In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 15‐2236

KEVIN A. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

SHARON HANSEN, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Central District of Illinois.

No. 13 C 1187 — Michael M. Mihm, Judge.

____________________

SUBMITTED AUGUST 18, 2016 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 20, 2016

____________________

Before POSNER, EASTERBROOK, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff, Kevin Williams, who

is serving a 65‐year prison sentence for murder and for con‐

cealing the murder and is incarcerated at Pontiac Correc‐

tional Center, an Illinois maximum‐security state prison, or‐

dered a death certificate from the county clerk’s office—the

death certificate of the woman, Traci Todd, whom he’d

murdered. Members of the prison’s staff confiscated the cer‐

tificate (which had arrived at the prison accompanied by an
2 No. 15‐2236   

unsigned note that read: “There is a place in hell waiting for

you [i.e., Williams] as you must know you will reap what

you have sowed!” (the accompanying note was also confis‐

cated, although there is no indication that Williams wants it).

The reason given for confiscating the certificate was that

“Williams could not have the death certificate because it

posed a threat to the safety and security of the institution

and would negatively impact Inmate Williams’ rehabilita‐

tion.”

The confiscation precipitated this suit by Williams under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the staff members involved in the

confiscation, as well as against the prison warden at the time

and the director of the state prison system. Williams con‐

tends that by confiscating the certificate without even giving

him a chance to read it, the defendants had infringed the

First Amendment. The judge dismissed some of the defend‐

ants at the outset of the case; their dismissal was justified be‐

cause they hadn’t been involved in the decision to confiscate

the certificate. Summary judgment for defendant Hansen

was justified on the same ground. The judge granted sum‐

mary judgment for the other defendants on a different

ground: that their confiscating the certificate had decreased

the risk that inmates would retaliate against “boasting in‐

mates” like Williams, and also had protected Todd’s family

because the death certificate might include information iden‐

tifying members of the family.

Although “prisoners have protected First Amendment

interests in both sending and receiving mail,” Rowe v. Shake,

196 F.3d 778, 782 (7th Cir. 1999), a prison can confiscate an

inmate’s mail if confiscation “is reasonably related to legiti‐

mate penological interests.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89
No. 15‐2236 3

(1987). But the prison must present “some evidence to show

that the restriction is justified.” King v. Federal Bureau of Pris‐

ons, 415 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir. 2005); see also Brown v. Phil‐

lips, 801 F.3d 849, 854 (7th Cir. 2015). The defendants’ brief

argues that the “place in hell” note that accompanied the cer‐

tificate threatened violence against Williams; yes, but vio‐

lence in hell, not in the prison; no prison official suggested

that the note portended violence in the prison. Again with‐

out any supporting statement by a prison official, the de‐

fendants argue that Williams could use the death certificate

as a “trophy,” which would increase tension within the pris‐

on and decrease his chances for rehabilitation. A prison does

have a legitimate safety concern about “boasting inmates”

carrying around trophies of their victims. But Williams as‐

serted in his deposition and affidavit that he had ordered the

death certificate for use in state post‐conviction proceedings

rather than to save as a trophy of his crime, and the defend‐

ants have presented no contrary evidence to support their

assumption that Williams wanted a trophy. And the prison

could have avoided this controversy in the first place by

holding on to the death certificate except for the short time

needed to include it (or indeed just a xerox copy of it) in Wil‐

liams’s court filing.

The remaining defendants argue however that even if

Williams has stated a claim for relief, they are insulated from

liability because the right that he asserts was not clearly es‐

tablished when they violated it. Ashcroft v. Al‐Kidd, 563 U.S.

731, 735 (2011). Wrong. The right of a prison inmate to read

the mail he receives, provided that his reading it would not

infringe the prison’s legitimate interests, is, as noted above,

clearly established.
4 No. 15‐2236   

The judgment of the district court is affirmed with regard

to the dismissal of the defendants not involved in the confis‐

cation of the death certificate, but is otherwise reversed and

the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion.