rights, including rights regarding the mail, if those 20 regulations are “‘reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.’” Id. at 404 (quoting 21 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). Because “freedom from censorship is not equivalent to 22 freedom from inspection or perusal,” prison officials have the right to open and to inspect a 23 prisoner's incoming and outgoing mail —even legal mail from attorneys to inmates or from 24 inmates to attorneys. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576 (1974). 25 If the mail is legal mail, it must be opened in the prisoner’s presence. Prisoners have a 26 “First Amendment interest in having properly marked legal mail opened only in their presence.” 27 Hayes v. Idaho Correctional Center, 849 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2017). They also have a Sixth 1 them opened only in their presence. Mangiaracina v. Penzone, 849 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2 2017). 3 If the mail is nonlegal mail, it may be opened and inspected for contraband without need 4 for the prisoner to be present. See Mann v. Adams, 846 F.2d 589, 590-91 (9th Cir. 1998). The 5 inspection for contraband of non-legal mail does not violate a prisoner’s constitutional rights. See 6 Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265-66 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding inspection of outgoing mail); 7 Smith v. Boyd, 945 F.2d 1041, 1043 (8th Cir. 1991) (upholding inspection of incoming mail); 8 Gaines v. Lane, 790 F.2d 1299, 1304 (7th Cir. 1986) (upholding inspection of outgoing and 9 incoming mail). 10 Mail to and from a prisoner’s attorney is legal mail. But mail to and from courts and 11 public officials is nonlegal mail. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 1996) (district 12 court properly dismissed claim that defendant prison officials improperly opened mail to prisoner 13 from the courts outside his presence), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 14 1998). The Ninth Circuit’s rejection of the claim in Keenan that opening mail from the court was 15 unconstitutional “turn[ed] on the definition of ‘legal mail.’ Mail from the courts, as contrasted to 16 mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not legal mail.” Id. Likewise, the Ninth Circuit held that a claim 17 was not stated for an allegation that prison officials opened and inspected mail from the “United 18 States courts” to a prisoner outside his presence in Hayes, 849 F.3d at 1211. In short, a prisoner 19 has no constitutional right to be present when mail sent from public agencies and public officials 20 is opened. Mann, 846 F.2d at 590-91.1 21 When this Court reviewed Mr. Boone’s original complaint, it explained the different rules 22 that applied to opening legal mail versus nonlegal mail. Docket No. 6 at 2-3. The Court also 23 explained that mail from courts is not legal mail, id. at 2 n.1, and noted that many of the alleged 24 1 Mr. Boone’s first amended complaint indicates that mail from the courts and public agencies is 25 identified as confidential or legal mail in the state regulations that apply to the handling of mail in California prisons. But state regulations do not set federal constitutional standards. Cf. Walker v. 26 Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1420 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure to satisfy state procedural protections that are greater than those federally required does not amount to a due process violation). Although those 27 state regulations do not support relief in a Section 1983 action, they might support a state law 1 instances involved opening of mail from courts that would not be actionable, id. at 4-5. The Court 2 granted Mr. Boone leave to amend to describe how Defendants had handled the mail improperly 3 and also explained the need to link individual Defendants to the claim. Id. at 5. 4 The amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The fatal 5 flaw in Mr. Boone’s amended complaint is that the mail that allegedly was opened and then taped 6 closed outside his presence was nonlegal mail rather than legal mail. The instances of mail- 7 opening that he identifies all involved mail sent to him from California courts or the California 8 Attorney General’s office. Mail from these entities simply is not legal mail. See Hayes, 849 F.3d 9 at 1211; Keenan, 83 F.3d at 1094; Mann, 894 F.2d at 590-91. It therefore was not constitutionally 10 impermissible for prison officials to open and inspect these pieces of incoming nonlegal mail. See 11 Mann, 846 F.2d at 590-91. 12 No constitutional violation occurred on the facts alleged in the amended complaint. 13 Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the Court already explained 14 the deficiencies in the pleading and Mr. Boone was unwilling or unable to cure them in his 15 amended complaint. 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The 18 Clerk shall close the file. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: September 4, 2020 23 24 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 25 United States District Judge 26 27