Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-94-08001/USCOURTS-ca10-94-08001-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robin Beville
Appellant
Matthew Ednie
Appellee
Russell Stewart
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBIN BEVILLE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

MATTHEW EDNIE, Teton County Jail 

Deputy; RUSSELL STEWART, Teton 

County Jail Supervisor, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 94-8001 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Wyoming 

(D.C. No. 93-CV-104) 

FILED . lilllled States Court of Appcn" Tenth Circuit 

JAN 2 2 1996 

PATRICK FISHER 

Cieri< 

Daniel J. Sears, of Daniel J. Sears, P.C., Denver, Colorado, court-appointed counsel for 

Plaintiff-Appellant. 

Terry L. Armitage, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Cheyenne, Wyoming (Michael R. 

Mullikin, of Mullikin, Larson & Swift, Jackson, Wyoming, with him on the brief for 

Defendants-Appellees, in their official capacity), for Defendants-Appellees, in their 

individual capacity. 

PaulK. Knight, of Mullikin, Larson & Swift, Jackson, Wyoming, for DefendantsAppellees, in their official capacity. 

Appellate Case: 94-8001 Document: 01019287492 Date Filed: 01/22/1996 Page: 1 
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BARRETT, Circuit Judge, and DAUGHERTY, 

District Judge. • 

SEYMOUR, Chief Judge. 

'The Honorable Fred Daugherty, Senior United States District Judge for the 

Western, Eastern and Northern Districts of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

2 

Appellate Case: 94-8001 Document: 01019287492 Date Filed: 01/22/1996 Page: 2 
Robin Beville appeals the district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary 

judgment and denial of his cross-motion for summary judgment. Mr. Beville, a state 

prisoner, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against appellees Matthew Ednie 

and Russell Stewart, who are deputies at the Teton County Detention Facility, alleging 

that they violated his constitutional rights by denying him effective access to the courts 

and screening his mail while he was in their facility. We affirm. 

I. 

On September 23, 1991, Mr. Beville was arrested for a probation violation by local 

police officers in Jackson, Wyoming. For the next eighteen days he was held in the Teton 

County Detention Facility. He was then extradited to Spokane, Washington. 

During his incarceration in Teton County, Mr. Beville sought to file a civil lawsuit 

against the Colorado Department of Corrections for wrongfully holding him in jail past 

the date of his mandatory discharge. He also wished to research whether Teton County 

officials were violating his rights. The Teton County Detention Facility did not have a 

law library, however, nor was it staffed with anyone trained in the law who could assist 

prisoners.' Although Mr. Beville was unable to pursue his suit against the Colorado 

Department of Corrections during his incarceration in Teton County, he subsequently 

1 Mr. Beville informed the district court that the facility is now staffed with an 

attorney to assist prisoners. 

3 

Appellate Case: 94-8001 Document: 01019287492 Date Filed: 01/22/1996 Page: 3 
sued the Department before the statute of limitations expired. 

Mr. Beville brought the present action under section 1983 against Mr. Ednie and 

Mr. Stewart in their individual and official capacities. He maintained that defendants 

monitored his phone calls, including privileged communications with his attorney,2 

obstructed and denied his access to the courts, and examined and read his mail. On 

appeal, he contends the district court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary 

judgment. 

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Thrasher v. B & B ChQm. Co., 

2 F.3d 995, 996 (lOth Cir. 1993). Summary judgment is only warranted where there is no 

genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56( c); FDIC v. Oldenburg, 34 F.3d 1529, 1539 (lOth Cir. 1994). 

Although Mr. Beville asserts that several factual disputes were not resolved in discovery, 

he has not identified any fact issue which would affect our resolution of his constitutional 

claims, to which we now proceed. 

II. 

We first consider Mr. Beville's argument that defendants violated his right to 

access to the courts. The Constitution guarantees "inmates the right to 'adequate, 

effective, and meaningful' access to the courts." Petrick y, Maynard, II F.3d 991, 994 

2 Mr. Beville does not pursue this claim on appeal. 

4 

Appellate Case: 94-8001 Document: 01019287492 Date Filed: 01/22/1996 Page: 4 
(lOth Cir. 1993)(quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822 (1977)); see also Green y. 

Johnson, 977 F.2d 1383, 1389 (lOth Cir. 1992).3 Accordingly, "prison authorities [must] 

assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing 

prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the 

law." Bounds, 430 U.S. at 828. "A prison inmate's right of access to the courts is the 

most fundamental right he or she holds. 'All other rights of an inmate are illusory 

without it, being entirely dependent for their existence on the whim or caprice of the 

prison warden."' DeMallory y, Cullen, 855 F.2d 442,446 (7th Cir. 1988)(quoting Adams 

v. Carlson, 488 F.2d 619, 630 (7th Cir. 1973)). "This court has held that the 

constitutional right recognized in Bounds ... extends to county jails." Housley v. 

DodsQll, 41 F.3d 597, 598 (lOth Cir. 1994); see also Love y, Summit County, 776 P.2d 

908, 912 (lOth Cir. 1985), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 814 (1986). 

It is undisputed that Mr. Beville was denied access to a law library or legal 

assistance. Relying on Ruark v. Solano, 928 F.2d 947 (lOth Cir. 1991), defendants argue 

that Mr. Beville failed to state a claim for recovery because he suffered no injurious 

consequences stemming from the County's denial of access to a law library.' Defendants 

3 Bounds did not locate the foundation for this right, and subsequent decisions 

have identified several possible constitutional sources. See Carper y, Deland, 54 F.3d 

613, 616 n.3 (lOth Cir. 1995); John L. y, Adams, 969 F.2d 228, 231 (6th Cir. 1992). 

4 The district court determined that the denial of access to legal facilities was not 

taken pursuant to any official policy or custom of Teton County, and therefore denied 

recovery against defendants in their official capacity. Although Mr. Beville appeals this 

5 

Appellate Case: 94-8001 Document: 01019287492 Date Filed: 01/22/1996 Page: 5 
misread Ruark. There, we recognized past decisions holding that absent "allegations of 

injurious consequences, [a] plaintiff presents no actionable claim," but declared this rule 

inapplicable where there "is no showing of access to alternative legal resources." l!h at 

950. As a general rule, "[a] prisoner's constitutional right to access to legal resources is 

not conditioned on a showing of need." !d. 

Nevertheless, we have indicated that the length of incarceration without access to 

legal materials may affects whether a prisoner's rights were violated. Where a prisoner 

alleged he "was totally denied access to a law library or alternative legal resources for his 

entire nine month confinement" in a particular unit, he stated a claim under section 1983. 

Ruark, 928 F.2d at 948, 950; see also 1..=, 776 F.2d at 914. ("Since plaintiff was 

incarcerated ... for 7 months ... , this manifestly is not a case in which 'brevity of 

confinement does not permit sufficient time for prisoners to petition the courts."' (quoting 

\,:ruzv. Hauck, 515 F.2d 322,333 (5th Cir. 1975), 9ert denied, 424 U.S. 917 (1976)). 

More recently, we held that an "alleged six-month denial of all access is not so ill: 

minimis" as to fail to support a cognizable claim. Housley, 41 F.3d at 599. However, we 

recognized in Housley that "there may be cases where a prisoner is denied access for such 

a short time that prejudice would have to be shown .... "5 !d. 

ruling, defendants have failed to answer his arguments. In light of our ultimate 

disposition of this case, this waiver does not prove dispositive. 

5 On this point, Housley is in accord with other circuits that h~ve considered this 

question. ~. ~. DeMallozy v. Cullen. 855 F.2d 442, 448-49 (7th Cir. 1988) 

6 

Appellate Case: 94-8001 Document: 01019287492 Date Filed: 01/22/1996 Page: 6 
Mr. Beville was incarcerated in Teton County for only eighteen days. He later 

filed the lawsuit on which he wished to work while incarcerated, and he has not alleged 

that his lost access during the eighteen days hurt his ability to protect his legal rights in 

any way. He suggests Green v. Jackson, 977 F.2d 1383, 1389 (lOth Cir. 1992), 

established that a "delay of access" amounts to a constitutional deprivation. However, 

Green asserted that defendants' actions caused "eight of his cases [to be] dismissed for 

lack of prosecution." lJ.L. No such harm resulted here. Indeed, "Hounds recognized that 

some delays in the preparation oflegal papers are inevitable and that inmates not facing 

court deadlines might have to wait three or four weeks for their turn in the library." 

Harrell v. Keohane, 621 F.2d 1059, 1061 (lOth Cir. 1980); see also Twyman y, Crisp, 584 

F.2d 352,357-58 (lOth Cir. 1978) (per curiam) ("He claims he has had to file for 

extensions of time, but certainly this condition is not uncommon to real lawyers.") . 

. Similarly, where an inmate's right to access is accommodated through the provision of 

legal services, see,~. Hee y, Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397 (lOth Cir. 1987), 

administrative delays of several days are surely routine. 

Because Mr. Beville's incarceration in the Teton County Detention facility was so 

("Generally, we have required a showing of prejudice only where minor or indirect 

limitations on access to courts are alleged."); Jones v. Smith, 784 F.2d 149, 152 (2nd Cir. 

1986) (In light of"the short confinement" of30 days, "any denial of access was ill: 

minimis."); Morrow v. Harwell, 768 F.2d 619, 624 (5th Cir. 1985) ("[T]here is no right of 

access to the courts for those prisoners whose 'brevity of confinement docs not permit 

sufficient time to petition the courts."' (quoting Cruz y, Hauck, 515 F .2d 322, 333 (5th 

Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 917 (1976)). 

7 

Appellate Case: 94-8001 Document: 01019287492 Date Filed: 01/22/1996 Page: 7 
short and he was not prejudiced by the denial of legal resources during his stay, we hold 

that his right to access to the courts was not violated. 

III. 

We turn now to Mr. Beville's contention that defendants' practice of reading his 

' 

outgoing mail violated the First Amendment. Teton County Detention Facility 

regulations provided: "Inmate mail, both incoming and outgoing, may be read (but never 

censored, i.e. changed) ifthere is reasonable cause to justify such reading. Such 

reasonable cause shall be documented." Aplee. Supp. App. at 43. Defendants admitted 

that they "scanned" all non-legal outgoing mail and, at least in Mr. Beville's case, did not 

document cause. Mr. Beville attacks the constitutionality of this practice, not of the 

county's official policy.' 

The Supreme Court has mled that restrictions on outgoing inmate mail must be 

generally necessary to protect an important government interest. ~ frocunier v. 

Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,412-14 (1974), Qverruled in part, Thornburgh v. AbbQtl, 490 

U.S. 401, 411-14 (1989) (limiting Martinez to outgoing mail). Although outgoing mail 

generally does not threaten prison order and security, the Court has indicated that a 

6 Of course, establishing that defendants violated jail regulations does not suffice 

to establish a violation of the First Amendment, the protections of which cannot depend 

on the vagaries of local law. Cf. Atencio y, BQard ofEduc., 658 F.2d 774, 779 (lOth Cir. 

1981) ("[A] breach of state procedural requirements is not, in and of itself, a violation of 

the Due Process Clause."). 

8 

Appellate Case: 94-8001 Document: 01019287492 Date Filed: 01/22/1996 Page: 8 
prisoner's personal outgoing mail may be restricted if it falls into a category which poses 

a threat~ including "escape plans, plans related to ongoing criminal activity, and threats of 

blackmail or extortion." Abbott, 490 U.S. at 411-12. In order to enforce permissible 

restrictions which are reasonably related to substantial government interests, corrections 

officers must be able to inspect all outgoing mail. 

Mr. Beville's reliance on Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1993), cert, 

denied, 114 S.Ct. 1081 (1994), is misplaced, for that case concerned outright censorship 

of legal mail--the alleged removal of a writ of mandamus mailed to a court. Mr. Beville's 

non-legal outgoing mail was examined, not censored. "[F]reedom from censorship is not 

equivalent to freedom from inspection or perusal." Wolffv. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 

576 (1974). Although the inspection of mail may chill some inmate speech,7 it clearly 

satisfies the Supreme Court's mandates in Martinez and Abbott.' We hold that 

defendants did not violate Mr. Beville's rights when they examined his outgoing nonlegal mail. 

7 "A prisoner's free and open expression will surely be restrained by the 

knowledge that his every word may be read by his jailors and that his message could well 

find its way into a disciplinary file, be the object of ridicule, or even lead to reprisals." 

Martinez, 416 U.S. at 423 (Marshall, J., concurring); see also United States y, Ramsey. 

538 F.2d 415,420 (D.C. Cir. 1976), rey'd on other grounds, 431 U.S. 606 (1977). 

8 Moreover, "[s]everal circuits ... have held that prison officials do not commit 

constitutional violations by reading prisoners' outgoing nonprivileged mail." Qassler v. 

Wood, 14 F.3d 406,408 n.5 (8th Cir. 1994) (relating cases); see also Leonard v, Nix, 55 

F.3d 370, 377 (8th Cir. 1995) (Wollman, J., dissenting) ("All inmates know their mail can 

be read by prison officials .... "). 

9 

Appellate Case: 94-8001 Document: 01019287492 Date Filed: 01/22/1996 Page: 9 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming is 

AFFIRMED. 

10 

Appellate Case: 94-8001 Document: 01019287492 Date Filed: 01/22/1996 Page: 10