Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01967/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-01967-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD LEWIS ASHKER and DANNY TROXELL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER; R.Q. HICKMAN;

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, JR; JEANNE WOODFORD;

JOE MCGRATH; CAROL A. DALY; SHARON

LAWIN; CAL TERHUNE; GEORGE LEHMAN;

MR. ROOS; BOOKER T. WELCH; BRETT

GRANLUND; LARRY STARN; KENNETH L.

RISEN; JONES M. MOORE; GRAY DAVIS;

PETE WILSON; JAMES GOMEZ; and DOES 1

through 10;

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-1967 CW

ORDER ON CROSSMOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs Todd Ashker and Danny Troxell move for summary

judgment on Plaintiff Ashker's claim that Pelican Bay State

Prison's ban on hardcover books violated his First Amendment

rights. Defendant Joe McGrath opposes the motion and cross moves

for summary judgment. Plaintiffs oppose Defendant's cross-motion. 

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

The matter was heard on March 3, 2006. Having considered all of

the papers filed by the parties, the evidence cited therein and

oral argument on the motions, the Court grants in part Plaintiffs'

motion for summary judgment and grants in part Defendant's crossmotion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are prisoners of the State of California who are

incarcerated in the Security Housing Unit (SHU) at Pelican Bay

State Prison (PBSP). 

The California Code of Regulations provides that prisoners can

purchase softcover books. 15 C.C.R. § 3138(f)(1). It is silent as

to whether prisoners can purchase hardcover books. In January,

2000, PBSP's Operational Procedure No. 806, however, stated that,

"No hardbound books are allowed." This remained the written policy

for several years. But, in practice, hardbound books were allowed

in the SHU as long as the hard covers were removed. As a staff

member wrote on July 22, 2002, "It is our policy to remove the

covers, even though the OP 806(L)(6) states, 'No hardbound books

are allowed.'" Dec. of Frank Clement, Ex. C (Inmate/Parolee Appeal

Form). Before a hard cover could be removed, an inmate would have

to sign an agreement that allowed the PBSP staff to remove the hard

cover and absolved PBSP and its staff from liability for removing

the cover. 

At some point, however, the no hardbound books policy was

enforced. According to Plaintiff Ashker, the PBSP-SHU staff did

not enforce this policy until after this Court, in September, 2002,

issued a permanent injunction that enjoined PBSP from prohibiting

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 In their papers, Plaintiffs state that the enforcement of

the no-hardbound-books policy was in retaliation for Ashker having

prevailed in the book label case. But this allegation is not in

their complaint. Instead, their complaint alleges that Defendant

enforced the policy in retaliation for inmates complaining that

staff damaged their books while removing the hard covers. 

3

inmates from receiving books, periodicals, magazines or calendars

solely because a book label approved by the prison was not

attached.1 See Ashker v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections, 224 F. Supp.

2d 1253, 1264 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Another inmate states that he

became aware that he could not receive hardbound books, even with

the covers removed, on July 15, 2002, when he received a 2002 book

label form that stated "hard cover book(s) are not allowed at

Pelican Bay State Prison." Clement Dec., Ex. A. Still other

inmates state that it was not until 2003 that they were no longer

able to receive hardcover books from publishers. See, e.g., Dec.

of Danny Troxell.

In December, 2003, Plaintiff Ashker's family sent him a book

titled, Daily Guideposts 2004: Spirit-Lifting Thoughts for Every

Day of the Year. Because it was a hardcover book, PBSP would not

allow Ashker to have the book, even with the cover removed. Ashker

filed an Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form, objecting that the book was

withheld from him and arguing that there was no legitimate reason

for not allowing hardcover books, subject to cover removal. At the

informal level, Ashker's appeal was denied: 

OP 806, signed by the Warden, states hard bound books are

not allowed. Due to appeal issues when hard-bound books

had there [sic] covers removed, and making inmate alter a

$60.00 to $100.00 book, it is no longer practiced. Also

most books are offered in soft covers after they are

released.

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 3 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

Dec. of Todd Ashker, Ex. D. Ashker's appeal was also denied at the

formal level. Attached to the denial of his appeal was an October

21, 2002 memorandum from former Warden, Defendant McGrath, stating

that book purchases will not require a book label and that the

"current PBSP policy of ten books in possession, new books only and

no hardbound books, remains unchanged." Id.

Ashker's appeal was denied on the second-level review and the

third-level review as well. The denial from the second-level

review, written by Defendant McGrath, found that the prohibition on

hardcover books complies with legitimate penological interest:

unlike the cover on a softcover book, the "cover of a hardcover

book has many places to hide contraband." But, Defendant McGrath

recognized, "There is an exception. The covers can be removed from

a hardcover book, and the inmate can be issued the book without its

book cover. This eliminates all the potential hiding places

associated with a hard cover book." The problem with removing the

cover, however, is

it also diminishes the durability of the book. The

publisher did not intend handling of the book without

the cover, so this solution has its own problems. In

general, the institution does not support removing the

covers from hardcover books. Millions of books are

available with a soft cover binding. Restricting an

inmate to soft cover books should not result in a

significant reduction of access. The institution has

determined that some educational programs do not have

soft cover books available for their correspondence

courses. In this case, the institution allows the

hardcover books with the covers removed as there is no

practical alternative. The present policy is the most

reasonable approach. In general, hardcover books are

prohibited from Security Housing Unit (SHU) inmates.

Id.

In May, 2004, Operation Procedure No. 806 was revised. The

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 4 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

new policy stated, "No newly purchased hardbound books are allowed. 

Only hardbound books received through an approved correspondence

course (educational books), and previously owned hardbound books

will be modified to meet this security requirement." Dec. of

S. Kays, Ex. A. Under this policy, Plaintiff Ashker, after he

signed a "Statement of Agreement to Modify Hard Cover Educational

Books," was able to receive the hardcover books required for an

approved paralegal correspondence course he was taking. Ashker

Dec., Ex. E.; Kays Dec., Ex. E. But he was not permitted to obtain

other educational hardbound books that were not part of his

approved correspondence course. Ashker Dec. ¶ 25. 

In December, 2005, approximately one and a half years after

Plaintiffs filed this action, the hardcover book policy contained

in Operation Procedure No. 806 was again revised. It now allows

inmates to have books that are "paperback or hardback with covers

removed." Kays Dec., Ex. C (Personal Property Plan, p.5). On

January 23, 2006, Warden Richard Kirkland sent a memorandum to all

staff. The purpose of the memorandum was to "reiterate/clarify the

Pelican Bay State Prison Personal Property Schedule -- 2005

addendum dated December 16, 2005, as related to the issuance of

allowable books." Id., Ex. D. The memorandum stated that "all

hardcover books are permitted with the cover removed. This applies

to both educational and non-educational type books. While staff

may determine a book not meeting all requirements to be

unauthorized, determination will not be based solely upon a book's

cover." Id.

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 5 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is properly granted when no genuine and

disputed issues of material fact remain, and when, viewing the

evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant is

clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);

Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1288-89 (9th Cir.

1987).

The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no

material factual dispute. Therefore, the court must regard as true

the opposing party's evidence, if supported by affidavits or other

evidentiary material. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Eisenberg, 815

F.2d at 1289. The court must draw all reasonable inferences in

favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

587 (1986); Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 952 F.2d

1551, 1558 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Material facts which would preclude entry of summary judgment

are those which, under applicable substantive law, may affect the

outcome of the case. The substantive law will identify which facts

are material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986).

Where the moving party does not bear the burden of proof on an

issue at trial, the moving party may discharge its burden of

production by either of two methods. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins.

Co., Ltd., v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1106 (9th Cir.

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 6 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7

2000). 

The moving party may produce evidence negating an

essential element of the nonmoving party’s case, or,

after suitable discovery, the moving party may show that

the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an

essential element of its claim or defense to carry its

ultimate burden of persuasion at trial. 

Id. 

If the moving party discharges its burden by showing an

absence of evidence to support an essential element of a claim or

defense, it is not required to produce evidence showing the absence

of a material fact on such issues, or to support its motion with

evidence negating the non-moving party's claim. Id.; see also

Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 885 (1990); Bhan v.

NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991). If the

moving party shows an absence of evidence to support the non-moving

party's case, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to

produce "specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible

discovery material, to show that the dispute exists." Bhan, 929

F.2d at 1409. 

If the moving party discharges its burden by negating an

essential element of the non-moving party’s claim or defense, it

must produce affirmative evidence of such negation. Nissan, 210

F.3d at 1105. If the moving party produces such evidence, the

burden then shifts to the non-moving party to produce specific

evidence to show that a dispute of material fact exists. Id.

If the moving party does not meet its initial burden of

production by either method, the non-moving party is under no

obligation to offer any evidence in support of its opposition. Id.

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 7 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8

This is true even though the non-moving party bears the ultimate

burden of persuasion at trial. Id. at 1107.

Where the moving party bears the burden of proof on an issue

at trial, it must, in order to discharge its burden of showing that

no genuine issue of material fact remains, make a prima facie

showing in support of its position on that issue. UA Local 343 v.

Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc., 48 F.3d 1465, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). That

is, the moving party must present evidence that, if uncontroverted

at trial, would entitle it to prevail on that issue. Id.; see also

Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1264-65 (5th

Cir. 1991). Once it has done so, the non-moving party must set

forth specific facts controverting the moving party's prima facie

case. UA Local 343, 48 F.3d at 1471. The non-moving party's

"burden of contradicting [the moving party's] evidence is not

negligible." Id. This standard does not change merely because

resolution of the relevant issue is "highly fact specific." Id.

II. Prisoners' Constitutional Claims

"Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates

from the protections of the Constitution." Turner v. Safley, 482

U.S. 78, 84 (1987). Where prison rules or regulations impede the

exercise of a prisoner's constitutional rights, federal courts must

discharge their duty to protect those rights. See id. However,

courts must be aware that they are "ill equipped to deal with the

increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform." 

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Where the

regulations of a State prison are involved, "federal courts have 

. . . additional reason to accord deference to the appropriate

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 8 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

prison authorities." Id. at 85 (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted).

A prison regulation that limits a prisoner's exercise of his

or her constitutional rights will thus be upheld where it

"reasonably relate[s] to a legitimate penological interest." Id.

at 89-90. This determination entails consideration of four

factors: (1) whether there is a rational relationship between the

regulation and the proffered legitimate government interest; 

(2) whether inmates have alternative means of exercising their

asserted rights; (3) how accommodation of the claimed

constitutional right will affect guards, a prisoner's fellow

inmates, and the allocation of prison resources; and (4) whether

the policy is an "exaggerated response" to the jail's concerns. 

Id.; see also Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1058-59 (9th Cir.

1999).

DISCUSSION

I. First Amendment Claim

It is not disputed that Plaintiffs, even while incarcerated in

the SHU, retain First Amendment rights not inconsistent with their

status as prisoners or with legitimate penological objectives of

the corrections system. See Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822

(1974); Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir.

2001). Regulations affecting prisoners' access to publications are

valid only if they are reasonably related to legitimate penological

interests. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413 (1989)

(citing Turner, 482 U.S. at 89). Regulations to be viewed with

caution include those which categorically prohibit access to a

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 9 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10

broad range of materials. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1093

(9th Cir. 1996), amended, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998) (allowing

challenge to prison's "publisher's only" rule that applied to

softcover books); see also Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 520 (9th

Cir. 1991) (rule categorically preventing inmates from receiving

softcover books and magazines not sent directly from publisher must

be scrutinized closely). 

In the instant case, Plaintiffs contend that PBSP's nohardbound-books policy impedes their ability to receive books, from

legitimate commercial vendors, that are not available in soft

cover, thus infringing their rights under the First Amendment. 

While Defendant states that millions of books are available in

paperback, Defendant does not refute that, as noted in declarations

submitted by Plaintiffs and other inmates, many books are not

available in paperback, especially educational, legal and resource

books. See, e.g., Dec. of Kenneth Johnson ¶ 6 ("It has been my

personal experience that most of the books related to the subjects

that I have focused my studies on (history, civics, law,

philosophy, human anatomy) that are in depth, only come in hardback

editions and are not available in soft cover editions."). Because

this claim implicates Plaintiffs' right to receive numerous

materials, this regulation must be reviewed closely. See Johnson,

948 F.2d at 520.

A. Rational Relationship

As stated above, the Court must first consider whether there

is a rational relationship between PBSP's ban on hardcover books

and the prison's proffered legitimate government interests. This

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 10 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 11

requires that the Court examine whether PBSP's objective

is legitimate and neutral, and whether the policy is rationally

related to that objective. See Mauro, 188 F.3d at 1059.

Defendant states that the reason behind the ban on hardcover

books was to maintain security in the prison by limiting inmates'

access to contraband and articles which could constitute safety

hazards or a breach of security. Preventing the introduction of

contraband and ensuring prison security are legitimate penological

interests. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 553-55 (1979)

(introduction of contraband); Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 1520-21

(9th Cir. 1993) (same); Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 415 (prison

security); Mauro, 188 F.3d at 1059 (same). And, as the Supreme

Court explained, "Where, as here, prison administrators draw

distinctions between publications solely on the basis of their

potential implications for prison security, the regulations are

'neutral' in the technical sense in which we meant and used that

term in Turner." Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 415-16. 

But PBSP's no-hardback-books policy is not rationally related

to a legitimate and neutral objective. Turner's “rational

relationship factor . . . is a sine qua non." Prison Legal News,

238 F.3d at 1151 (citing Walker, 917 F.2d at 385). Thus, where the

prison regulation fails to satisfy this factor, the court need not

consider the remaining factors. Id. The burden of proof in

challenges to prison regulations is set forth in Frost v.

Symington, 197 F.3d 348 (9th Cir. 1999). The initial burden is on

the State to put forth a “common-sense” connection between its

policy and a legitimate penological interest. If the State does

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 11 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 12

so, the plaintiff must present evidence that refutes the

connection. Id. at 357. The State must then present enough

counter-evidence to show that the connection is not so “remote as

to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.” Id.

The evidence Plaintiffs submit, and the evidence submitted by

Defendant, refutes any common-sense connection between the nohardbound-books policy and PBSP's legitimate goals of ensuring

against contraband and providing prison safety. As noted above, in

denying Ashker's request for his hardbound book, Defendant

acknowledges that removing the cover from a hardbound book

"eliminates all the potential hiding places." Defendant identifies

"problems" with removing the hard covers: it diminishes the

durability of the book and the publishers did not intend handling

of the book without the cover. Those problems, however, are not

related to prison security. Defendant's concern with the

durability of books is not a legitimate penological interest. 

In his cross-motion, Defendant further states that hardcover

books are more complicated to process, and that hardcover books,

without their covers, that fall apart are more difficult to search. 

With this statement, Defendant is able to meet his initial burden

to put forth a “common-sense” connection between PBSP's policy and

a legitimate penological interest. But this connection is refuted

by declarations provided by Plaintiffs. Numerous inmates state

that their hardcover books, with the covers removed, have not

fallen apart and that, during their many years of incarceration in

the SHU, they are aware of no issues with the books once their

covers were removed. See, e.g., Troxell Dec. ¶ 14 ("I have never

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 12 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 13

seen or heard of hardcover books with covers removed being a

security problem during my 15 years in SHU at Pelican Bay

Prison."); ¶ 17 ("I have had an encyclopedia [with its hardcover

removed] consisting of over 3,000 pages since 1993, and it has not

been damaged in all these years."); Johnson Dec. ¶¶ 8-9, 12

(similar). Inmates explain an uncomplicated process that was in

effect for almost a decade that allowed them to receive hardbound

books without the covers. See, e.g., Ashker Dec. ¶¶ 3-4, 11-12;

Troxell Dec. ¶¶ 4, 7. 

Defendant provides no counter-evidence, not even a declaration

by a staff member, to dispute the inmates' assertions that it is

not more complicated to process hardcover books and that the books,

without their covers, do not fall apart, making them more difficult

to search. Instead, Defendant states that the hardbound book

regulation was closely related to the goal of preserving prison

security and cites Mauro. In Mauro, however, the "relationship

between the possession of sexually explicit materials and the

problems sought to be addressed by the policy -- sexual harassment

of female officers, jail security and rehabilitation of inmates --

is clear." 188 F.3d at 1059. Here, no such relationship is clear.

Plaintiffs note that they are not challenging PBSP's policy

that requires all hardcover books to come directly from vendors and

have their covers removed by staff. They are only challenging

PBSP's policy that prevented inmates from having hardbound books,

even after the covers were removed, a policy that, since this suit

was brought, has been amended. As Defendant acknowledges in his

reply, "Perhaps PBSP's new policy permitting modified hardcover

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 13 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 14

books into the prison is the more constitutionally palatable

solution." The Court must conclude that there is no common sense

relationship between banning hardcover books without their covers

and PBSP's interests in preventing the introduction of contraband

or ensuring prison safety.

Although the Court need not consider the remaining factors, it

will. The consideration of those factors makes it even more clear

that Defendant's policy impermissibly violated Plaintiffs' First

Amendment rights because it is not reasonably related to a

legitimate penological interest.

B. Alternative Means 

The second factor requires the Court to examine whether

Plaintiffs had alternative means of exercising their First

Amendment rights. The Supreme Court instructs, "Where 'other

avenues' remain available for the exercise of the asserted right,

courts should be particularly conscious of the 'measure of judicial

deference owed to corrections officials . . . in gauging the

validity of the regulation.'" Turner, 482 U.S. at 90 (quoting

Pell, 417 U.S. at 827) (inner citation omitted; alterations in

original). Defendant notes that Plaintiffs were not barred from

receiving all publications and that inmates could receive paperback

books. Because many books are not available in paperback, this

factor only slightly supports the no-hardbound-books policy; the

remaining two factors, however, do not support the no-hardboundbooks policy. 

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 14 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 15

C. Accommodation and Allocation of Prison Resources

The third factor requires the Court to examine the impact that

the accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on

guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources

generally. Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. As Plaintiffs note, for many

years, inmates were allowed to have hardbound books with the covers

removed. Defendant provides no explanation for beginning to

enforce the written no-hardbound-books policy. Instead, Defendant

contends that prison officials were concerned that inmates would

file claims for the damage to hardcover books and that their ban on

hardbound books encourages the purchase of softcover books, which

are easier to process because they do not have to be modified. As

Plaintiffs note, however, inmates have to sign an agreement

releasing PBSP and its staff from all liability before the cover is

removed. And Defendant's contention that softcover books are

easier to process does not address whether the accommodation of

permitting hardbound books without the covers will have a

significant negative impact on prison guards, other inmates and the

allocation of prison resources. Indeed, PBSP's new written policy

allowing inmates to have hardcover books without the cover

indicates that the accommodation of Plaintiffs' First Amendment

rights will not have a significant negative impact. This is

especially true considering that allowing inmates to have hardbound

books without the covers was the unwritten policy for many years, a

fact Defendant ignores, but does not deny. 

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 15 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 16

D. Reasonable Alternatives or "Exaggerated Response" 

The final factor for the Court to consider is whether the

policy is an exaggerated response to the prison's concerns. In

Turner, the Supreme Court explained that "the absence of ready

alternatives is evidence of the reasonableness of a prison

regulation. By the same token, the existence of obvious, easy

alternatives may be evidence that the regulation is not reasonable,

but is an 'exaggerated response' to prison concerns." 482 U.S. at

90. Here, Plaintiffs point to an alternative that fully

accommodates the prisoners' rights at a de minimis cost to valid

penological interests: the policy recently adopted by PBSP that

permits hardcover books if their covers have been removed and if

inmates sign an agreement absolving PBSP and its staff from

liability surrounding the removal of the cover. The new policy is

evidence that the total ban on hardcover books does not satisfy the

reasonable-relationship standard. Id. at 90-91. Defendant's

contention that the "proffered solution" of removing the covers of

the book was not easy because it diminishes the durability of the

book is not persuasive. 

The Court finds that the ban on hardbound books with their

covers removed was not reasonably related to legitimate penological

interests. But, as Defendant notes, this policy has been revised. 

Defendant requests that the Court exercise its discretion not to

grant Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief, because of the

revised policy. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Knight, 96 F.3d 1284, 1288

(9th Cir. 1996) (district courts possess discretion in determining

whether and when to entertain an action under the Declaratory

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 16 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 17

Judgment Act). According to Defendant, in the unlikely event that

the policy on hardcover books is again changed, Plaintiffs can

challenge that policy by adding the claim to their next suit. The

Court denies Defendant's request and grants Plaintiffs their

requested declaratory relief: PBSP's prior policy of disallowing

hardbound books was unconstitutional. 

II. Qualified Immunity

Defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 

The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials

"from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald,

457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The threshold question is whether, taken

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the facts alleged

show that the official's conduct violated a constitutional right. 

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). The plaintiff bears the

burden of proving the existence of a clearly established right at

the time of the allegedly impermissible conduct. Maraziti v. First

Interstate Bank, 953 F.2d 520, 523 (9th Cir. 1992). 

As discussed above, the ban on hardcover books, implemented

and enforced by Defendant, violated Plaintiffs' First Amendment

rights. Thus, the Court must next determine whether that right was

clearly established: "The contours of the right must be

sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that

what he is doing violates that right." Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201-2. 

To defeat the defendants' claim of qualified immunity, the

plaintiff has "to show that the policy was such a far cry from what

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 17 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 18

any reasonable prison official could have believed was legal that

the defendants knew or should have known they were breaking the

law." Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir. 2002). Here,

it is reasonable that, even though the Court has found otherwise,

Defendant McGrath could have thought that the hardbound book policy

would pass muster under Turner. Inmates were still allowed access

to millions of paperback books; the no-hardbound-books policy was

modified to permit inmates to use educational books with the hard

covers removed when Defendant learned that some education programs

did not have softcover books available for their correspondence

courses. 

Plaintiffs respond that Defendant is not entitled to qualified

immunity because the First Amendment right at issue here was

clearly established. According to Plaintiffs, there is a series of

cases showing that blanket banning of types of books violates the

First Amendment rights of inmates. But in two of the cases

Plaintiffs cite, the court found that the defendants were entitled

to qualified immunity. See Johnson, 948 F.2d at 520-21 (holding

that, in light of pre-existing law, the unlawfulness of denying

access to softcover books from other parties is not apparent, and

thus the defendants were entitled to prevail on their defense of

qualified immunity); Keenan, 83 F.3d at 1093 (noting that qualified

immunity protected the defendants from damages liability on the

plaintiff's claim challenging the prison's policy under which only

publishers may send reading materials to the inmates). Although

Bell established that the prohibition against receipt of hardbound

books unless mailed directly from publishers, book clubs, or

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 18 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 19

bookstores does not violate the First Amendment rights of inmates,

it did not clearly establish the right to receive hardbound books

without the covers in situations where inmates were allowed access

to non-hardbound publications. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 550.

Plaintiffs do not meet their burden of proving the existence

of a clearly established right. Nor do Plaintiffs provide any

authority to support their assertion that the alleged retaliation

claim precludes any finding that Defendant is entitled to qualified

immunity. The Court finds that Defendant is entitled to summary

judgment of qualified immunity from Plaintiff Ashker's damages

claim against him.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment or

Alternative Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 38) and

DENIES it in part. Specifically, the Court determines that summary

judgment regarding Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief is

proper: PBSP's prior policy of disallowing hardbound books, even

those with the covers removed, was unconstitutional. The Court,

however, will not issue an injunction because PBSP has revised its

policy; PBSP no longer prohibits hardcover books with their covers

removed. 

Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 63)

is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part: Defendant McGrath is

entitled to qualified immunity.

Judgment shall enter accordingly. As discussed at the

hearing, Plaintiffs' counsel has sixty days to file a motion for

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 19 of 20
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 20

attorney's fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/8/06

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-01967-CW Document 68 Filed 03/08/06 Page 20 of 20