Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03067/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03067-0/pdf.json

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

---

PI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Suites Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci:-cuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

REV. HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

NORMAN A. CARLSON, Director, and 

JERRY A. O'BRIEN, Warden, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ov 14 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Nos. 90-3039 & 90-3067 

(D.C. No. 86-3195-R) 

(D. Kansas) 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in 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. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circui t, 

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: 90-3067 Document: 010110047969 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 1 
Reverend Williams appeals the dismissal of his pro se civil 

action. 

Reverend Williams is an inmate serving a life sentence in the 

United States Penitentiary located at Leavenworth, Kansas. He 

commenced a prose civil action against the director of the United 

States Bureau of Prisons and the Warden asserting they unlawfully 

censor his mail and intercept his telephone conversations and 

contending, among many other insignificant deprivations of rights, 

that he has been denied his right of privacy "with lay members of 

the Kingdom of God in performing his Pastoral Counseling duties." 

(Complaint filed August 21, 1986.) It should be noted at this 

point that Reverend Williams claims to possess a bachelor of arts 

degree in religion, a masters degree in theology, a juris 

doctorate degree, a law legislative degree bachelor's degree, that 

he is a graduate of the Elisabeth School of Business, and that he 

is currently a candidate for his doctorate in theology. He 

further alleges he is an ordained minister and legal consul tant. 

After the district court permitted the filing of Reverend 

Williams' civil action, the Reverend aggressively prosecuted his 

cause with discovery and motions. A pretrial was held and the 

court summarized Reverend Williams' case as follows: 

Plaintiff alleges that he is a duly ordained 

minister. He alleges that all of his mail is e ither 

intercepted, delayed or censored by defendants or those 

acti ng under their direction or control. Plaintiff 

alleges that the contents of his incoming mai l are 

seized, that his telephone calls are interrupted without 

an eavesdropping order or are intercepted without an 

eavesdropping order and without a search warrant, and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3067 Document: 010110047969 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 2 
that the regulations of the defendants permitting the 

interception of such communications violate the 

plaintiff's rights under the First, Fourth and Fifth 

Amendments. Plaintiff alleges that the exclusion of 

clergy from the uncensored mail list violates the First 

and Fifth Amendments. Finally, plaintiff alleges that 

the mail or communications censorship regulations have a 

chilling effect upon the exercise of his right to be 

represented by counsel in violation of his rights under 

the Sixth Amendment. 

Plaintiff requests declaratory and injunctive 

relief and $3,000,000.00 in actual and $3,000,000.00 in 

punitive damages against each defendant, together with 

attorney fees. 

Pretrial Order ~r 4, dated March 20, 1987. 

Reverend Williams filed objections to the pretrial order; a 

"Notice of Intent to Seek Mandamus Relief"; and, a "Motion for 

Pretrial Evidentiary Hearing." Defendants then filed a motion to 

dismiss the complaint as it failed to state a claim upon which 

relief could be granted which was accompanied by a supporting 

brief. The district c·ourt thereupon ordered Reverend Williams to 

respond to the motion and this he did by filing a Motion to Stay 

Defendants' Motion and a ten page typewritten motion in opposition 

that was accompanied by numerous exhibits. Mr. Williams continued 

to file motions for appointment of counsel and expert 

statisticians and, following the court's denials, filed motions 

for reconsideration. Reverend Williams then filed a motion for 

declaratory judgment and injunctive relief as well as numerous 

other filings. 

The district court mercifully brought these proceedings to a 

conclusion by granting defendants' motions for dismissal on the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3067 Document: 010110047969 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 3 
ground no claim for relief was alleged. The district court stated 

as follows: 

Discussion 

Monitoring of Mail 

Plaintiff claims that the inspection of his 

religious correspondence by prison personnel infringes 

upon his rights under the First and Fourth Amendments. 

The censorship of outgoing personal correspondence 

prepared by prisoners is justified if the questioned 

regulation or practice furthers a legitimate 

governmental interest and the concomitant limitation of 

First Amendment freedoms is no greater than necessary to 

protect the governmental interest. Procunier v. 

Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 (1973), overruled on other 

grounds, Thornburgh v. Abbott, __ U.S. __ , 109 S.Ct. 

1874, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989). To further the goal of 

institutional security, prison officials are authorized 

by regulation to inspect and read outgoing mail. See 28 

C.F.R. §540.14. 

In contrast, the United States Supreme Court noted 

in Thornburgh, supra, that "[t]he implications of 

outgoing correspondence for prison security are of a 

categorically lesser magnitude than the implications of 

incoming materials." Thornburgh, 109 s.ct. 1874, 

[(1881)] (1989). Accordingly, prison officials must be 

given considerable deference in the regulation of 

incoming mail, and the monitoring of such correspondence 

is justified if the questioned practice is "reasonably 

related to legitimate penological interests." Id., 109 

S.Ct. at 1876 quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 

[(1987)]. Federal regulation expressly authorizes 

prison officials to establish monitoring procedures that 

may include the opening, inspection, and reading of 

incoming general correspondence. See 28 C.F.R. §540.14. 

After reviewing plaintiff's complaint in light of 

these standards, the court concludes that no grounds for 

relief are presented. Plaintiff has presented only bald 

allegations that his mail is routinely intercepted and 

delayed, and he thus presents no cognizable claim. 

Monitoring of Telephone Conversations 

Plaintiff next claims that the monitoring of his 

telephone calls by prison personnel violates his rights 

under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. 

The court also rejects this argument. It is well 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3067 Document: 010110047969 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 4 
established that prison officials may monitor 

conversations between inmates and visitors in order to 

safeguard institutional security. See Lanza v. New 

York, 370 U.S. 139 (1962); United States v. Paul, 614 

F.2d 115 (6th Cir. 1980); United States v. Hearst, 563 

F.2d 1331 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1000 

(1978). Plaintiff again presents no claim cognizable 

under 28 U.S.C. §1331, and the court finds that no 

grounds for relief are presented. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' motion to 

dismiss is granted. 

Order dated January 22, 1990. 

Reverend Williams now appeals requesting permission to 

proceed in forma pauperis, which we grant. On appeal Reverend 

Williams makes numerous assertions which may be summarized by 

stating that the monitoring of his mail and telephone calls are 

unconstitutional. 

At this point we note that Reverend Williams has filed two 

appeals from the actions of the district court which are docketed 

as Nos. 90-3039 and 90-3067. We companion these two actions and 

decide them both. We also note for the sake of clarity that 

Reverend Will iams has two additional appeals currently pending 

before this court (Nos. 90-3149 and 90-3122) and no disposition of 

these appeals is made by virtue of this Order and Judgment. 

The applicable standard of review was recently stated by the 

court: 

We review the district court's dismissal of 

plaintiff's complaint de novo, since the sufficiency of 

a complaint is a question of law. See Morgan v. City of 

Rawlins, 792 F.2d 975, 978 (10th Cir. 1986). A 

complaint should not be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-3067 Document: 010110047969 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 5 
. . 

12(b)(6) unless the court concludes, as a matter of law, 

that the plaintiff can prove no facts that would entitle 

him to relief. Id. 

In reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a 

claim, we presume that all of plaintiff's allegations 

are true and construe them in the light most favorable 

to him. Id. 

Gillihan v. Shillinger, 872 F.2d 935, 938 (10th Cir. 1989). 

We have carefully considered the record on appeal and the 

briefs filed herein by Reverend Williams. We AFFIRM the decisions 

of the district court for substantially the same reasons set forth 

by the district court which are quoted above. 

We commend the district court for his patience and thorough 

attention to detail in deciding the numerous issues presented to 

him during this litigation. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-3067 Document: 010110047969 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 6