### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 00 69 -C V

______________________________ DOUGLAS A. DUNN, A ppellant V. TDCJ -I D, ET AL ., Appellee s
On Appea l from the 102nd Judi cial District Court

Bow ie County , Texas Trial Court No. 03-C-1588- 102

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte r2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON I n 2003, Doug las A. Dunn sued se vera l officials of the Texas Depar tment of Criminal J ustice for c onfiscatingitems found inside a st o ra ge container located in Dunn' s prison cell duringwhat Dunn desc ribed a s an illeg al sea rch that had occ urre d ear lier that y ear . As a re sult of t he it ems found during the sea

rch, pr ison officials ele vated Dunn' s secur ity classification, which in turn require d Dunn to be housed in a

differ ent prison fa cility , cause d him to los e the job he had at his old prison, le d to Dunn

be ing pla c e d on ce ll an d co mmi ssa ry re str ic tio ns , an d ca

us e d Dun n to lose c la ss c re dit and g ood time cre dit. Dunn's la wsuit was filed pro se , in f or ma pa up e ris
. On May 14, 2007, the trial court dismiss ed Dunn' s civil la wsuit. D unn now appe als, raising four issues: (1) the trial court err ed by concludingDunn fa iled to state a c ause of action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2) the t rial court err ed by concluding Dunn failed to state a cause of action under the Texas Tort Claims Act, (3) the tria l court denie d Dunn due process by dismiss ing his law suit, and (4) the tr ial court a

bused its discretion by

not allowing D unn' s case to proce ed to trial duringthe twenty -four

mont h s b et we en the date Dunn filed his orig inal petition and the date the trial court dismiss ed Dunn' s lawsuit. Reg ardle ss of Dunn' s char acte ri z at i o n o f h is appellate issues, e ach of tho se po int s o f e rr or

ult imate ly

tur ns on wh e the r D un n h a d a

re a so na ble e xpe c ta tio n o f p ri va c y in the storag e conta iner that wa s located w ithin his prison cell. I f, to pa raphr ase Chief J ustice Warre n Bur g er, our

Americ an socie ty

is prepar ed to re cog nize that an inmate has a "justifiable" expectation of privac y in a storag e conta iner located inside the inmate' s cell, then Te x as prison g uards should not3

be a llo we d to tr amp le th a t in ma te ' s e xpe c ta tio n o f p ri va c y a s se c ur e d b y

the F ourt h A me ndme nt. I f, o n th e o th e r h an d , o u r A me r ic an s o c ie ty b e li e v e s a p r is o n e r h a s n o r e a s o n a b le , le g it im a te , or justifiable expectation of privac y in a smaller storag e conta iner within that inmate' s prison cell, then

a s ea rc h o f t h at s t o ra ge c o n t ai n er b y T ex as p ri s o no ff

i ci al s d o es n o tt ri gger

t h e F o u rt h Am en d m en t 's p r o te c ti o n s a g a in s t u

n r e a s o n a b le s e ar c h an d

s e iz ure. See H

udson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517, 525 (1984). Unde r t h i s l at ter sce nario, Dunn' s alleg ations—even if taken as true —would not be actionable and could not be sa id to subject the named defe ndants to liability , requiring the trial cour t to gr ant the def

endants' motion to di smiss Dunn's lawsuit for failing to state a viable ca use of a ction. I n Hudson , a majority of the United States Supreme Court wrote that "soc iety is not prepar ed t o re co g nize as leg itimate anysu bje c tiv e e xpe c ta

tio n o f p ri va c y

that a pr iso ne r m ig ht h a ve in h is prison cell and that, acc ording ly , the Four th Amendment proscr iption ag ainst unrea sonable sea rche s does not apply

within the conf

i n es o f t he prison ce ll." 468 U.S. at 526. The Court continued by

wr i t i n g, The re cog nition of privacy rig hts for prisoners in their individual cells simply cannot be re conciled w ith the conce pt of incar cer ation and the needs and objectives of pe nal ins tit uti on s. Prisons, by

definition, are place s of involuntary confine ment of per sons who have de mon str a te d a

pr oc liv ity

fo r a nti so c ial c ri min a l, a

nd of te n v iol e nt, c on du c t. I nmate s h a ve ne c e ssa

ri ly sh ow n a la ps e in abil it y to c on tr ol a nd c on fo rm the ir behavio r to the leg itimate standards of soc iety bythe normal impulses of selfre str a int ; th e y

have sh ow n an ina

bil ity to re g ulate the ir c on du c t in a wa y tha t r e fl e c ts either a respe ct for la

w or a n appre ciation of the r ights of othe rs. . . .4 Th e a dmi nis tr a tio n o f a

pr iso n, we have sa id, is " a t be st a n e xtra ordina

ri ly difficult under

taking ." But i t would be li tera lly impossibl e to ac complish the prison ob je c tiv e s . . . if

inm a te s r e ta ine d a

ri g ht o f p ri va c y

in t he ir c e lls . V ir

tua lly the on ly pla c e s i nmate s c an c on c e a l w e a po ns , d ru g s, and oth e r c on tr a

ba nd is i n th e ir

c e lls

. Un fe t tere d acc ess to these c ells by prison officia ls, thus, is imperative if dr ug s and contra band ar e to be f

err eted out and sa

nitary surrounding s are to be maintained. Id. at 526–57 (c itations omi tted). Additionally , the United States Supreme Court has r ecog nized that

a " s h a k e d o w n " s e ar c h o f an inmate ' s c e ll d o e s n o t v io late th e F o u rth A me n d me nt. Block v

. Ru the rfo rd , 46 8 U. S. 57 6, 58 9– 91 (1 98 4) (p ri so n of fi c ia ls, no t the c ourt s, sh ou ld be e mpo we re d to

make the dif

fi c ult jud g me nts that re c on c ile c on fl ic tin g c la ims a ff e c tin gpr iso n s e c ur ity

and inm a te welfa re, inc luding when and how cell sear ches should occur ). A proper sea rch of a prison ce ll may include sea

rchingthe inmate' s leg al mater ials. Mi tc he ll v . D up nik , 75 F.3d 517, 523 (9th Cir. 1996). I f our Ame rica

n society does not believe an inmate has a justifiable expectation of privac y wi thi n a pr iso n cell , th e n it

fo llo ws that ou

r s oc ie ty do e s n ot b e lie ve an inma te ha s a jus tif ia ble

e xpe c ta tio n o f p ri va c y

wi thi n a sto ra g e c on ta ine r loc a te d some wh e re wi thi n tha t sam e pr iso n c e ll. To hold otherwise would defe at the rationale for prohibiting prisone rs from suc cessf ully claiming a F ourth Amendment rig ht ag ainst searches of prison cells by

prison officia ls. Such an exception

wo uld a llo w e ve ry in ma te to s e c re te dr ug s, we a po ns , a nd oth e r c on tr a

ba nd in a sp e c ia l " F ourt

h Am e ndme nt" sto ra g e c on ta ine r l oc a te d in sid e the c e ll, the re by thw art ingpr iso n o ff ic ia ls' e ff or ts t o preve nt drug s, wea

pons, and ot her c ontraba

nd from beingintroduced into and distributed throug hout pe na l in sti tut ion s. I n e sse nc e , the e xce pti on wo uld sw a llo w the ru le , ma

kin g the la tte r m e anin g le ss.Dunn attac hed to his appellate brief a document titled "Of fende r Instructions for Subsequent 1 Sto ra g e Re vie w. " Dunn

c on te nd s th e se do c ume nts ou tli ne a po lic y iss ue d b y

the wa rd e n o f h is former prison, a policy that aff

ords him g reater protec tion a g ainst an illega l se arc h and seizure than might other

wise be pr ovided by

the Four th Amendment. These "O ffe nder Instructi o n s " were not ma de pa rt of the re c or d o f t

he pr oc e e din g s be low and may no t be c on sid e re d b y thi s Co ur t on a pp e a l. Fox v . W ardy , 2 3 4 S
. W
. 3 d 3 0 , 3 3 (T ex . Ap p . — E l P as o 2 0 0 7 , p et
. d i s m 'd w. o . j

. ) ( ci t i n g Nguyen v

. Intertex , Inc. , 9 3 S. W.3 d 2 88 , 2 93 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14thDi st. ] 200 2, no pe t.) ; Perry v . Kroger Stores, Store No. 119 , 741 S.W .2d 533, 534 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas 1987, no writ)). Additionally , even if we w ere to assume such doc uments to be authentic, t h ey d o n ot purport to outline any officia l policy adopted by the Texas D epar tment of Criminal Justi ce that would entitle inmates to a g reater deg ree of protec tion from sear ch and se izure by prison officia ls th an t h at al rea dy aff orded by the F ourt h A me ndme nt. 5 We d o n ot

be lie ve our s oc ie ty

is p re pa re d to re c og nize a s "

jus tif ia ble " the g e ne ra l F ourt

h Amendment interest now asser ted by Dunn, nor do we find the re asonable ness of the e x pectation of privac y by a prisoner

in anycontents of a prison cell nece ssarily outweig hs the various ne eds of prison officia ls in carr

y ing out their eff

orts to provide safe, sanitary , and drug -fr ee pr isons. Nor has Dunn direc ted this Court's attention to either (1) evidence in the appellate record about an offic ial policy of the Te x as De partment of Criminal Just ice that aff ords inmates additional sea rch a nd 1 seizure protec t i o n s bey ond the Four th Amendment or (2) a law or policy of this State that affor ds a prisoner g reater prote ction from sea rch a nd seizures o f an inmate' s belong ings by prison g uards than might other

wise be provided by the Four th A mendment. There fore , beca use an inmate has no justifiable expectation of privac y in a storag e container located wit hin a prison cell, it follows that Dunn ca nnot succe ssfully

argue prison off

icials violated his Fourth Ame ndment privac y interests by

sear ching his prison cell. Cf. Busby v. Dretk e , 3 5 9 F. 3 d

7 0 8 , 7 1 5

– 1 6 (5 t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( ci t i n g Stroud v. United States , 2 51 U. S. 1 5 ( 19 19 ), fo r p ro po sit ion that ja ile rs may read inma te s' pr ivate ma il6

wi tho ut v iol a tin g F ourt

h A me ndme nt) ; Mo nr oe v . B e ar d , N o . 0 5

- 0 4 9 3 7 , 2 0 0 7 U
. S
. D i s t
. LE X IS 16943, at *30 (E.D. Pa. Ma r. 8, 2007) ( inmates ca

nnot claim any

violation of Fourth Amendment

r ig h ts b e c a

u s e inmate s lo s t t

h e ir le g it im a te e xp e c tati o no f p r iv a c y in p r is o nc e ll s o nc o nviction); So ria v . S

tat e , 9 33 S.W. 2d

46 , 5 9– 60 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ) ( " I t w as no t unre a so na ble fo r j a il of fi c ia ls t o c on c lud e [inm a te ' s] dr awi nga t issu e dis se rv e d le g iti ma te ins tit uti on a l in te re sts ." ). Thus , Dunn cannot succe ssfully maintain a cause of action aga inst prison officials for c onduct that turns

o nh i s cl ai m o f a re as o n ab l e e x p ec t at i o no f p ri v ac y i n t h e co n t en t s o f h i s p ri s o n ce l l , o r a n y s t o ra ge container located the rein. I n summary , Dunn' s civil petition di d not ad v an ce a v alid cause of ac tion ag ainst the defe ndants. The tria l court' s order of di smissal ref

lects the l ower

court prope rly

rec og nizedOur opinion today should not be rea d to espouse the view that inmates have no constitutional 2 interest in their leg al cor

responde nce materials. Such an a s s er t i o n i s aff irmatively

ref uted by our Four teenth Amendme nt's jurisprudence as i t relate s to an inmate' s constitutional right to ac cess the courts, as g uara

nteed by the Fir st and Fifth Ame ndments, and made applicable to the states by the Four teenth Amendme nt. See B ieregu v . Reno , 5 9 F .3 d 1 44 5, 14 53 –4 54 (3 d Ci r. 19 95 ). I f s ta te pr iso n o ff ic ia ls m a int a in a

c on sta nt p ra c tic e of se arc hin g and de str oyingan inma te ' s le g a l mate ri a ls, su c h c on du c t mi g ht b e a c tio na ble a s a de nia l of

the pr iso ne r' s r ig ht t o r e a so na ble a c c e ss t o th e c ourt s. Gill v. Neave

s , No. SA-82-CA-583, 1986 U .S. Dist. L EXI S 21879, at *13–14 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 19 86 ). Ho we ve r, a

sin g le se arc h of an inma te ' s le g a l mate ri a ls a nd the de str uc tio n o f s ome of

tho se m a t e r i a l s w o u l d

g e n e r a l l y not

violate a prisoner' s rig ht to court ac cess. Id. Reg ardle ss, Dunn does not assert that the single se arc h of his storag e compa rtment, which he alleg es conta ined leg al materia l, constituted part of a larg er pattern of c onduct or that he has someh o w b ee n denied re a so na ble a c c e ss t o th e c ourt s. 7 this principle in law and fac t. Acc ording ly , we ove rrule D unn' s appellate issues and af firm the trial

c ourt ' s ju dg me nt. 2

J ack Ca rter J ustice Date Submitted: Dec ember 5, 2007 Date D ecide d: J anuar y 11, 2008