Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Barrett v. Belleque

544 F.3d 1060

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2008-09-22
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • noting that questions going to the merits of First Amendment claim are not appropriately resolved 28 1 Additionally, a prisoner must allege that (1) his “‘proffered belief [is] sincerely held’; and 2 (2
  • punishment for outgoing mail “resulting in a loss of good time, revocation of certain privileges, and other punitive measures”
  • district court “not in a position to decide, on the pleadings,” whether a prison’s rules 26 “‘further an important or substantial government interest,’ or impose limitations ‘no greater than 27 is necessary’”
  • district court “not 10 in a position to decide, on the pleadings,” whether a prison’s rules “‘further an important or 11 substantial government interest,’ or impose limitations ‘no greater than is necessary’”
  • district court “not in a position to decide, on the pleadings, whether [prison’s] rules 21 ‘further an important or substantial government interest,’ or impose limitations ‘no greater than is 22 necessary.’” (citations omitted)
  • At the pleading stage, the court is not in a 20 position to determine questions of the claim’s merit which require submission of evidence, versus 21 only a determination as to whether a claim has been plausibly stated
  • at the pleading stage, the court is not in a 3 position to determine questions of the claims’ merit which require submission of evidence, versus 4 only a determination as to whether a claim has been plausibly stated
  • at the pleading stage, the court is not in 18 a position to determine questions of the claim's merit which require submission of evidence, 19 versus only a determination as to whether a claim has been plausibly stated

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Barrett v. Belleque. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
114 opinions
BARRETT v. BELLEQUE,544 F.3d 1060(9th Cir. 2008)
Jacob Henry BARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian BELLEQUE; J.
Nofziger; Rebecca Prinslow; Gary Russell; J. Taylor; Kent Parker,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-35667.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 14, 2008.
Filed September 22, 2008.
Page 1061
Leonard J. Feldman, Heller Ehrman LLP, Seattle, WA, for plaintiff-appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, Janet A. Metcalf, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, OR, for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Garr M. King, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-00510-JE.
Before: B. FLETCHER and RICHARD A. PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAM W. SCHWARZER,fn*District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Jacob Barrett'spro secomplaint was dismissedsuasponteby the district court, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Barrett, a prisoner at the Oregon State Penitentiary, attempted to mail a series of letters to his grandmother and mother — those letters used vulgar and offensive racist language to describe prison officials. After reviewing the letters, prison officials cited Barrett for violation of various prison disciplinary rules, resulting in a loss of good time, revocation of certain privileges, and other punitive measures. Barrett responded by filing a complaint in federal court pursuant to42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the prison officials violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Acting without the benefit of any substantive briefing from the parties, the district court reasoned that the prison had a "legitimate penological interest[]" in preventing Barrett from using "crude and racist language," that outweighed any countervailing First Amendment interest. The district court's dismissal relied on an incorrect legal standard; under the correct standard Barrett has stated a claim for relief. We therefore reverse and remand.1

Dismissal for failure to state a claim is reviewedde novo. Weilburgv. Shapiro,488 F.3d 1202,1205(9th Cir. 2007). Factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in the plaintiff's favor.Id. "Pro secomplaints are to bePage 1062construed liberally and may be dismissed for failure to state a claim only where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."Id.(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The standards for evaluation of a First Amendment claim concerning outgoing correspondence sent by a prisoner to an external recipient were established by the Supreme Court inProcunier v. Martinez,416 U.S. 396,94 S.Ct. 1800,40 L.Ed.2d 224(1974),overruled on other grounds byThornburgh v. Abbott,490 U.S. 401,413-14,109 S.Ct. 1874,104 L.Ed.2d 459(1989). Under these standards, censorship of prisoner mail is justified only if "the regulation or practice in question [] further[s] an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression" and "the limitation of First Amendment freedoms [is] no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved."Id.at 413,109 S.Ct. 1874.Procunieris controlling law in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere as applied to claims involving outgoing prisoner mail.Bradleyv. Hall,64 F.3d 1276,1281n. 2 (9th Cir. 1995);Loggins v. Delo,999 F.2d 364,366(8th Cir. 1993);Brooks v. Andolina,826 F.2d 1266,1268-69(3d Cir. 1987);McNamara v. Moody,606 F.2d 621,624(5th Cir. 1979).

Barrett's complaint — which unequivocally pleads facts alleging that the prison censored his outgoing mail and punished him for its contents — states a claim that is clearly cognizable underProcunier.The district court was not in a position to decide, on the pleadings, whether the Oregon State Penitentiary's rules "further an important or substantial government interest," or impose limitations "no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection" of those interests.Procunier,416 U.S. at 413,94 S.Ct. 1800. These are questions that go to the merits of Barrett's claim, not to whether he has stated a claim.

Instead of analyzing Barrett's claim underProcunier, which is precedent that takes account of the fact that the recipient's First Amendment rights are implicated when outgoing prisoner mail is censored, the district court relied on case law addressing prison regulations that concern communications between prisoners.See, e.g., Jones v. NorthCarolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc.,433 U.S. 119,97 S.Ct. 2532,53 L.Ed.2d 629(1977);see also Turner v. Safley,482 U.S. 78,107 S.Ct. 2254,96 L.Ed.2d 64(1987). These authorities are not controlling here.2REVERSED AND REMANDED.
  1. The Honorable William v. Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. ↩
  2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1291. ↩
  3. We note that, after dismissal, Barrett broughtProcunierand its progeny to the district court's attention in a motion for reconsideration. That motion was denied by the district court without comment. ↩