# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 26 60

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Jo se ph Mu rch is on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Jo hn Ro ge rs ; Terr en a Bal li ng er; Greg Hadl ey ; Warde n M ic ha el Bo wers ox ; Geo rg e

Lom ba rd i; Su pe rin te nd en t Dav e Dor m ire

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 12 , 20 14

Fil ed : M arch 11 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BYE, SHEPHERD, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Jo se ph Mu rch is on , a fo rm er pr is on er in th e So ut h Cen tra l Co rrec ti on al Cen te r ("S CCC ") in Lick in g, Mi ss ou ri, fil ed th is act io n al le gi ng pr is on of fic ia ls vi ol at ed hi s 1

On Sep te m

be r 2, 20 13

, Mu rch is on was tra ns ferr ed to th e Nor th eas t 1

Co rrec ti on al Cen te r.Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s whe n th ey cen so red hi s su bs cr i be d is su e of New sw eek

mag a z i ne

. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t so m e of th e pr is o n 2

of fic ia ls an d g r a n t e d su m

m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e rem ai ni ng pr is on of fic ia ls

. Fo r th e rea so ns set for th be lo w, we affi rm

.

I

At th e ti m e of th e ev en ts rel ev an t to th is di sp ut e, Mu rch is on was in carc erat ed

at th e SCCC

. A s ub sc rib er of New sw eek for m an y y ears , Mu rch is on rece iv ed m os t

of hi s is su es of New sw eek at th e SCCC w i t h o u t in ci de nt

. On Octo be r 7, 20 10

, ho wev er, m em

be rs of t h e S C CC's cen so rs hi p co m m it te e (th e "Co m

m it te e")

, Jo hn

Ro ge rs an d Greg Had le y , c e n s o red th e Octo be r 11

, 20 10

, is su e of New sw eek

ad dr es se d to Mu rch is on on th e gr ou nd s th a t it "p ro m ot es vi ol en ce, di so rd er or th e

vi ol at io n of st at e or fed eral la w in cl ud in g in f l am m at or y m at eri al

. (th ro ug ho ut ) Pg

. 32 -3 4." 3

SCCC pri so n re gu la ti on s p ro hi bi te d c ert ai n t y pe s o f m at eri al s i n t he pri so n:

1. Offen de rs are pr oh ib it ed fro m rece iv in g co rres po nd en ce, writ te n

or reco rd ed m at eri al s, o r pi ct ur es th at :

a. co ns ti tu te a th reat to th e se cu rit y , g o o d or de r or []
di sc ip li ne of t he in st it ut io n; b. m ay

faci li ta te or e nc ou rag e cri m in al act iv it y ;

c. m ay

in te rfer e wit h t he reh ab il it at io n o f an off en de r. 2. Co rres po nd en ce, writ te n or reco rd ed m at eri al s or pi ct ur es are

su bjec t to be in g cen so red in co m pl ia nc e wit h III.C.1

. if th e it em :

The Hon or ab le Greg Kay s, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d Stat es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e 2

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

The Co m m it te e is ta sk ed wit h rev ie win g in co m in g, ou tg oi ng , an d im po un de d 3

it em s an d c en so rin g a ny ite m s n ot in co m pl ia nc e wit h p ris on reg ul at io ns

.

-2

-a. pr om ot es , in ci te s, or ad vo cat es vi ol en ce, di so rd er or th e vi ol at io n o f st at e o r fed eral law . . .

Mi ss ou ri Dep't of

Co rr. In st it ut io na l Se rv s. Po li cy an d P ro ced ur e Ma nu al , IS1 3- 1.2

Cen so rs hi p Pro ced ur e s , I II.C. Howev er, "[c ]orres po nd en ce, pr in te d or reco rd ed

m at eri al s, an d pi ct ur es m ay no t be reject ed be cau se

. . . th e co nt en t i s r e l i g i ou s,

p h i l o s o p h i c a l, so ci al

, se xu al

, po li ti cal or is un po pu la r or rep ug na nt

. . . ." Id

. a t

III.B.2

.

Afte r th e Co m

m it te e no ti fie d Mu rch is on th at th e N e w s wee k is su e wou ld be

cen so red

, he fil ed an In fo rm al Res ol ut io n Req ue st ("I RR" ) in whi ch he as se rte d th at

cen so rin g t h e m ag azi ne vi ol at ed hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. The IRR was de ni ed on

Decem be r 17

, 20 10

. Mu rch is on th en fil ed a gr ie va nc e wit h th e W ard en of th e SCCC

, Mi ch ael Bo wers ox , who de ni ed th e gr ie va nc e. Mu rch is on ap pe al ed to th e Dire ct or

of th e Div is io n of Adu lt In st it ut io ns , Dav e Dor m ire

, an d th e Dire ct or of th e Mi ss ou ri

D e p a r tm en t of Co rrec ti on s, Geo rg e Lom ba rd i, th ro ug h whi ch he al so rece iv ed no

rel ie f.

On Octo be r 20

, 20 11

, Mu rch is on fil ed th is 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n ag ai ns t

se ve ral pr is on of

fic ia ls fro m th e SCCC

. Sh or tl y th erea fte r, Bo wers ox , Lom ba rd i, an d

Dor m ire fil ed m ot io ns to di sm is s th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t t h e m o n th e gr ou nd th at

Mu rch is on fai le d to al le ge th ey were pe rs on al ly in vo lv ed in an y al le ge d co nst itu ti on al

vi ol at io ns ag a i n s t h i m. Ove r Mu rch is on 's op po si ti on , t he di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e

m ot io n an d di sm is se d th es e of fic ia ls

, fin di ng th ey were n ot pe rs on al ly in vo lv ed in

c en so rin g th e New sw eek is su e an d co ul d no t be he ld li ab le un de r a re s p o n d e a t

su pe rio r cl ai m

un de r § 1 98 3.

Mu rch is on th en pr oc eed ed wit h di sc ov ery on hi s rem ai ni ng cl ai m s ag ai ns t

Terren a Bal li ng er, Had le y , an d Ro ge rs (th e m em be rs of th e Co m

m it te e). Dur in g th e

di sc ov ery ph as e of th e li ti ga ti on , Mu rch is on 's cel l was se arch ed an d so m e m at eri al s,

-3

-in cl ud in g le ga l m at eri al s, were co nf is cat ed

, rep or te dl y be cau se th ey were in vi ol at io n

of pr is on po li cy

. Mu rch is on fil ed se ve ral m ot io ns to st ay th e pr oc eed in g whi le he

was in ad m in is tra ti ve se gr eg at io n, al l of whi ch were de ni ed

. On Apr il 1, 2 01 3, th e

rem ai ni ng pr is on of

f i c i al s fil ed a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, whi ch th e di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d, fin di ng th at cen so rin g th e New sw eek is su e di d no t vi ol at e Mu rch is on 's

Fi rs t A men d m en t rig ht s. The di st ric t co ur t fu rth er co nc lu de d th at th e rem ai ni ng

de fen da nt s were en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. In th e sa m e or de r, th e di st ric t co ur t

al so de ni ed Mu rch is on 's ou ts ta nd in g m ot io n t o c o mp el

, in pa rt, be cau se it was

un ti m el y

.

Mu rch is on no w ap pe al s th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, th e di sm is sa l of

Bo wers ox , Lom

ba rd i, an d Do rm ire , and th e d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o c om pe l.

II

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g th e

e v i d en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no n- m ov in g pa rty an d gi vi ng t h e

no n- m ov in g pa rty th e be ne fit of al l reas on ab le in fere nc es

. Dowel l v. Lin co ln Cn ty.,

Mo

., 76 2 F.3 d 77 0, 77 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te on ly if th e

m ov in g pa rty sa ti sf

ie s it s bu rd en of de m on st rat in g th at no ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al

fact rem ai n fo r tr ia l. Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (a).

To b e va li d, "a pr is on reg ul at io n [whi ch ] im pi ng es on in m at es ' co ns ti tu ti on al
rig ht s

. . . [ m

us t be ] r e a s o n a b l y re la te d to le gi ti m at e pe no lo gi cal in te res ts ." Turn er

v. Safl ey , 48 2 U.S. 78

, 89 (1 98 7)

. Thi s l e v e l of sc ru ti ny en su res th at "p ris on

ad m in is tra to rs , an d no t th e co ur ts

, [] m ak e th e d iff ic ul t jud gm en ts co nc ern in g

in st it ut io na l op erat io ns ." Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d al te rat io ns om it te d)

. The re are fo ur rel ev an t fact or s in de te rm in in g t he reas on ab le ne ss of th e reg ul at io n: (1 ) whe th er th ere is "a v al id , rat io na l co nn ect io n b et ween th e p ris on reg ul at io n a nd

th e le gi ti m at e go ve rn m en ta l in te res t pu t fo rward to jus ti fy it "; (2 ) "wh et he r th ere are

-4

-al te rn at iv e m ean s of ex erci si ng th e rig ht th at rem ai n op en to pr is on in m at es "; (3 ) "t he

im pa ct acco m

m od at io n of th e as se rte d co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht wil l ha ve on gu ard s an d

ot he r in m at es , an d on th e al lo cat io n of pri so n res ou rces ge ne ral ly"; (4 ) an d whe th er

th ere ex is t al te rn at iv es to acco m m od at e th e pr is on er wit h a d e m in imi s co st

. Id

. at

89 -9 1 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

A

W e fir st co ns id er whe th er th ere ex is ts "a va li d, rat io na l co nn ect io n be twee n th e

pr is on reg ul at io n an d th e le gi ti m at e go ve rn m en ta l in te res t pu t fo rward to jus ti fy it ."

Turn er, 48 2 U.S. a t 8 9 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. "[T]he go ve rn m en ta l

ob jecti ve m us t be a le gi ti m at e an d ne ut ral on e

. . . wit ho ut reg ard to th e co nt en t of th e

ex pr es si on ." Id

. at 90

. Howev er, co ur ts m us t be de fere nt ia l to th e pr is on of fic ia ls '

vi ews of wha t m at eri al m ay be in fla m m at or y

. See Mu rp hy v. Mi ss ou ri Dep 't of Co rr.,

37 2 F.3 d 97 9, 98 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). As th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s cau ti on ed

, " p r i so n

of fic ia ls m ay well co nc lu de th at ce r t a in pr op os ed in te ract io ns , th ou gh se em in gl y

in no cu ou s to la y m en , ha ve po te nt ia ll y si gn ifi c a n t i mp l ic at io ns fo r th e or de r an d

se cu rit y of a pri so n." Tho rn bu rg h v . Abb ot t, 4 90 U.S. 40 1, 4 07 (19 89 ).

W e ha ve al read y h e l d t h a t "[a ] reg ul at io n th at al lo ws fo r cen so rs hi p of

in co m in g it em s th at are li ke ly t o i n c it e vi ol en ce is rel at ed to th e in st it ut io na l ne ed s

of m ai nt ai ni ng a co nt r o l l e d a nd se cu re en vi ro nm en t am on g th e pr is on po pu la ti on ."

Mu rp hy, 37 2 F.3 d at 98 6; se e al so Dean v. Bo wers ox , 32 5 F. App 'x 47 0, 47 2 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ). Bu t a faci al ly va li d reg ul at io n "m ay be in va li d if it is ap pl ie d to th e pa rti cu la r

it em s in su ch a way th at ne ga te s th e le gi ti m at e co nc ern s." Mu rp hy, 37 2 F.3 d at 98 6.

M u r ch is on do es no t ch al le ng e th e pr is on reg ul at io ns on th ei r face bu t, rat he r , a s

ap pl ie d t o t he cen so rs hi p o f th is pa rti cu la r New sw eek is su e.

In su ch an as -ap pl ie d ch al le ng e, we co ns id er " w h e t h e r a ba n on th es e

pa rt ic ul ar it ems is re as ona bly re la te d to a le gi ti m at e pe no lo gi cal ob jecti ve ." W il li am s

-5

-v. Bri m ey er, 11 6 F.3 d 35 1, 35 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. "Be fo re th e pr is on

au th o r i t i e s c e ns or m at eri al s, th ey m us t rev ie w th e co nt en t of each pa rti cu la r it em

rece iv ed ." Mu rp hy, 37 2 F.3 d at 9 8 6

. Im po rta nt ly, th ou gh

, "p ris on of fic ia ls ha ve

br oa d di sc ret io n t o c e ns or or res tri ct an in m at e's rece ip t of a pu bl ic at io n to se rv e a

le gi ti m at e pe no l o g i c a l in te res t– in cl ud in g th e ne ed fo r in st it ut io na l se cu rit y

. . . ."

Iv ey v. As hc ro ft, 6 2 F .3d 14 21 (8t h C ir. 1 99 5) (u np ub li sh ed ). Thu s, in ou r rev ie w,

we m us t "re co gn iz e an d de fer to th e ex pe rti se of pr is on of fic ia ls on wha t is li ke ly to

be in fla m m at or y in th e pr is on en vi ro nm en t." Mu rp hy, 37 2 F.3 d at 98 6. Nev ert he le ss , th e co ur t m

us t co nd uc t "'an in de pe nd en t rev ie w of th e ev id en ce' to de te rm in e if th ere

h a s be en 'an ex ag ge rat ed res po ns e to pr is on co nc ern s' in rel at io n to th is pa r t i c u l a r

it em ." Id .; se e al s o K a d e n v

. Sl y kh ui s, 65 1 F.3 d 96 6, 96 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ).

"[S ]um m ary jud gm en t [is ] ap pr op ria te on ly if [th e pr is on of fic ia ls ] pr es en t [ ] s o m e

sp eci fic ev id en ce of w hy thi s p art ic ul ar i te m im pl ic at es pr is on co nc ern s." Mu rp hy,

37 2 F .3d at 9 86

.

Mu rch is on fir st arg ue s su m m ary jud g m en t was im pr op er be cau se th e

New sw eek is su e do es no t exp li ci tl y ad vo cat e fo r vi ol en ce, dis or de r, or th e vi ol at io n

of st at e an d fe de ral laws . At th e h eart of th e cen so red m at eri al is an art ic le en ti tl ed

"Hi di ng Beh in d th e W eb ," whi ch di sc us se s a bl og , m an ag ed by a co ll eg e st ud en t

res id in g in Mex ic o, rep or ti ng on va rio us is su es su rro un di ng th e vi ol en ce of th e dr ug

cart el s in Mex ic o. The art ic le i n c l u d e s t wo vi ol en t ph ot og rap hs

, on e sh owi ng two

in di vi du al s ha ng in g fro m a br id ge an d an ot he r sh owi ng th e bo dy of a m ur de red
jou rn al is t lying on a st reet in a po ol of bl oo d. The art ic le di sc us se s an d de sc rib es th e

v i ol en ce an d di so rd er in Mex ic o br ou gh t on by th e dr ug cart el s. In pa rti cu la r , i t

de sc rib es at ta ck s by dr ug cart el s ag ai ns t th e go ve rn m en t an d m il it ar y. W hi le th e

art ic le di sc us se s th e la ck of m ean in gf ul rep or ti ng on dr ug cart el s an d or ga ni zed cri m e

in Mex ic o, it als o des cri be s and de pi ct s th ei r co nt in ue d acts of vi ol en ce an d l ack of

res pe ct fo r t h e l a w

. Und ou bt ed ly, th e art ic le 's fo cu s is on , an d it de pi ct s, di so rd er,

vi ol en ce, an d th e v i o l a t i on of la w. Alt ho ug h th e m at eri al

, on it s face

, m ay no t

ne ces sa ril y ex pl ic it ly ad vo cat e fo r vi ol en ce or th e vi ol at io n of la w, th is do es no t m ean

-6

-it do es no t p ro m ot e ei th er. W e d o n ot m ean to su gg es t t ha t al l m at eri al s d is cu ss in g

or de pi ct in g vi ol en ce act ua ll y pr om ot e vi ol en ce or th e vi ol at io n of la w. Howev er, in

rev ie win g th e p ris on off

ic ia ls ' de ci si on , we m

us t b e de fere nt ia l. See, e.g ., M ur ph y , 37 2 F.3 d at 98 6 ("We reco gn iz e an d de fer to th e ex pe rti se of pr is on of fic ia ls on wha t

is li ke ly t o be in fla m

m at or y

. . . ." ); O v e r t o n v

. B azze tt a, 53 9 U.S. 1 26 , 1 32 (2 00 3)
("We m us t a c co rd su bs ta nt ia l de fere nc e to th e pr of es si on al jud gm en t of pr is on

ad m in is tra to rs , who be ar a si gn ifi can t res po ns ib il it y fo r de fin in g th e le gi ti m at e go al s

of a co rrec ti on s syste m an d fo r de te rm in in g th e m os t ap pr op ria te m ean s to ac com pl is h

th em ."); Ham il to n v. Sch rir o, 74 F.3 d 15 45

, 15 53 (8 th C i r

. 19 96 ); Iv ey , 62 F.3 d at

14 21 ("[ P]ris on of

fic ia ls ha ve br oa d di sc ret io n to cen so r or res tri ct an in m at e's rece ip t

of a pu bl ic at io n to se rv e a le gi ti m at e pe no lo gi cal in te res t– in cl ud in g th e ne ed fo r

in st it ut io na l se cu rit y

. . . ."); Mu rp hy v. Mi ss ou ri Dep 't of Co rr., 81 4 F.2 d 12 52

, 12 56

n

. 5 ( 8 t h Ci r. 19 87 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y ga ve de fere nc e to

te st im on y fro m pr is on of fic ia ls th at th e pu bl ic at io ns wou ld cau se sa fet y co nc ern s) ;

W ei le r v. Pu rk et t, 1 37 F.3d 10 47 , 10 50 (8t h Ci r. 19 98 ) (en ba nc ) (ex pl ai ni ng , in an

as -ap pl ie d ch al le ng e, th at th e co ur t owe d "g reat de fere nc e

. . . to pr is on au th or it ie s in

th ei r ad m in is tra ti on of st at e pr is on syste m s" ); Pri so n Leg al News v. Liv in gs to n, 68 3

F.3 d 20 1, 21 6 (5 th Ci r. 20 12 ) ("I t is

, of co ur se , ex tre m el y di ffi cu lt fo r co ur ts to jud ge

who se as se ss m en t is m or e li ke ly co rrec t, wh i c h hi gh li gh ts th e im po rta nc e of th e

de fere nc e th at is acco rd ed to pr is on ad m in is tra to rs ap pl y in g reas on ab le po li ci es .").

Acco rd in gl y , aft er in de pe nd en tl y rev ie win g th e m at eri al an d def erri ng to th e pr is on

of fi c i a l s ' ex pe rti se , we fin d th ei r cen so rs hi p of th e New sw eek is su e was reas on ab ly

rel at ed to a le gi ti m at e p en ol og ic al ob jecti ve an d was no t an ex ag ge rat ed res po ns e.

Nex t, rel y in g on Mu rp hy, Mur ch iso n ar gue s the pr of fe re d reaso n fo r cen so rs hi p

is to o c on cl us or y

an d p ris on off

ic ia ls fai le d t o pu t fo rth su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t ha t t he

New sw eek is su e pr om ot es vi ol en ce, di so rd er, or th e vi ol at io n of st at e an d fed eral la w.

I n su pp or t of th ei r m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, th e pr is on of fic ia ls pr ov id e d

sp eci fic ev id en ce rega rd in g th e pa rti cu la r m at eri al th at was cen so red

. Fo r in st an ce,

Ro ge rs 's affi da vi t pr ov id ed th at th e m at eri al s in cl ud e ph ot os of "d eat h an d m ur de r,"

-7

-"t wo m en ha ng in g fro m a br id ge ," "a de ad m an lying in a po ol of bl oo d," al l of whi ch

in hi s ex pe rie nc e "p ro m ot e pr is on vi o l e n c e , di so rd er, or vi ol at io ns of la w."

Bal li ng er's affi da vi t ex pl ai ne d th at "p ro lo ng ed ex po su re to vi ol en t act s, th ro ug h pr in t

m at eri al s o r ot he r m ed ia , rei nf or ces so ci al ly irres po ns ib le be ha vi or in si de pri so ns ."

Fu rth erm or e, sh e ex pl ai ne d th at "p rin t m at eri al s th at de m on st rat e vi ol en t act s m ay be

ex pe ct ed to ci rcu la te am on g pr is on ers

. . . [an d] can be us ed to th reat en ot he r in m at es ,

as pri so n c ur ren cy , or t o i de nt ify gan g a ffi li at io n."

Mu rch is on 's rel ia nc e on ou r de ci si on in Mu rp hy is m is pl aced

. In Mu rp hy, we

he ld th at m at eri al is su es of fact rem ai ne d a s t o w h e th er th e cen so rs hi p of th e

pu bl ic at io n at is s u e sa ti sf ie d th e Turn er fact or s be cau se th e pr is on of fic ia ls '

"d oc um en te d reas on fo r cen so rin g th e it em [ w a s ] t oo co nc lu so ry to su pp or t a jud gm en t in it s fav or on th is is su e." 37 2 F.3 d at 98 6. W e th eref or e rem an de d to th e

di st ric t co ur t bu t ex pr es sl y no te d th e pr is on of fic ia ls co ul d in tro du ce fu rth er ev id en ce

an d ag ai n m ov e fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t. Id

. Mo re rece nt ly, ho wev er, in a si m il ar type

of ch al le ng e to cen so rs hi p, we affi rm ed a di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t

an d reject io n of th e sa m e arg um en ts ad va nc ed he re. In Dean

, th ree in m at es fro m th e

SCCC arg ue d th at pr is on of fic ia ls ' c e ns or sh ip of va rio us pu bl ic at io ns be cau se th ey

pr om ot ed vi ol en ce, di so rd er, or th e vi ol at io n of st at e or fed eral la w vi ol at ed th ei r Fi rs t

Am en dm en t rig ht s. 32 5 F. App 'x at 47 1. W e in it ia ll y pa rti al ly affi rm ed bu t rev ers ed

t h e di st ric t co ur t's di sm is sa l of th e as -ap pl ie d ch al le ng e to th e cen so rs hi p. Id

. On

rem an d, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e pr is on of fic ia ls

on th e in m at es ' as -ap pl ie d ch al le ng e to th e cen so rs hi p of 11 of th e 61 pu bl ic at io ns at

iss ue be cau se th ey pr om ot ed vi ol en ce, fin di ng th at th ey inclu de d im ag es "po rt ra y [i ng]

bl oo d sp ewin g fro m hu m an s or hu m an -li ke crea tu res , hu m an s shoo tin g ot he r hu m an s,

an d hu m an s or hu m an -li ke crea tu res wit h bl oo dy m ou th s, face s, or bo di es " and th at
"[t ]here is a rat io na l co nn ect io n be twee n th e bl oo dy an d weap on -la de n im ag es an d

[th e pr is on of

fic ia ls '] in te res t in sa fet y an d se cu rit y ." Dean v. Bo wers ox , No. 07 -CV03 29 8, at *1 9 ( W. D

. M o

. A u g. 29 , 2 01 3) , a ff'd , No . 1 3- 37 00 , 2 01 5 W L 4 05 19 8, at

*1 (8 th Ci r. Feb

. 2, 20 15 ). The di st ric t cou rt a ls o fo un d t he in m at es ha d alt ern at iv e

-8

-m ean s to rece iv e th e in fo rm at io n, th e im pa ct of acco m

m od at in g th ei r rig ht s wou ld be

su bs ta nt ia l an d th at th ere wou ld be no eas y al te rn at iv e, su ch th at th e cen so rs hi p was

no t an ex ag ge rat ed res po ns e. Id

. On th e su bs eq ue nt ap pe al

, aft er care fu ll y rev ie win g

th e reco rd an d th e pa rti es ' su pp le m en ta l br ie fin g or de red by th e co ur t, we affi rm ed th e

di st ric t co ur t. See Dean v. Bo wers ox , No. 13 -3 70 0, 20 15 W L 40 51 98

, at *1 (8 th Ci r.

Feb . 2, 2 01 5)

.

W e fin d th e ci rcu m st an ces of Dean m or e an al og ou s to th e ci rcu m st an ces in th is

cas e. Here, pr is on of

fic ia ls pr ov id ed ev id en ce tha t th ey rev ie wed th e co nt en t in th e

sp eci fic New sw eek is su e an d in tro du ced tes ti m on y th at th is sp eci fic m at eri al wou ld

pr om ot e vi ol en ce, di so rd er, or vi ol at io ns of la w. The re is no su gg es ti on th e pr i s on

ha s a bl an ke t ba n on th is sp eci fic pu bl ic at io n or on an y m at eri al whi ch in cl ud es so m e

t yp e of vi ol en t co nt en t. Acco rd in gl y , su ffi ci en t ev id en ce ex is ts in th e reco rd to

su pp or t s um m ary jud gm en t.

Mu rch is on al so arg ue s th e pr is on of fic ia ls fai le d to pr es en t ev id en ce th at th e

cen so red m at eri al s ha ve ev er ac tu al ly cau se d an y di sr up ti on at th e SCCC

. Howev er,

pr is on of fic ia ls ne ed no t wait un ti l pa rti cu la r pr oh ib it ed m at eri al cau se s ha rm be fo re

cen so rin g it

, so lo ng as th ey ha ve a "v al id

, rat io na l co nn ect io n be twee n t h e p r i s on

reg ul at io n an d th e le gi t im at e go ve rn m en ta l in te res t pu t fo rward to jus ti fy it ." See

Turn er, 48 2 U.S. at 89 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Evi de nc e of pr ev io us

in ci de nt s from sp eci fic co nt en t m ay bo ls te r th e rat io na le for cen so rs hi p b ut it is no t

ne ces sa ry –p ris on of

fic ia ls m ay al so se ek to pr ev en t ha rm th at ha s y et to oc cu r. As we

ha ve pr ev io us l y e x p l a i n ed

, "Tu rn er do es no t req ui re 'act ua l pr oo f th at a le gi ti m at e

in te res t wil l be fu rth ered by th e ch al le ng ed po li cy ,' on ly th at th e in te res t be in g se rv ed

an d th e po li cy ha ve an 'ob jecti ve ly rat io na l' con ne ct io n." Orti z v. Fort Dod ge Co rr.

Faci li ty, 36 8 F.3 d 10 24

, 10 27 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (q uo ti ng Herl ei n v. Hig gi ns , 17 2 F.3 d

10 89

, 10 91 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 )). In de ed

, ev id en ce "s ho rt of an act ua l in ci de nt " sa ti sf ie s

th e "s om e ev id e n c e" req ui rem en t. Feg an s v. Nor ris

, 53 7 F.3 d 89 7, 90 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 08 ); se e al so Pri so n Leg al New s , 6 8 3 F

. 3 d at 21 6 ("[ P]ris on po li ci es m ay be

-9

-le gi ti m at el y ba se d on pr is on ad m in is tra to rs ' r eas on ab le as se ss m en t of po te nt ia l

da ng ers ."). Thi s ex act arg um en t was co ns id ered an d reject ed by th e di st ric t co ur t in

Dean

, whi ch we affi rm ed on ap pe al

. Dean

, No. 07 -CV-0 32 98

, at *1 8- 19 (co nc lu di ng

th at la ck of ev id en ce reg ard in g sp eci fic in ci de nt s cau se d by th e cen so red m at eri al was

no t de te rm in at iv e). W e ag ai n ho ld th at th e in te res t ad va nc ed he re was no t de pe nd en t

on a sh owi ng of p rev io us ha rm s b as ed on th e sa m e m at eri al

.

F i na ll y , th e m ere fact th at ot he r si m il ar m at eri al s de pi ct in g vi ol en ce ex is t

wit hi n t h e pr is on wall s do es no t pr ecl ud e su m m ary jud gm en t on th e ba si s th at th is

vi ol en t m at eri al vi ol at es pr is on reg ul at io ns

. The ex is te nc e of si m il ar m at eri al wit hi n

th e pr is on wall s m ay se rv e to sh ow in co ns is te nc ie s in th e m an ne r in whi ch m at eri al

is cen so red su ch as to un de rm in e th e rat io na le fo r cen so rs hi p or sh ow it was act ua ll y

cen so red fo r it s co nt en t. Su ch "i nc on si st en ci es co ul d be co m e so si gn ifi can t th at th ey

am ou nt to a pr act ic al ran do m ne ss th at de st ro y s th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n a reg ul at io n

an d it s le gi ti m at e pe no lo gi cal ob jecti ve s." Pri so n Leg al

, 68 3 F.3 d at 22 1. Alt ho ug h

Mu rch is on ha s p res en te d a few m at eri al s ava il ab le in th e pr is on whi ch de m on st rat e

at le as t so m e in co ns is te nc y in th e m an ne r of cen so rin g su ch m at eri al s, in th is cas e,

we do no t be li ev e Mu rch is on de m on st rat ed in co ns is te nc ie s th at ris e to a le ve l of

ran do m ne ss or th at un de rm in e th e rat io na le fo r cen so rin g th is pa rti cu la r it em

. W it h

th e vo lu m e of m at eri al th at m us t be sc reen ed

, we c a n n o t e x pe ct pr is on of fic ia ls to

pe rfec tl y sc reen al l m at eri al th at vi ol at es pr is on reg ul at io ns

. Nor do we su gg es t th at

pr is on of fic ia ls m ay c a t e g or ic al ly pr oh ib it al l m at eri al s whi ch m ay co nt ai n so m e

co nt en t in vo lv in g vi ol en ce. Thu s , i n t h e b ro ad se ns e, it is no t su rp ris in g th at

Mu rch is on was ab le to pr od uc e so m e oth er m at er ia ls dis cu ssi ng or de pi ct in g vi ol en ce.

Mo reo ve r, in th e un iq ue co nt ex t sp eci fic art ic le s m ay d i s c u ss or in vo lv e vi ol en t

to pi cs , it is di ffi cu lt to an al y ze ho w m uc h on e art ic le pr om ot es v io le nc e or th e

vi ol at io n of la w co m

pa red to an ot he r, pa rti cu la rly in th e un iq ue co nt ex t of a pr is on

. As su ch

, th e co ur t do es no t ge ne ral ly en ga ge in a "o ne -to -o ne co m pa ris on [] of a few

sp eci fic bo ok s." Id

. Im

po rta nt ly, Mu rch is on ha s no t pr es en te d an y ev id en ce th at th e

sa m e is su e of New sw eek was m ad e av ai la bl e to an y on e el se in th e pr is on

. The refo re,

-1 0-in th is cas e, th at so m e o th er v io le nt m at eri al wit h si m il ar co nt en t i s av ai la bl e in th e

pr is on do es no t un de rm i n e th e pr is on of fic ia ls de ci si on to cen so r th is pa rti cu la r

Ne w s wee k is su e. See Dean

, No. 07 -CV-0 32 98

, at *1 2, 14 (co nc lu di ng th at th e

ex is te nc e of ot he r si m il ar it em s in th e li br ary an d li m it ed in co ns is te nc y di d no t

pr ecl ud e su m

m ary jud gm en t); Jo ne s ADC #7 01 47 v. Go l d e n , No. 5: 10 CV0 00 68

, 20 11 W L 14 80 31 5, at *4 (E.D. Ark

. Mar

. 9, 20 11 ) ("[ A] lt ho ug h Mr. Jo ne s pr ov id ed

th e Co ur t wi th ex am

pl es of b ot h p ub li cat io ns an d m ov ie s th at were no t co nf is cat ed

or ba nn ed by th e ADC, th at do es no t crea te a ge nu in e di sp ut e of m at eri al fact in th is

cas e")

, ad op te d by 20 11 W L 14 79 98 7 (E.D. Ark . Apr. 1 9, 2 01 1) ; s ee al so Hod gs on

v. Fab ia n, 37 8 F. App 'x 59 2, 59 4 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 1 0 ) ("[ S]um m ary jud gm en t is no t

de feat ed by a ran do m m is ap pl ic at io n of a reas on ab le reg ul at io n." (in te rn al qu ot at io n

mar ks om it te d) ); W ei le r, 13 7 F.3 d at 10 50 (co nc lu di ng th at ev en if 10 0 i n mat e s

rece iv ed mai l th e pl ai nt iff was no t al lo wed to rece iv e, du e to "a br eak do wn in

m ai lro om pr oc ed ur es ," th e reas on ab le ne ss of th e reg ul at io ns "wo ul d be no le ss

co ns ti tu ti on al ").

Fo r th es e reas on s, we fin d th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y co nc lu de d pr is on of fic ia ls

de m on st rat ed a va li d, rat io na l co nn ect io n be twee n th e cen s o r s hi p of th e New sw eek

is su e an d th e pr is on of

fic ia ls ' in te res t in pr oh ib it in g m at eri al s th at pr om ot e vi ol en ce,

di so rd er o r th e v io la ti on of s ta te or f ed eral law.

B

W e ne xt co ns id er whe th er Mu rch is on ha s al te rn at iv e m ean s fo r ex erci si ng hi s

Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht

. In ev al ua ti ng th is fact or , "co ur ts sh ou ld be p a r t ic ul arl y

co ns ci ou s of th e m eas ur e of jud ic ia l de fere nc e owe d to co rrec ti on s of fic ia ls in

ga ug in g th e va li di ty of th e reg ul at io n." Tu r n e r , 4 8 2 U.S. at 90 (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. In co ns id eri ng th is fact or , "' t h e r i g h t ' in qu es ti on m us t be vi ewed

se ns ib ly an d ex pa ns iv el y ." Tho rn bu rg h, 49 0 U.S. at 41 7. The qu es ti on is no t m erel y

whe th er Mu rch is on can read th is pa rti cu la r art ic le wit hi n th is pa rti cu la r is su e of

-1 1-New sw eek

. In de ed

, i f t h e t es t was whe th er Mu rch is on co ul d so m eh ow ot he rwis e

ob ta in th is sp eci fic art ic le th at ha s be en co ns id ered a vi ol at io n of pr is on reg ul at io ns , it wou ld ren de r th is fact or m ean in gl es s; un le ss wil li ng to pe rm it in m at es to po ss es s

co nt rab an d, i nm at es wou ld ne ve r ha ve alt ern at iv e m ean s o f ex erci si ng th e ri gh t.

The fact th at Mu rch is on pa rti cu la rly en joy s read in g New sw eek do es no t m ean

th at he can no t ex erci se hi s Fi rs t Am en dm en t ri gh t t o re ad ab ou t d ru g cart el s or free

pr es s is su es in Mex ic o th ro ug h ot he r m ean s. In de ed , b y ci ti ng to ot he r writ te n a nd

no n- writ te n m at eri al s wit h si m il ar co nt en t av ai la bl e in th e pr is on li br ary, Mu rch is on

hi m se lf de m on st rat es th at he is ot he rwis e ab le to ex erci se hi s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s.

Bec au se th ere is n o s u g g e s t i on th at th ere is a bl an ke t ba n on New sw eek in th e

pr is on –t o th e co nt rary, he rece iv ed al l ot he r is su es –a nd th ere ha s be en no su gg es ti on

th at th e sp eci fic co nt en t ha s be en en ti rel y ba nn ed

, Mu rch is on ha s al te rn at iv e m ean s

to ex erci se hi s ri gh ts

.

C

U n d e r th e th ird Turn er fact or , th e co ur t co ns id ers th e im pa ct th e as se rte d

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht wil l ha ve on pr is on res ou rces

. Turn er, 48 2 U.S. at 9 0

. "When

acco m m od at io n of an as s ert ed rig ht wil l ha ve a si gn ifi can t 'ri pp le effe ct ' on fel lo w

in m at es or on pr is on st aff, co ur ts sh ou ld be pa rti cu la r l y de fere nt ia l to th e in fo rm ed

di sc ret io n o f co rrec ti on s o ffi ci al s." Id.

Mu rch is on arg ue s th at th ere wou ld be no "ri pp le effe ct " be cau se ot he r si m il ar

vi ol en t co nt en t is av ai la bl e; ho wev er, as al read y di sc us se d, de fen da n ts pr es en te d

sp eci fic ev id en ce th at th is pa rti cu la r pu bl ic at io n is li ke ly to ha ve a di sr up ti ve an d

di so rd erl y effe ct on th e pr is on

. It is well reco gn iz ed th at o u t s i de pu bl ic at io ns m ay

ha ve si gn ifi can t ef

fect in th e p ris on po pu la ti on :

-1 2-Onc e in th e pr is on , [in co m in g pu bl ic at io ns ] reas on ab ly m ay be ex pe ct ed

to ci rcu la te am on g p r i s on ers , wit h th e co nc om it an t po te nt ia l fo r

co or di na te d di sr up ti ve co nd uc t. Fu rth erm or e, pr is on ers m ay ob se rv e

pa rti cu la r m at eri al in th e po ss es si on o f a fel lo w pr is on er, dr aw in fere nc es ab ou t th ei r fel lo w's be li efs

, se xu al or i e n t at io n, or ga ng affi li at io ns fro m th at m at eri al

, an d cau se di so rd er by act in g acco rd in gl y

.

Tho rn bu rg h, 49 0 U.S. at 41 2. W e m us t al so rem em

be r th at "p ris on of

fic ia ls m ay well

co nc lu de th at cert ai n pr op os ed in te ract io ns , th ou gh se em in gl y in no cu ou s to la y m en , ha ve po te nt ia ll y

si gn ifi can t i m

pl ic at io ns for

th e o rd er an d s ecu rit y

of a pri so n." Id.

at 40 7. The refo re, "[w]her e

. . . th e rig ht in qu es ti on can be ex erci se d on ly at th e co st

of si gn ifi can tl y

les s l ib ert y

an d s afet y

for ev eryone els e, gu ard s an d ot he r pr is on ers

al ik e, th e co ur ts sh ou ld de fer to th e in fo rm ed di sc ret io n of co rrec ti on s of fic ia ls ." Id

.
at 41 8 (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns an d cit at io ns om it te d) . Giv en th e v io le nt an d d is or de rly

co nt en t of th e cen so red m at eri al in vo lv in g m ur de r an d or ga ni zed cri m e, we de fer to

th e ex pe rti se an d te st im on y of th e pr is on of fic ia ls reg ard in g it s po te nt ia l im pa ct in th e

pr is on

.

D

The la st fact or we co ns id er is whe th er th ere ex is t al te rn at iv es to acco m m od at e

Mu rch is on at a de min imi s co st

. "[T]he ab se nc e of read y al te rn at iv es is ev id en ce of

th e reas on ab le ne ss of a pr is on reg ul at io n." Turn er, 48 2 U.S. at 90

. Im po rta nt ly, th e

Su pr em e Co ur t ha s reject ed th e no ti on of a "l ea s t r es tri ct iv e al te rn at iv e" an d

ex pl ai ne d t h a t " p r is on of fic ia ls do no t ha ve to se t up an d th en sh oo t do wn ev ery

co nc ei va bl e al te rn at iv e m et ho d of acco m m od at in g th e cl ai m an t's co ns t i t ut io na l

co m pl ai nt ." Id

. at 90 -9 1. "Bu t if an in m at e cl ai m an t can po in t to an al te rn at iv e th at

fu ll y acco m

m od at es th e pr is on er's rig ht s at d e m i n i m is co st to va li d pe no lo gi cal

in te res ts

, a co ur t m ay co ns id er th at as ev id en ce th at th e reg ul at io n do es no t sa ti sf y th e

reas on ab le rel at io ns hi p st an da rd ." Id

. at 91

. "In th e ne ces sa ril y cl os ed en vi ro nm en t

of th e co rrec ti on al in st it ut io n, few ch an ge s wil l ha ve no ram ifi cat io ns on th e li be rty

-1 3-of ot he rs or on th e u se of th e pr is on 's li m it ed res ou rces fo r pr es erv in g in st it ut io na l

or de r." Sal aam

v. Lo ck ha rt, 9 05 F.2d 11 68 , 11 71 (8t h C ir. 1 99 0)

.

Mu rch is on arg ue s th at th ree de min imi s al te rn at i v e s ex is t: (1 ) crea ti ng a

"re ad in g ro om " fo r su ch m at eri al ; (2 ) res tri ct in g th e m at eri al by req ui rin g in m at es to

si gn it ou t; an d (3 ) te ari ng ou t th e sp eci fic art ic le to al lo w hi m to vi ew th e rem ai nd er.

Alt ho ug h pe rh ap s reas on ab le

, we do no t be li ev e a n y of th es e al te rn at iv es can be

co ns id ered de min imi s

. Fi rs t, crea ti ng a sp eci fic read in g r o o m wou ld ob vi ou sl y "p res en t ad m in is tra ti ve di f f i c ul ty an d co st " an d can no t be ch arac te riz ed as de

min imi s

. See Dawso n v. Scu rr, 98 6 F.2 d 25 7, 26 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ); se e al so Ken dr ic k

v. Po pe , 67 1 F.3 d 68 6, 69 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (Co ll ot on , J., co n c u rri ng in pa rt an d

di ss en ti ng in pa rt) ("Ac co m m od at in g [ t he pr is on er] wou ld req ui re co rrec ti on al

of f i c e r s t o de vo te li m it ed res ou rces to m on it or in g a sa fet y ris k th at th e po li cy

ot he rwis e el im in at es ."); Mau ro v. Arp ai o, 18 8 F.3 d 10 54

, 10 62 (9 th C i r

. 19 99 )
(h ol di ng th at crea ti on of a read in g ro o m w o u l d no t be a de min imi s al te rn at iv e

be cau se it "wo ul d im

po se a si gn ifi can t adm in is tra ti ve bu rd en on th e jail "). Seco nd

, al lo win g in m at es t o ta ke th e m at eri al by si gn in g it ou t wou ld in no way pr ev en t

di ss em in at io n in th e pr is on , whi ch wou ld li ke ly un de rm in e th e sp eci fic pe no lo gi cal

in te res ts di sc us se d ab ov e. It wou ld al m os t cert ai nl y al so req ui re ad di ti on al res ou rces

to m an ag e an d m on it or th e p ro ces s o f si gn in g o ut th e m at eri al s, en su re t he y rem ai n

on ly wit h th e pa rty who si gn ed th em ou t, an d en su re th ey are ti m el y ret ur ne d. Eve n

if si gn ed ou t m at eri al ne ed s to rem ai n in t h e l i b r a ry , pr is on st aff wou ld ne ed to

de di cat e a d d i ti on al res ou rces to en su re th at su ch m at eri al s are no t rem ov ed

. Thi s,

to o, i s n ot de min imi s

.

Mu rch is on 's fin al su gg es ti on –t o si m pl y r e mov e th e pr oh ib it ed m at eri al an d

al lo w th e res t– at fir st bl us h ha s th e m os t ap pe al

. Teari ng ou t sp eci fic pa ge s of a

sp e c i f i c pu bl ic at io n co nt ai ni ng pr oh ib it ed m at eri al do es no t so un d pa rti cu la rly

di ffi cu lt

. Yet, whe n co ns id ered in th e co nt ex t of th e rev ie w pr oc es s fo r al l in co m in g

m ai l, t he qu es ti on be co m es m or e co m pl ex

. Pri so n po li cy pr ov id es th at "[i ]f part of

-1 4-a n it em or m ai li ng is pr oh ib it ed

, th e en ti re it em m us t be cen so red ." Thu s, pr is o n

of fic ia ls can no t m erel y te ar ou t th e pa ge s sp eci fic to M u r c h i so n's cen so red

pu bl ic at io n, th ey wou ld ha ve to d o so fo r al l in co m in g pu bl ic at io ns whi ch in cl ud e

pr oh ib it ed co nt en t. Mu rch is on ha s no t ch al le ng ed

, an d we ha ve an in su ffi ci en t reco rd

to fu ll y ev al ua te

, whe th er th e pr is on reg ul at io n of cen so rin g an en ti re it em ba se d on

a li m it ed am ou nt of c on te nt su bjec t t o c en so rs hi p, o n i ts face , is co ns ti tu ti on al

.

In Tho rn bu rg h, th e Su pr em e Co ur t fo und co nvi nc in g th e te st im on y fro m pr is on

of fic ia ls th at "t eari ng ou t th e reject ed po rti on s an d ad m it ti ng th e res t of th e

pu bl ic at io n wou ld crea te m or e di sc on te nt th an th e cu rren t pr act ic e

. . . ." 49 0 U.S. at

41 8- 19

. The Co ur t reas on ed th at su ch a pr act ic e wou ld c a u s e "ad m in is tra ti ve

in co nv en ie nc e" and th at pri so n o ffi ci al s d em on st rat ed a li ke li ho od of g reat er h arm

. Id

. at 41 9. In th e co nt ex t of th is as -ap pl ie d c h a ll en ge , we be li ev e req ui rin g su ch a

ch an ge wou ld ha ve m or e th an a de min imi s im pa ct

. See Dean

, No. 07 -CV-0 32 98

, at

*1 1, 14

, 15 (co nc lu di ng th at rem ov al of free it em s or te ari ng ou t pa ge s fro m

p ub li cat io ns wou ld be im pr act ic al ba se d on vo lu m e of in co m in g m ai l an d wou l d

co ns ti tu te a m or e th an de min imi s bu rd en ); se e al so Lin de ll v. McC au gh try, 11 5 F.
App 'x 87 2, 87 9 (7 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (ci ti ng Tho rn bu rg h an d ex pl ai ni ng th at th e co ur t was

"u nwi ll in g to s a y t h a t t he DOC sh ou ld be req ui red to red act pu bl ic at io ns whe n th e

Su pr em e C o u r t a pp ro ve d th e Fed eral Bu reau of Pri so ns ' ret en ti on of th e

'al l-o r-n ot hi ng ' ru le

, whi ch ba ns th e en ti re pu bl ic at io n if any th in g is fo un d th at m ay

th reat en se cu rit y a n d or de r") ; McC or m ic k v. W erh ol tz

, No. 07 -2 60 5, 20 09 W L

52 10 84 5, at *7 (D. Kan

. Dec. 23

, 20 09 ) (h ol di ng , fo r an as -ap pl ie d ch a l l e n g e, th at

th is was no t a de min imi s al te rn at iv e m eas ur e be cau se to m ak e su ch acco m m od at io n

fo r al l in m at es wou ld "re qu ire an en or m ou s ad di ti on al ex pe nd it ur e of r e s o u rces ").

Fo r in st an ce, rev ie win g of fic ia ls wou ld li ke ly be req ui red to m or e cl os el y rev ie w each

pa ge of each pu bl ic at io n, pe rh ap s ev en ex ci si ng po rti on s of a pa rti cu la r pa ge

. The re

m ay al so be is su es rel at ed to th e do cu m en ta ti on an d st or ag e of an y ex ci se d m at eri al s.

W e do no t at te m

pt hypo th et ic al ly to de ci de in th e ab st ract whe re su ch a li ne m ay be

dr awn

. Keep in g in m in d th at pr is on o f f i ci al s ne ed no t ad op t th e le as t res tri ct iv e

-1 5-m ean s, in th e co nt ex t of thi s as-a pp li ed ch al le ng e, we do no t bel ie ve te ari ng ou t th e

pr oh ib it ed m at eri al wou ld be a de min imi s alt ern at iv e.

Fo r al l of th es e reas on s, we fin d th e di st ric t co ur t p r op erl y gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or o f t h e p r is on of fic ia ls

. Bec au se th ere was no co ns ti tu ti on al

vi ol at io n and Mu rch is on can no t su ccee d on hi s cl ai m , th e pr is on of fic ia ls were al so

en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y , an d we n e e d n o t a dd res s whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d i n d is m is si ng th e su pe rv is or y pri so n o ffi ci al s.

III

Mu rch is on al so arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s un ti m el y m ot io n

to co m pe l di sc ov ery. W e rev ie w su ch m ot io ns for a gr os s ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e

Eln as ha r v. Sp eed way

Su pe rAm eri ca, LLC, 48 4 F .3d 10 46 , 10 52 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

Mu rch is on as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g th e m ot io n

be cau se he was in ad m in is tra ti ve co nf in em en t du rin g so m e of th e ti m e fo r di sc ov ery.

Howev er, he do es no t as se rt th a t h e w as un ab le to fil e le ga l m at eri al s whi le in

a d mi n is tra ti ve co nf

in em en t– in de ed Mu rch is on fil ed nu m ero us m ot io ns du rin g th e

ti m e he was in ad m in is tra ti ve co nf in em en t. The reco rd sh ows Mu rch is on was ab le

to co m m un ic at e wit h th e di st ric t co ur t an d ha d so m e acce s s t o h i s le ga l m at eri al s,

al be it no t to th e ex te nt he de si red

. Mo st im po rta nt ly, Mu rch is on fai ls to art ic ul at e an y

di sc ov ery he be li ev es wou ld de m on st rat e a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact su ch as to

av oi d wha t we co nc lu de was a pr op er gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t. The on ly

di sc ov ery he sp eci fic al ly m en ti on s is rel at ed to whe th er an y ev id en ce ex is ts of su ch

m at eri al cau si ng di st ur ba nc es in th e pr is on

. Howev er, as ex pl ai ne d ab ov e, ev e n a

co m pl et e ab se nc e of su ch ev id en ce do es no t pr ecl ud e su m m ary jud gm en t. Bec au se

Mu rch is on can no t dem on st rat e th at th e d en ia l o f th e u nt im el y m ot io n dep riv ed hi m

of th e op po rtu ni ty to fai rly res po nd to th e m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, we fin d no

ab us e of di sc ret io n. Cf. Bal la rd v. Hein em an , 54 8 F .3d 11 32 , 1 13 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )

-1 6-("Th e di st ric t co ur t do es no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g fu rth er di sc ov ery 'whe re

t h e n o n m ov in g pa rty is no t de pr iv ed of a fai r ch an ce to res po nd to th e su m m ar y jud gm en t m ot io n.'" ).

IV

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 7-