Constitutional Law — First Amendment — prisons

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Constitutional Law — First Amendment — prisons

A prison did not violate a prisoner’s First Amendment rights by denying him books containing information about drugs and medications.

“Munson reminds us that we shouldn’t judge the books based on their covers. See generally 1 George Eliot, The Mill on the Floss 24 (1860) (‘They was all bound alike—it’s a good binding, you see—and I thought they’d be all good books . . . they’ve all got the same covers, and I thought they were all o’ one sample, as you may say. But it seems one mustn’t judge by th’ outside.’). Affirming though doesn’t require even a glance at the books’ covers because Munson’s complaint says he wanted the books because of their drug-related content. Complaint at ¶¶ 21-25. Munson argues that the prison’s reference to drugs on the publication review form merely recited boilerplate language. Maybe the statement ‘DRUGS’ qualifies as boilerplate. But just as the prison could use a form to explain its reasons for denying Munson possession of the books, the prison could use efficient yet sufficient boilerplate to justify its decision to restrict books containing drug-related content. Because we can readily discern the validity and rationality of the connection between this legitimate penological interest and restricting access to such books, the district court did not err in finding the prison’s restrictions reasonable.”

Affirmed.

11-1532 Munson v. Gaetz

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Murphy, J., Tinder, J.