Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07102/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07102-0/pdf.json

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

---

-, FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uflired Scates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUL 2 5 1990 

JOHN A. MOSIER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

OKLAHOMA STATE PENITENTIARY; 

JAMES S. SAFFLE; BOB BOONE, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-7102 

(D.C. No. 89-129-C) 

(E. D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate .record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This case comes to us on appeal of the district court's 

denial of plaintiff John Mosier's motion to proceed on appeal in 

forma pauperis. Mosier instituted this suit pursuant to 42 u.s.c. 

S 1983 to protest the censoring of his mail at the Oklahoma State 

* 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: 89-7102 Document: 010110038740 Date Filed: 07/25/1990 Page: 1 
~ 

I 

i 

Penitentiary. 1 He alleges that the acting warden has issued an 

order requiring that all of his "legal" or "privileged" mail be 

inspected by prison personnel before mailing. It is undisputed 

that the warden's order resulted from Mosier's abuse of his right 

to mail legal correspondence without inspection by the prison, in 

that he enclosed in what he described as legal correspondence 

sealed letters to other individuals with a request that his lawyer 

forward them. It is also undisputed that Mosier's correspondence 

to his rabbi, arguably also privileged, was similarly misused. 

The district court dismissed Mosier's complaint, adopting the 

reasoning of the magistrate that the inspections are "reasonable 

restrictions on Plaintiff's correspondence in keeping with the 

necessity to protect the government's interest in security and 

order within the institution." 

Recommendation at 4. 

Magistrate~s Findings and 

We assume, because Mosier has not argued to the contrary, 

that the scope of the inspection of his privileged mail is limited 

to a determination that the envelope does not contain other 

correspondence or contraband. There is no indication in the 

record that the prison officials are actually reading his legal 

correspondence or that it is being inspected outside Mosier's 

presence, which might compel a different result. 

1 Mosier's original complaint also included several First 

Amendment based claims, challenging the prison's denial of his 

request for a grooming exemption, which would permit him to wear a 

beard as an incident of his religion (Orthodox Judaism). Mosier 

dismissed these claims on his own motion, and in any case they 

would now be moot because he was granted his requested exemption. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-7102 Document: 010110038740 Date Filed: 07/25/1990 Page: 2 
Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, we find no 

error in the decision of the district court to dismiss Mosier's 

suit. It is well-settled that the visual inspection of a 

prisoner's mail, privileged or not, is within the prerogative of 

prison officials fulfilling their duty to maintain security and 

discipline within the prisons. Jones v. Diamond, 594 F.2d 997, 

1014 (5th Cir. 1979), aff'd in relevant part on reh'g, 636 F.2d 

1364 (en bane), cert. dismissed, 453 U.S. 950 (1981); see also 

Ramos v. Lamm, 485 F. Supp. 122, 164 (D. Colo. 1979), aff'd in 

relevant part, 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 

U.S. 1041 (1981) (recognizing possibility that outgoing privileged 

mail may be opened in prisoner's presence if "contraband or 

improper communication is involved."). 

Mosier has apparently added a claim alleging that prison 

officials redacted another prisoner's consolidated record card 

sent to him as part of a requested record from the District Court 

of Eastern Oklahoma. While this amendment was not properly 

accomplished, and it is unclear whether it was considered by the 

district court, we will consider it briefly. We see no 

constitutional violation in the decision of the prison to 

eliminate from the card the inmate's social security number and 

next of kin. Reasonable penological considerations would support 

the confidentiality of such information and Mosier has made no 

showing that the redaction was at all prejudicial to his use of 

the file. 

It is therefore ordered as follows: 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-7102 Document: 010110038740 Date Filed: 07/25/1990 Page: 3 
• 

' 

1. The filing fee is waived; 

2. The district court's order dismissing Mosier's complaint 

is affirmed; 

3. The petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. 

4. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-7102 Document: 010110038740 Date Filed: 07/25/1990 Page: 4