Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05363/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05363-11/pdf.json

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

---

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL GONZALES, CASE NO. CV-F-03-5363 LJO DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR COURT ORDER

vs.

[Doc. 74]

TOMLIN, et.al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On June 6, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” wherein

he requests that the court issue an order prohibiting the censoring of his mail. 

Prisoners have “a First Amendment right to send and receive mail.” Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d

264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995). However, isolated incidents of mail interference or tampering will not support

a claim under section 1983 for violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Davis v. Goord, 320

F.3d 346, 351 (2d. Cir. 2003); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir. 1997); Smith v.

Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir. 1990). In a case involving mail sent to a prisoner by his own

attorney, the Supreme Court held that prison officials may, consistent with the First Amendment, open

mail from attorneys in the presence of the prisoner for visual inspection. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418

U.S. 539, 576-7 (1974); Sherman v. MacDougall, 656 F.2d 527, 528 (9 Cir. 1981). The Court noted

th

Case 1:03-cv-05363-LJO-DLB Document 75 Filed 06/25/07 Page 1 of 2
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

that inspecting mail from attorneys in the presence of the inmate did all, and perhaps even more, than

the Constitution requires. Id. at 577. 

“[M[ail from the courts, as contrasted to mail from a prisoner’s lawyer, is not legal mail.”

Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9 Cir. 1996). “All correspondence from a court to a litigant is a th

public document, which prison personnel could if they want inspect in the court’s files.” Id. at 1094

(citing to Martin v. Brewer, 830 F.2d 76, 78 (7 Cir. 1987). Like mail from the court, the documents th

that defense counsel serves by mail on plaintiff are public documents. The documents are part of the

court file and prison personnel could inspect the file, if they so chose. 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s is without merit, and the motion is hereby

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 25, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05363-LJO-DLB Document 75 Filed 06/25/07 Page 2 of 2