Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01331/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01331-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CATO, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 26)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1 & 9.) The matter 

proceeds against Defendants Nash and Brambaugh on Plaintiff’s First Amendment right 

to receive mail claim. (ECF No. 15.) 

On September 25, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF 

No. 26.) Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 32.) Defendants filed no reply. 

The matter is deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 12
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

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Any party may move for summary judgment, and the Court shall grant summary

judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact 

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Wash. 

Mut. Inc. v. United States, 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Each party’s position, 

whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to 

particular parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, 

documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not 

establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party 

cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). 

Plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial, and to prevail on summary judgment, 

he must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than 

for him. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Defendants do not bear the burden of proof at trial and, in moving for summary 

judgment, they need only prove an absence of evidence to support Plaintiff’s case. In re 

Oracle Corp. Secs. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010).

In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court may not make 

credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984, 

and it must draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,

Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 

(9th Cir. 2011).

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Based on the submissions of the parties, the Court finds the following facts to be 

undisputed. 

Plaintiff was incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”) at all times 

relevant to his complaint. Defendant Nash was employed as a Correctional Captain at 

PVSP. Defendant Brumbaugh was employed as a Correctional Officer at PVSP.

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 12
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

3

In August 2008, mail room staff removed alleged contraband from Plaintiff’s mail. 

The removed items consisted of three photographs with “blackened/altered” images. 

There appears to be no dispute that the photographs initially contained frontal nudity but 

had been altered or editing by placing black marker ink over the genitalia area. Plaintiff 

received the envelope and letter that accompanied the photographs. 

On August 20, 2008, Correctional Officer Good completed a PVSP Mailroom 

Contraband Form regarding the photographs. The form required that Plaintiff sign the 

form and indicate whether he wanted the items donated, disposed of, destroyed, or 

returned to sender at Plaintiff’s expense. Rather than completing and signing the form, 

Plaintiff wrote, “I have the right to appeal!” Plaintiff appealed and his appeal was denied 

at the first and second levels of review.

On March 12, 2009, mail room staff completed a CDCR Form 1819, “Notification 

of Disapproval – Mail/Packages/Publications,” stating that Plaintiff’s incoming April 2009 

issue of XXL magazine was being held pending investigation because various pages 

contained “photographs of gang related hand gestures.” Defendant Nash eventually 

disapproved the magazine on this ground. The notification was forwarded to Plaintiff on 

March 25, 2009. Plaintiff appealed. Plaintiff’s appeal was denied at the informal, first, 

and second levels of review. 

On May 20, 2009, Plaintiff was sent six compact discs in his quarterly package. 

Five of the six CDs were confiscated because the invoice indicated they contained 

explicit lyrics. It appears the CDs were confiscated by Defendant Brumbaugh. Plaintiff 

appealed. Defendant Brumbaugh denied his appeal at the informal level. Plaintiff’s 

appeals to the first and second levels also were denied.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard 

Prisoners have “a First Amendment right to send and receive mail.” Witherow v. 

Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). However, there must be a “delicate 

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 3 of 12
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

balance” between prisoners’ First Amendment rights and the discretion given to prison 

administrators to govern the order and security of the prison. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 

U.S. 401, 407-408 (1989). 

A prison may adopt regulations or practices for incoming mail which impinge on a 

prisoner’s First Amendment rights as long as the regulations are “reasonably related to 

legitimate penological interests.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987); Thornburgh, 

490 U.S. at 413. Four factors are to be considered when determining the 

reasonableness of a prison rule: (1) whether there is a “valid, rational connection 

between the prison regulation and the legitimate government interest put forward to 

justify it”; (2) “whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain 

open to prison inmates”; (3) “the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional 

right will have on guards and other inmates and on the allocation of prison resources 

generally”; and (4) the “absence of ready alternatives,” or, in other words, whether the 

rule at issue is an “exaggerated response to prison concerns.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-

90. 

B. Parties’ Arguments

Defendants argue that the mail items denied to Plaintiff constituted contraband. 

They included photographs that had been altered, a magazine depicting gang gestures, 

and compact discs containing explicit lyrics. Plaintiff was given the required notification 

each time items were rejected. In each instance, Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding the 

rejection of his mail, and the appeal reviewers concluded the items properly were 

rejected. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because the mail policy did not 

violate Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights and, even if it did, Defendants would be

entitled to qualified immunity.

Plaintiff primarily argues that the confiscated items did not constitute contraband 

under the applicable regulations, and that any other rules or policies allowing for the 

confiscation of such items are unauthorized or ultra vires. He contends he did not 

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 4 of 12
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

receive proper notice regarding the confiscation of his photographs and CDs because 

the correct form was not used. 

C. Defendants’ Evidentiary Showing

Defendants present the following exhibits in support of their motion for summary 

judgment1: (a) excerpts from Plaintiff’s central file; (b) Operations Procedure No. 59, 

PVSP, December 2008; (c) undated excerpts from the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation Department Operations Manual; (d) materials dated 

October 23, 2006, explaining the significance of the Parental Advisory Label regarding 

explicit lyrics; and (e) a September 18, 2007 memorandum from the Warden of PVSP 

prohibiting CDs containing explicit lyrics.

“A trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for 

summary judgment.” Orr v. Bank for America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir.

2002). “Authentication is a condition precedent to admissibility and this condition is 

satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its 

proponent claims.” Id. (internal quotes and citation omitted). On a motion for summary 

judgment, “documents authenticated through personal knowledge must be attached to 

an affidavit . . . and the affiant must be a person through whom the exhibits could be 

admitted into evidence.” Id. (internal quotes and citation omitted).

Other than as regards the excerpts from Plaintiff’s central file, Defendants have 

not properly authenticated their exhibits. There is no declaration of counsel or other 

affidavit from a person with knowledge addressing the exhibits’ authenticity. 

Accordingly, the Court may not consider these exhibits in reviewing Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment. Even if these exhibits had been considered, the motion 

would still lack appropriate evidentiary support (as discussed in some detail below).

 

1 With the exception of the excerpts from Plaintiff’s central file, there is no exhibit list or declaration 

explaining the content of the exhibits. Thus, this list reflects the Court’s best efforts at identifying the 

exhibits. It is not meant to suggest the Court accepts the identification as an accurate reflection of their 

content.

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 5 of 12
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

Nonetheless, the factual representations presented in Defendants’ argument 

suggest Defendants might be able to address, and correct, these defects with minimal 

effort, and they most certainly would be expected to try to do so at trial. It would not 

benefit Plaintiff, Defendants or the Court to have the case proceed to trial only to have 

these same evidentiary matters addressed there rather than on summary judgment. The 

Court and the parties would expend, unnecessarily, a considerable amount of time, 

trouble and expense getting to an issue that could more easily be determined here and 

now: Does the evidence actually reflect what Defendants say it does? If so, judgment 

for Defendant’s may be appropriate, and it would be pointless to drag such a case out to 

and through trial. If it does not, the parties should know that so each can make an 

intelligent decision as to how to proceed. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that 

Defendants’ motion be denied without prejudice to Defendants submitting a properly 

supported motion for summary judgment within thirty days of the date of the order 

adopting these findings and recommendations.

D. Analysis

1. Photographs

Plaintiff was disallowed three photographs on the ground they had been altered 

with marker that could be removed to expose the genitals of the person depicted.

The California Code of Regulations prohibits inmates from possessing 

contraband. Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 15, § 3006. Contraband includes “obscene material” 

and “sexually explicit images that depict frontal nudity in the form of personal 

photographs, drawings, magazines, or other pictoral format.” Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 15, 

§ 3006(c)(15), (17). Sexually explicit material includes “material that shows the frontal 

nudity of either gender, including . . . the genitalia of either gender.” Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 

15, § 3006(c)(17)(A). Nonetheless, sexually explicit material that has educational, 

medical/scientific, or artistic value may be approved on a case-by-case basis. Cal. 

Code. Regs. tit. 15, § 3006(c)(17)(B). Additionally, the regulations prohibit inmates from 

possessing materials that have been “altered from their original manufactured state or 

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 6 of 12
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

purpose with their potential to be made, or in the process of being made, into a weapon; 

explosive or explosive-making materials; poison, caustic substance; or any destructive 

device.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3315(a)(2)(V). Assuming the PVSP Operations 

Procedures submitted by Defendants are authentic, those Procedures prohibit inmates 

from possessing any “altered” items. (ECF No. 26-2 at 63.)

Plaintiff argues that the photographs were not contraband under the applicable 

regulations because they were “edited,” rather than “altered.” According to Plaintiff, the 

PVSP mail procedures allow inmates to possess “edited” magazines and pictures. In 

support, Plaintiff submits pages from a magazine wherein images of frontal nudity were 

apparently censored by the publisher by placing an icon over the nude area in question.

In contrast, Defendants argue that inmates are prohibited from possessing “altered” 

magazines and that Plaintiff’s photographs were “altered.”

Presumably, the magazines presented by Plaintiff are allowable because they do 

not, in fact, display frontal nudity. By editing the magazine to cover up images of such 

nudity, the publisher has essentially removed the possibility of sexually explicit material 

entering the institution. In this sense, a magazine that has been “edited” by the 

publisher to cover frontal nudity prior to publication differs from photographs containing 

marker that can be removed.

Here, it is undisputed that the photographs at issue contained images of frontal 

nudity. Such images are prohibited by the regulations. Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 15, 

§ 3006(c)(17)(A). Although the nudity was covered by marker, Defendants claim that the 

marker easily could be removed, resulting in sexually explicit images within the 

institution. If Defendants’ claims are true, the photographs would fall under the 

regulation prohibiting sexually explicit materials and the Operations Procedure

prohibiting altered items. Such prohibitions likely satisfy the four-part Turner test.

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 7 of 12
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

However, Defendants have provided no evidence, much less competent 

persuasive evidence, to support their claim that the marker could be removed.2

Common experience cannot be said to be consistent with such a claim. Absent such 

evidence, the Court is unable to meaningfully review the four Turner factors, and so 

Defendants’ motion as to this claim must be denied.

2. Magazines

Plaintiff was disallowed his April 2009 issue of XXL magazine on the ground it 

allegedly contained “photographs of gang related hand gestures.” Plaintiff argues that 

XXL magazine is a “hip hop cultural magazine that does not promote gangs or violence 

of any kind.” He further argues that no determination was made that the magazine was 

contraband.

The California Code of Regulations prohibits inmates from receiving “[a]ny mail of 

a character tending to incite murder, arson, a riot, or any form of violence or physical 

harm to any person, or any ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or other group.” Cal. Code 

Regs. tit. 15, § 3135(c)(1). Inmates also are prohibited from receiving “[m]aterial that is 

reasonably deemed to be a threat to legitimate penological interests.” Cal. Code Regs. 

tit. 15, § 3006(c)(16). Assuming the PVSP Operations Procedures submitted by 

Defendants are authentic, those Procedures prohibit inmates from receiving “[p]hotos 

depicting gangs (or gang related hand gestures).” (ECF No. 26-2 at 63.) 

Here, Defendants submit records indicating that Plaintiff’s April issue of XXL 

magazine initially was held pending investigation, and eventually disallowed, pursuant 

to the Operating Procedures’ prohibition against photos depicting gangs or gang related 

hand gestures. (ECF No. 26-2 at 19.) Mail room staff noted that “several pages” of the 

magazine contained photographs of gang related hand gestures. This determination 

was affirmed in Plaintiff’s administrative appeal. (ECF No. 26-2 at 24.) 

 

2 Defendants also fail to present any authority, evidence or logic to support their claim that penological 

interests justify a ban on all “altered” items. Such a prohibition would, for example, extend to preclude an 

otherwise authorized piece of clothing if it had been “let out” or “taken in” by a tailor to make it fit an 

inmate.

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 8 of 12
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

However, Defendants have not submitted any admissible evidence, or any 

declarations by experts or institutional staff, tending to prove that the magazine did, in 

fact, contain gang related hand gestures. Plaintiff disputes that the magazine contained 

gang related hand gestures. He apparently has been prohibited from obtaining any 

evidence (such as a copy of the magazine) that would refute Defendants’ contentions.

The magazine itself is not before the Court.

A prison’s determination to disallow photographs of gang related hand gestures 

would be entitled to substantial deference. See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 

(2003) (prison administrators “bear a significant responsibility for defining the legitimate 

goals of a corrections system and for determining the most appropriate means to 

accomplish them”). However, whether the magazine at issue actually contained such 

images is a factual question that cannot be resolved on the record before the Court.

Defendant Nash essentially asks the Court to take his word for it that the magazine 

contained such images, even in the absence of a sworn declaration so stating. This the 

Court cannot do.

Accordingly, Defendant Nash has failed to show the absence of a genuine issue 

of material fact regarding whether the magazine was contraband. He is not entitled to 

summary judgment on this claim.

3. CDs

Plaintiff was denied five compact discs because the invoice indicated they

contained explicit lyrics. Defendants contend that the CDs themselves bore the Record 

Industry Association of America’s parental advisory label (“PAL”). They submit no 

evidence to support this contention. Defendants do submit evidence indicating that a 

PAL notice is applied to materials containing strong language, or depictions of violence, 

sex, or substance abuse. However, as with Defendants’ other evidence, the exhibits are 

not properly authenticated and cannot be considered.

Assuming the materials regarding the PAL criteria are authentic, several 

regulations arguably prohibit inmates from possessing such materials. Inmates are 

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 9 of 12
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

prohibited from receiving “[a]ny mail of a character tending to incite murder, arson, a 

riot, or any form of violence or physical harm to any person, or any ethnic, gender, 

racial, religious, or other group,” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3135(c)(1), “sexually explicit” 

and “obscene” material, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3006(c)(15), (17), and “[m]aterial that 

is reasonably deemed to be a threat to legitimate penological interests,” Cal. Code 

Regs. tit. 15, § 3006(c)(16). Additionally, Defendants submit an unauthenticated

September 18, 2007 memorandum from the PVSP Warden, prohibiting CDs containing 

“explicit lyrics that promote or depict gang activity, unlawful activities, or any matter of a 

character tending to incite murder; arson; riot; or any form of violence or physical harm 

to any person, or any ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or other groups.” It is noteworthy 

that there is no policy or regulation prohibiting materials containing “strong language.”

Plaintiff essentially argues that his particular CDs do not fall under any of the 

applicable prohibitions because they contained only strong language, rather than 

language depicting sex, violence, drug use, gang activity, or other unlawful conduct.

Defendants argue that the labeling of the CDs as “explicit” stands in for a more 

individualized determination that each CD contains language depicting sex, violence, 

drug use, gang activity, or other unlawful conduct. 

There is no real dispute that prohibitions against CDs containing language 

depicting sex, violence, drug use, gang activity, or other unlawful conduct are supported 

by legitimate penological interests. However, Defendants do not present any legitimate 

penological interests to support a ban on CDs containing “strong language.” Nor do they 

submit any admissible evidence to indicate that CDs labeled as “explicit” may contain 

depictions of violence, sex, or substance abuse. Finally, they submit no evidence 

indicating that Plaintiff’s CDs bore the PAL label.

Based on this lack of evidentiary support, Defendants’ motion as to this claim 

must be denied.3

 

3 Because Defendants have not provided evidence to support their contentions, the Court likewise cannot address 

their qualified immunity arguments.

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 10 of 12
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

4. Notice

Plaintiff argues that he did not receive proper notice that his mail was being 

withheld. 

The failure of prison officials to give notice that mail is being withheld may 

constitute a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation. See Frost v. Symington, 197 

F.3d 348, 353-54 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 

1152-53 (9th Cir. 2001). However, Plaintiff’s complaint presents no such claim.

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 14) did not allege that Plaintiff received

no notice or inadequate notice that his mail was withheld. Additionally, no such claim 

was recognized in the Court’s screening order. The instant action does not involve a 

Fourteenth Amendment lack-of-notice claim. 

Even if such a claim were before the Court, the evidence presented establishes 

that Plaintiff received notice that his mail was withheld on all three occasions and, on 

the basis of that notice, Plaintiff appealed. Plaintiff’s arguments raise, at most, a claim 

that notice was not provided in accordance with the applicable regulations and policies. 

Such an allegation does not, in itself, rise to the level of a constitutional violation. 

Whether notice was presented on a specific CDCR form is not dispositive of a due 

process claim. 

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 26) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to 

Defendants’ submitting a properly supported motion for summary judgment within thirty

days of the date of the order adopting these findings and recommendations. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any 

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 11 of 12
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

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 

(14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01331-LJO-MJS Document 34 Filed 06/29/15 Page 12 of 12