Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-03048/USCOURTS-ca10-93-03048-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Neil Biery
Appellee
Theodore S. Bledsoe
Appellant
Janice Wheeler
Appellee

Document Text:

FILL D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPBAlUJlited State, Court of Appeal, Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR 2 8 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

THEODORE S. BLEDSOE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

NEIL BIERY and JANICE WHEELER, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 93-3048 

(D.C. No. 90-3553-DES) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JOIX;MENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BRORBY, 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 (e) ; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Theodore S. Bledsoe filed a prose action under 42 

U. S.C. § 1983 against defendants for compensatory damages in the 

amount of $200,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $10,000. 

*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: 93-3048 Document: 010110220179 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 1 
Plaintiff claimed outside his presence defendants opened five 

pieces of "official and legal" mail addressed to him while he was 

an inmate in a correctional facility of the State of Kansas. Upon 

review of the exhibits, the district court determined the 

envelopes that had been opened were not clearly marked "legal 

mail" and that the opening was "inadvertent." The court therefore 

held plaintiff's right of access to the courts was not violated. 

The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and 

plaintiff appeals. We affirm. 

Regulations of the Kansas Department of Corrections draw a 

distinction between "legal mail" and "official mail. 11 

Kan. Adrnin. Regs. § 44-12-60l(a). "Legal mail means mail which 

effects [sic] the inmate's right of access to the courts or legal 

counsel. It includes letters between the inmate and the inmate's 

lawyer, a judge, a clerk of a court, any lawyer, or any intern or 

employee of legal services for prisoners." § 44-12-601 (a) (1). 

"Official mail means any mail to an official of the state or 

federal government who has authority to control, or to obtain or 

conduct an investigation of, the custody or conditions of 

confinement of the inmate." § 44-12-601 (a) (2). The regulations 

further define 11 privileged mail" as correspondence between an 

inmate and an inmate's doctor. § 44-12-601(a) (3). The 

regulations also provide "[i]ncoming mail which is clearly 

identified as legal, official, or privileged mail shall be opened 

only in the inmate's presence." § 44-12-60l(e) . 

In his complaint, plaintiff pinpointed five envelopes he 

claimed contained official or legal mail that were opened outside 

-2-

Appellate Case: 93-3048 Document: 010110220179 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 2 
his presence. Those were identified as envelopes from: 1 ) 

"Veterans Administration Medical Institution"; 2) "Assistant 

Attorney General Brungardt"; 3) "Attorney General's Office"; 

4 ) Kansas Parole Board director"; and 5) "Social Security 

Medical Institution." A Martinez report was filed stating the 

envelope from Assistant Attorney General Brungardt contained a 

copy of a responsive pleading filed by him in a state court action 

brought by Mr. Bledsoe. Likewise, the envelope from the Attorney 

General's office contained a similar pleading in the same case. 

The investigator could document no other instances of "official 

mail" being opened outside plaintiff's presence. 

In response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, 

plaintiff filed an envelope he alleged was opened improperly. The 

envelope is from the "Department of Veterans Affairs," and in 

small print below the return address, it contains the warning: 

"Official Business Penalty for private use $200." Plaintiff also 

filed copies of two letters he alleged were in envelopes opened 

outside his presence. One is from the Department of Health & 

Human Services enclosing Social Security data regarding Mr. 

Bledsoe's disability benefits. The second is from the clerk of a 

Wyoming state court enclosing a copy of plaintiff's Wyoming 

Worker's Compensation award. 

In review of this evidence, the district court found the 

envelopes from the assistant attorneys general contained "legal 

matter," but 11 [i]t is less than certain, however, that these items 

were clearly identified, as contemplated by the state regulation." 

The court noted one bore the return address of a state 

-3-

Appellate Case: 93-3048 Document: 010110220179 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 3 
correctional facility and the other of the Office of the Attorney 

General. The court characterized the opening of plaintiff's mail 

as "inadvertent" and "negligent" but not within the scope of 

activity proscribed by the Constitution. 

It is clear from the record none of the mail that can be 

identified falls within the regulatory definitions of legal, 

official, or privileged mail. While the district court's 

definition of the two pleadings sent to plaintiff is apt, those 

pleadings are not correspondence between plaintiff and his lawyer, 

a court, a lawyer, or employee of a "legal service for prisoners." 

Nor is any of the identified mail correspondence between plaintiff 

and any official with authority over an investigation of "the 

custody or conditions of confinement of the inmate." Finally, 

none is correspondence between plaintiff and his doctor. 

We therefore conclude, the basic premise of the complaint is 

not supported by the evidence. None of the mail opened outside 

plaintiff's presence dealt with his access to the court. The mere 

fact two envelopes that were opened contained copies of pleadings 

is not evidence of interference with judicial process. 

The mailings simply complied with normal litigative notice 

through the service of pleadings. No claim is made by plaintiff 

that those pleadings contained any confidential material or that 

his right of access to the state court was denigrated by the 

inadvertent opening of the envelopes. We therefore see no 

substance t o plaintiff's claim of denial of access. Smith v. 

Mas chner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir. 1990). 

- 4-

Appellate Case: 93-3048 Document: 010110220179 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 4 
More importantly, the absence of any indication that the 

contents of the identified envelopes contained legal or official 

mail supports the district court's conclusion the envelopes were 

opened inadvertently. To protect against such inadvertence, the 

Kansas regulations require protected mail to be "clearly 

identified." Such a requirement has been upheld as a defense to a 

claim of improper handling of prisoner mail. Wolff v. McDonnell, 

418 U.S. 539, 575-77 (1974). Because the mail in this instance 

was not clearly identified, the district court properly concluded 

the best claim plaintiff could assert is that the envelopes were 

opened negligently. 1 That 

constitutional claim. 

AFFIRMED. 

conduct will not 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

support a 

1 We do not overlook the warning on the face of the Veteran's 

Affairs envelope; however, we do not believe warning the sender 

against private use of the envelope is sufficient notice to prison 

authorities. Envelopes coming from all federal agencies contain a 

similar warning; therefore, even had the contents been protected, 

the envelope did not call the attention of prison authorities to 

that fact. 

-5 -

Appellate Case: 93-3048 Document: 010110220179 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 5 
Appellate Case: 93-3048 Document: 010110220179 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 6