Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02892/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02892-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vernon Bonner
Appellant
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Appellee
Sue McIntosh
Appellee
T. C. Outlaw
Appellee

Document Text:

1

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2892

___________

Vernon Bonner, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Federal Bureau of Prisons; T. C. *

Outlaw; Sue McIntosh, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 11, 2006

Filed: August 22, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Vernon Bonner appeals the district court’s dismissal, under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), of his Bivens1

 complaint. Bonner alleged

that defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to deliver to him certain

Appellate Case: 05-2892 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2006 Entry ID: 2080852
2

Bonner has not raised any argument on appeal regarding the dismissal of his

Sixth Amendment claim, and thus he has waived review of the issue. See XO

Missouri, Inc. v. City of Maryland Heights, 362 F.3d 1023, 1025 (8th Cir. 2004).

-2-

incoming legal mail that was addressed in compliance with prison regulations, and

that the warden failed to notify him that the mail had been rejected.2

 

We review de novo the dismissal of Bonner’s complaint. See Mattes v. ABC

Plastics, Inc., 323 F.3d 695, 697-98 (8th Cir. 2003). We agree with the district court

that Bonner failed to state a First Amendment claim. He did not challenge the

constitutionality of the prison regulations under which his mail was rejected. Rather,

he alleged that his mail should not have been returned because it complied with the

regulations. We disagree with that allegation. The twice-rejected mail package did

not satisfy the requirements listed in the Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement

5800.10 (Nov. 3, 1995): Bonner did not obtain prior authorization to receive the

package nor did it bear the required markings for treatment as special mail or any

marking indicating authorized materials were enclosed such that prior authorization

would not be required. Even if Bonner’s mail had complied with the regulations, his

claim would still fail because a violation of prison regulations in itself does not give

rise to a constitutional violation. Cf. Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir.

2003) (no federal constitutional liberty interest in having prison officials follow prison

regulations).

Inmates do have a right to procedural due process, however, when their mail is

rejected. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417-19 (1974) (decision to censor

or withhold delivery of letter must be accompanied by minimum procedural

safeguards; inmate should be notified of rejection), overruled on other grounds by,

Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989); Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392

F.3d 420, 433 (10th Cir. 2004) (same). The district court did not address Bonner’s

allegation that defendant T. C. Outlaw failed to notify him that his incoming mail had

Appellate Case: 05-2892 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2006 Entry ID: 2080852
-3-

been returned. Thus we remand as to defendant Outlaw for consideration of this

claim. See Shweiss v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 922 F.2d 473, 476 (8th Cir. 1990).

Accordingly, we remand for consideration of the procedural due process claim,

and we affirm in all other respects.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2892 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/22/2006 Entry ID: 2080852