Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04114/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04114-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Scates Court of Appe ls 

Tenth Cir'l!it 

FEB 12 199 

OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk ROBERT HENRY WERNER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

GARY DELAND, ELDON BARNES, KERRY ) 

GALETKA, SHARON E. JENSEN, SUE PERSCHON,) 

JANET KNUDSEN, LINDA WYCHERLEY, COLLETT) 

TRAGER, WYLENE IKA, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-4114 

(D.C. No. 90-C-298-G) 

(D. Utah) 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, 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. 

Mr. Werner appeals the dismissal of his prose civil rights 

* 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: 90-4114 Document: 010110099942 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 1 
suit. 

Mr. Werner filed a prose suit, which was dismissed by the 

district court and affirmed by this court in No. 90-4130. The 

present suit was filed against the same defendants and alleged the 

very same conduct. This action was likewise dismissed as being 

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

Mr. Werner appeals prose alleging bias. We find no merit to 

his contentions. 

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for 

substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate's 

Report and Recommendation entered June 21, 1990, a copy thereof 

being attached. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-4114 Document: 010110099942 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 2 
JUN 21 1990 

BY----

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

ROBERT HENRY WERNER, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

GARY DELAND, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 90-C-298 G 

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

The plaintiff, Robert Henry Werner, an inmate at the Utah 

State Prison (U.S.P.) filed suit in 90-C-298 Gunder 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 against the Warden of the U.S.P. and various other 

correctional officers of the U.S.P. mailroom. The plaintiff 

alleges that on March 15, 1990 plaintiff received mail from the 

United States Magistrate's office and the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals that was opened outside his presence. The U.S.P. policy 

requires that mail be stamped as privileged or the like before it 

will be treated as confidential requiring that it be opened 

outside the presence of the inmate. Rule 201, F.R.E. 

Subsequently, plaintiff filed suit in 90-C-319 W against the 

same defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the very same 

conduct. The matters were consolidated under 90-C-298 G. (File 

Entry #4). The cases have been referred to the magistrate, by 

both assigned judges, under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B). The issue 

is whether service of process should issue or the case dismissed 

Appellate Case: 90-4114 Document: 010110099942 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 3 
under 28 u.s.c. § 1915 (d). This report and recommendation has 

been submitted pursuant to the reference. 

In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) the Supreme Court 

upheld a state prison policy allowing inmate mail from attorneys 

to be opened and inspected in the presence of the inmate. The 

court in Wolff suggested that a prison could impose reasonable 

security standards as a condition to lawyers communicating with 

inmates, Id. p. 575-577. The court indicated it was appropriate 

to require mail to be marked as confidential to be subject to 

special handling. U.S.P. regulations require inmate mail to be 

marked "privileged", "confidential", or the like in order to be 

subject to special handling. Recently in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 

U.S._, 109 s.ct. 1874, (1989) the court applied the reasonable 

penological need standard recognized in Turner v. Safley, 482 

U.S. 78 (1987) to inmate mail. The U.S.P. policy then should be 

upheld unless plaintiff could show there is no penological need. 

However, in Jolivet v. DeLand, 87-C-685 W (D.C. Utah 1990) 

the U.S.P. policy was approved by this court. The court relied 

on Harrod v. Halford, 773 F.2d 234 {8th Cir. 1985); Jensen v. 

Klecker, 648 F.2d 1179 {8th Cir. 1981); Taylor v. Sterrett, 532 

F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1976) and Martin v. Brewer, 830 F.2d 76 (7th 

Cir. 1987) for the proposition that not all mail from courts or 

attorneys is to be treated as confidential and attorneys wishing 

their communications to be privileged must so mark their letters. 

Such a requirement is constitutional. 

The court in Jolivet v. DeLand, supra, left open the 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-4114 Document: 010110099942 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 4 
question of handling mail from the courts. In Martin v. Brewer, 

supra, it was observed that court mail could easily be so marked 

if the matter needed to be kept confidential. See also Sanchez 

v. Esthers, 1989 WL 84595 (D.C.N.D. Ill. 1989) (unreported). 

However, in Martin v. Brewer, supra, the court suggested the 

plaintiff should at least have to show the need for 

confidentiality. 

Therefore, in this case, the law at the time of the alleged 

violation was not "clearly established". Under such 

circumstances each defendant would be qualifiedly immune from a 

suit for damages. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1987); 

Pueblo Neighborhood Health Center v. Losavlo, 847 F.2d 642 (10th 

Cir. 1988); Rozek v. Topolnicki, 865 F.2d 1154 (10th Cir. 1989); 

Eastwood v. Dept. of Corrections of the State of Oklahoma, 846 

F.2d 627 (10th Cir. 1988). Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for 

damages should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

As to plaintiff's claim for declaratory and injunctive 

relief, the current U.S.P. policy as to opening court mail is not 

alleged. If the plaintiff is still having problems, he should be 

allowed to file an amended complaint. However, in Smith v. 

Maschner, 899 F.2d 940 (10th Cir. 1990) decided after Jolivet v. 

DeLand, supra the Court of Appeals held that opening of legal 

mail outside of the inmates presence in one or two instances 

"does not give rise to a constitutional violation". Therefore, 

plaintiff should not be allowed to pursue his claim for 

injunctive relief without a showing of some current need for such 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-4114 Document: 010110099942 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 5 
relief. City of Los Angeles v. Lyous, 461 U.S. 95 (1983). 

Further, in the absence of a need for injunctive relief the 

request for declaratory relief is moot. Schepp v. Fremont 

County, Wyoming, _F.2d_, (10th Cir. March 30, 1990) (Slip Op.). 

Therefore, plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Plaintiff should be allowed to file an 

amended complaint if he can allege sufficient facts to presently 

require declaratory or injunctive relief. 

Copies of the foregoing report and recommendation are being 

mailed to the parties. They are hereby notified of their right 

to file objections hereto within ten days from the receipt 

hereof. 

DATED this 

Ronald N. Boyce 

United States Magistrate 

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 

I hereby certify that I have mailed a copy of the foregoing 

Report and Recommendation to Robert Henry Werner, P.O. Box 250, 

Draper, UT 84020 on this~ day of June, 1990. 

Clerk 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-4114 Document: 010110099942 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 6