Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

10-1726 Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 20, 2010//

10-1726 Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 20, 2010//

Listen to this article

Constitutional Law
Prisoner mail

A prison’s violation of a prisoner’s right to be present when certain mail is opened, is not a violation of the prisoner’s federal civil rights.
“[W]e note that all nine letters to the plaintiff that were opened without his being present were from courts or agencies rather than from his lawyer. (None was outgoing mail.) One letter was from the district court and the others were from the Office of Immigration Review in the Department of Justice (two letters), Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Department of Homeland Security (two letters), and the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (four letters). The court order, which granted the plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, is a public document. The remaining letters, though nonpublic, are not the kind of documents whose perusal by prison officials would give them an edge in litigation. The plaintiff points to the sheer number of legal letters to him that were opened out of his presence as evidence of a practice of opening legal mail. But as long as the prison confines itself to opening letters that either are public or if private still are not of a nature that would give the reader insights into the prisoner’s legal strategy, the practice is harmless and may be justified by the volume of such mail that a litigious prisoner can generate. The plaintiff does not claim to have been intimidated by the practice; and as in Kaufman v. McCaughtry, supra, 419 F.3d at 686, he has ‘offered no evidence that his ability to litigate any matter was affected by the defendants’ actions.'”

“It’s true that Wisconsin law provides that mail from certain officials and organizations, both state and federal, may be opened only in the inmate’s presence. Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.04(3). That law may have been violated in this case (an issue on which we express no view). But a violation of state law is not a ground for a federal civil rights suit.”

Affirmed.

10-1726 Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Posner, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests