Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04228/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04228-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

AUG lf 1992 

FRANK MEDEL, JR., ROBERT L. HOECKEn 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

GARY W. DELAND, Director, 

Department of Corrections; M. 

ELDON BARNES, Warden; RICHARD 

FISCHER, mail supervisor, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk . .!., 

No. 91-4228 

(D.C. No. 89-CV-956J) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Frank Medel, Jr., an inmate at the Utah State Prison ("USP"), 

appeals prose the district court's judgment in his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 action against Gary DeLand, Executive Director of the Utah 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the 

case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-4228 Document: 010110276730 Date Filed: 08/14/1992 Page: 1
Department of Corrections, Eldon Barnes, the USP Warden, and 

Richard Fischer, USP mail room supervisor (defendants). In his 

action, and in this appeal, Medel challenges the USP policy of 

opening mail outside the presence of an inmate. His specific 

allegation relates to "court" mail, which the USP opens outside 

the presence of an inmate unless the envelope is marked in a 

manner which clearly indicates that it is privileged or 

confidential material. According to Medel, this policy interferes 

with his right of access to the courts and his right to privacy 

and confidentiality with respect to his mail. 

A full hearing on Medel's action was held before the magistrate judge, who then issued a report recommending that Medel's 

action be dismissed on the merits for failure to establish a 

constitutional violation. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and entered judgment dismissing 

Medel's action. 

We agree with the disposition below, substantially on the 

basis and for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's report 

and recommendation. Our examination of the file convinces us that 

the prison regulation in question, Utah State Department of Corrections, Technical Manual Series, TMF 08 Inmate Mail at§ 11.01, 

satisfies the four factors set forth in Turner v. Saffley, 482 

U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987), for determining the validity of a prison 

regulation. There is a rational connection between the regulation 

and the governmental interest put forward to justify it. Id. 

(citing Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (1984)). According to 

the defendants, the USP mail policy is to maintain institutional 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4228 Document: 010110276730 Date Filed: 08/14/1992 Page: 2
safety and security by preventing contraband from entering the 

prison through the mail; to conserve prison resources of time and 

money; and to minimize contacts between inmates and staff. See 

O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987); United 

States v. Stotts, 925 F.2d 83, 87 (4th Cir. 1991); Harrell v. 

Keohane, 621 F.2d 1059, 1061 (10th Cir. 1980). 

Furthermore, the USP mail policy allows alternatives in that 

mail which is marked to show that it is confidential legal 

material is opened in the presence of the inmate. See Wolff v. 

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576 (1974); United States v. Stotts, 925 

F.2d at 88 (4th Cir. 1991). According to Medel, all mail should 

be opened in the presence of an inmate. As indicated above, that 

procedure would have an adverse impact on the allocation of prison 

resources, Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 90, and it does not 

constitute a satisfactory alternative. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-4228 Document: 010110276730 Date Filed: 08/14/1992 Page: 3