FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JAN 07 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P U B L I S H ] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15248

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 25 -C V -6 J A M I L A L - A M I N , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s W A R D E N H U G H S M I T H , A D M I N . A S S T . S A N C H E M . M A R T I N , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 7, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg e: In thi s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on , pl ai nt i ff -app el l ee , a s t at e pri soner, al l egesThe pa rties consented to transfer the c ase to a mag istrate judg e, but, for simplicity , we 1 use the ter

m “district court.” Al -Amin e ntere d th eDO C on

Ma rch 2 3, 20 02 . In Augus t 20 07 , th estatetrans ferre d A l- 2 Amin to a federal prison, c iting security concerns. Al-Amin is still servinga state lifesentenc e b uti s h o u s e d

i na f e d e ralf a c i l i ty. 2 tha tde f e nda nt s - appe l l a nt s r e pe a t e dl y ope ne d hi s pr i vi l e ge d a tt or ne y m a i l out s i de o f h is p r e s e n c e a n d th e r e b y v io la te d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts to a c c e s s to th e c o u r ts and free spee ch. D ef

endant s app ea l the deni al of thei r m ot i on for s um m ary j u d g m e n to n q u a l i f

i e d i m m u n i ty g r o u n d s . Af t e rr e v i e w a n d o r a l a r g u m e n t , we r e ve r s e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty rul i ng a s t o pl a i nt i f f’ s a c c e s s - t oc o u r t s c l a i m b u ta f

f i r m a s t o p l a i n t i f

f’ s f r e e s p e e c h c l a i m. 1 I . B AC KG RO UN D F r o m 2 0 0 2 to 2 0 0 7 , p la in tif f J a m il A l- A m in w a s a p r is o n e ra t G e o r g ia S ta te P ri son (“ G S P ”) , op er at ed by G eorgi a’ s D epar tm entof C orre ct i on s ( “ D O C ”) . 2 D e f e n d a n ts a r e H u g h S m ith , G S P w a r d e n , a n d S a n c h e M a r tin , h is a s s is ta n t. A . D O C ’s M ai l P ol i cy T h e D O C p o lic y k n o w n a s “S O P I I B 0 4 - 0 0 0 1 ” p r o v id e s c e r ta in m a il pri vi l eges t o i nm at es atG eorgi a pri sons. S peci fi ca l l y, S O P II B 04 -000 1 p rovi des th a tc o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e twe e n i n m a t e s a n d th e i ra tt o r n e y s i s “ p r i v i l e g e d m a i l . ” An in m a te ’s a tto r n e y in c lu d e s “a n y a tto r n e y w ith w h o m th e in m a te h a s h a d , o ris a tte m p tin g to e s ta b lis h , a n a tto r n e y c lie n t r e la tio n s h ip ” a n d w h o is lic e n s e d toThe DO C policy also states that incomingprivileg ed mail “shall be treated as privileg ed 3 only if the nameand off

icial status of the sender appe ars c ommercially printed on the envelope.” Incomingprivileg ed mail may be held f or two days to allow officials to verify the privileg ed status of the sender. Inth i s o p i n i o nw eu s eth et e r m s “p ri v i l e g e d

m ai l ”an d

“ att o r n e y m ai l ”i nt e rc h an g e a

b l y. 4 Duringthe Christmas holidays in 2004 and 2005, Martin also wor ked in the mailroom 5 but did not supervise any mail staff at that time. 3 pr a c t i c e i n s t a t e orf

e de r a l c our t s . T he pol i c y pr ovi de s f ore xt e r na l i ns pe c t i on of pr i vi l e ge d m a i l “ by f

l uor os c ope , m e t a l de t e c t i ng de vi c e , orm a nua l i ns pe c t i on f or th e p u rp o s e o f

d e te c tin g c o n tr a b a n d .” 3 F ol l ow i ng an ext ernal i nspect i on , “ an approp ri at el y des i gn at ed st af f m em ber m a y ope n a nd i ns pe c t( butnotr e a d) a l l pr i vi l e ge d m a i l i n the pr e s e nc e of the i n ma t e /p r o b a t i o n e rt o w h o m i ti s a d d r e s s e d . ” Th u s , u n d e rD O C’ s o w n p o l i c y , G SP m ay no tre ad A l -A m i n’ s a tt orney m ai l and m ay op en i ton l y i n h i s pre se nce. 4 B . M ai l fr om A l -A m i n ’s W i fe In 20 02 , pl ai nt i ff’ s w i fe , K ar i m a A l -A m i n (“ K ar i m a” ) began se nd i ng l egal corr es po nd ence m arked “ l egal m ai l ” t o h i m . K ar i m a i s al i ce nsed att orney prac t i ci ng i n A t l ant a, G eorgi a. F r o m A p r il 1 3 , 1 9 9 9 to A u g u s t 1 , 2 0 0 4 , d e f e n d a n t M a r tin o v e r s a w th e d a ily ope r a t i ons of

the pr i s on m a i l r oom . M a r t i n a dm i t s tha t , i n A pr i l 2002, s he 5 ac ci dent al l y opened a l ett erfr om K ar i m a. A s M art i n res ea l ed the l ett er , she s aw th a t K a r im a w a s a n a tto r n e y a n d th a t th e le tte rc a m e f r o m K a r im a ’s la w o f

f ic e .The attorney list i s contained in a

memorandum from Warden Smith t o the inmate file, 6 whic h s tate s th at A l- Am in “ su bmitte d th ebe low

lis t”to Lt. L arr

y B rewton . Wh ileAl -Amin does not remember submitting a list in May 2002, he does not deny

that this occurred. 4 M art i n i nform ed W ar den S m i th thatA l -A m i n h ad re ce i ved “ m ai l of a per sonal nature” fr om hi s a tt orney- w i fe . I n M a y 2002, W a r de n S m i th a s ke d A l - A m i n f ora l i s tof

hi s a tt or ne y s of r e c or d. S m i th a s ke d f

orthe l i s tbe c a us e A l - A m i n ha d a num be rof a tt or ne y s a nd S m ith d id n o t w a n t m a ilr o o m s ta f f o p e n in g A l- A m in ’s le g a l m a il o u ts id e A lA m i n’ s pr e s e nc e . A l - A m i n ga ve S m i th the na m e s of f i ve a tt or ne y s , butdi d not in c lu d e K a r im a . B e c a u s e A l- A m in d id n o t id e n tif y K a r im a a s o n e o f

h is 6 att orneys , S m i th i nform ed M art i n and other m ai l room st af f thatK ar i m a’ s l ett er s s houl d be tr e a t e d a s r e gul a rm a i l . A c c or di ng t o S m i th a nd M a r t i n, A l - A m i n a nd K a r i m a ne ve ri nf

orm e d the m tha tK a r i m a w a s r e pr e s e nt i ng A l - A m i n. C . A u gu st 20 03 G ri evan ce I n 2 0 0 3 , O f

f ic e rJ a m e s J o n e s , w h o b r in g s le g a l m a il to in m a te s , to ld A lA m i n thatM art i n w as op eni ng l egal m ai l fr om K ar i m a. A l -A m i n then fi l ed an A ugus t2003 gr i e va nc e a l l e gi ng tha tM a r t i n ha d “ know i ngl y [ , ] i gnor i ng a nd d is r e g a r d in g D .O .C . P o lic y , in s tru c te d th a t m y L e g a l M a il is to b e o p e n e d .” A lA m i n’ s gri evance l i st ed hi s ni ne att orneys , i ncl ud i ng hi s w i fe . A l -A m i n request ed tha thi s pr i vi l e ge d m a i l be tr e a t e d a s s uc h.5

O n S ept em ber 19, 20 03 , W ar den S m i th d eni ed the gri evance, st at i ng that “[ n ]o e v id e n c e w a s f

o u n d to s u p p o r t th e a lle g a tio n s y o u m a d e a g a in s t M s . M a r tin . M a il is p r o c e s s e d w ith in e s ta b lis h e d g u id e lin e s .” O n S e p te m b e r2 5 , 2 0 0 3 , A lA m i n fi l ed a gri evance app ea l , re peat i ng hi s a l l egat i on s a nd st at i ng that“ [m ] y w i fe is o n e o f m y la w y e r s a n d s h o u ld b e s h o w n th e r e s p e c t o f a n y a tto r n e y .” O n N o v em b er 1 3 , 2 0 0 3 , as p arto f th e g ri ev an ce i n v est i g at i o n , T h eresa J a r r ie l s u b m itte d a s w o r n s ta te m e n t b a s e d o n a te le p h o n e in te r v ie w w ith M a r tin . M a r tin to ld J a r r ie l th a t: ( 1 ) w h e n A l- A m in c a m e to G S P , h e r e c e iv e d le g a l m a il in envel op es w i th p re pri nt ed bu si ness l abel s f rom hi s w i fe ; (2) “ a l otof the pri vi l eged m ai l had p er sonal l ett er s i n i tal tho ug h som e of the envel op es cont ai ned l egal tr a ns c r i pt s a nd s uc h” ; a nd ( 3) be c a us e A l - A m i n w a s a s ke d t o l i s thi s a tt or ne y s a nd K a r im a w a s n o t in c lu d e d , W a r d e n S m ith in s tru c te d m a ilr o o m s ta f f to o p e n a ll m a il r e c e iv e d f

r o m K a r im a , w h e th e rp r iv ile g e d o rn o t, b e f o r e ta k in g it o v e rto A lA m i n’ s bui l di ng. O n N ov em ber 14, 20 03 , W ar den S m i th sub m i tt ed a s w orn st at em entthat “A l- A m in ’s le g a l m a il r e c e iv e d f r o m a n y a tto r n e y o f

r e c o r d is o p e n e d in h is pres ence as es t abl i shed i n p ol i cy . M ai l re ce i ved from hi s w i fe w ho I a m t ol d i s a n atto rn ey o r leg al re p re se n tati v e h as b ee n o p en ed o u tsid e o f in m ate A l-A m in ’s p re se n ce .” O n N o v em b er1 8 , 2 0 0 3 , S m ith se n t a m em o ra n d u m to th e D O C ’sPrison records indicate that the only time that Al-Amin’s privileg ed mail was opened 7 outside of his presence w as De cember 31, 2002, when a letter from Associated L eg al Service s was opened by

mistake. However, w e note that Ma rtin herse lf admits openinga letter from Ka rima ’slaw o ff

ic ein A pril 2 00 2. Al so , Wa

rde n Sm itha dmits that in 20 02 heinf

or me d M artin and themailroo m st a ff

that lettersfrom Karima

sh ould b etre ate d a s re gula r m ail. As the wa rden’ s designee under the mail policy, Martin was permitted to inspect 8 Al-Amin’s nonprivileg ed mail outside his presenc e. 6 A s s i s t a ntR e gi ona l D i r e c t ora nd the l e a d i nve s t i ga t orf orI nm a t e A f

f a i r s a nd A pp ea l s s t at i ng thatm ai l arri vi ng for A l -A m i n w ou l d b e proces se d as pri vi l eged m a il a s lo n g a s it m e t th e c r ite r ia u n d e rth e m a il p o lic y . D . N o v em b er 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 G ri ev a n ce R esp o n se O n N ov em ber 25, 20 03 , R ay m on d H ea d, m anager of the Inm at e A ff ai rs U n it , i ss u ed a g riev an ce re sp o n se . A cc o rd in g to H ea d ’s re sp o n se , A l-A m in ’s a lle g a tio n w a s “r e f

e r r e d to th e ap p r o p r ia te s ta f f f o rap p r o p r ia te a c tio n to e n s u r e th is do es no toccur agai n i n the future. ” W ar den S m i th rec ei ved H ea d’ s gri evance r e s p o n s e a n d in s tru c te d M a r tin to n o w tr e a t a ll m a il f r o m K a r im a a s le g a l, pri vi l eged m ai l and t o o pen i ti n A l -A m i n’ s pre se nce. M art i n, i n turn, i nstruct ed th e m a ilr o o m s ta f

f to tr e a t m a il f

r o m K a r im a a s le g a l m a il. I n h e ra f f id a v it, M a r tin s ta te s th a t a f te rN o v e m b e r2 5 , 2 0 0 3 , s h e tr e a te d a ll o f K ar im a’s m ail as leg al m ail an d sh e n ev ero p en ed an y o f it o u tsid e A l-A m in ’s p r e s e n c e . M a r tin a v e r s th a t s h e n e v e rin s tru c te d o rp e r m itte d a n y in d iv id u a ls to

7 i ns pe c tA l - A m i n’ s pr i vi l e ge d m a i l . I f a ny of K a r i m a ’ s m a i l w a s ope ne d out s i de 8Al-Amin’s complaint desc ribes a se cond grieva nce ( “No. 517- 04-2332”) , filed on 9 October 14, 2004, which alleg ed that his privileg ed mail was still beingopened a nd read outside of his presence. Warden Smith denied the grieva nce, a nd Al-Amin appe aled. On D ecember 1, 2004, Head informed Al- Amin that ever y eff ort was be ing made by

mailroom staff to ensure that all leg al mail was opened in the pre senceof the prisoner to whom it was addressed. Therec ord contains no other evidenceof this grievanc e. 7 A l- A m in ’s p r e s e n c e a f

te rN o v e m b e r2 5 , 2 0 0 3 , M a r tin s ta te s , “it w a s in a d v e r te n tly d o n e b y th e m a il r o o m s o r te r .” A c c or di ng t o W a r de n S m i th’ s a f f i da vi t , he w a s nota w a r e tha ta ny of K a r im a ’s m a il w a s tr e a te d a s n o n - p r iv ile g e d a f te rN o v e m b e r2 5 , 2 0 0 3 . H a d S m ith know n tha tm a i l r oom e m pl oy e e s w e r e tr e a t i ng K a r i m a ’ s m a i l a s non- pr i vi l e ge d, he w oul d ha ve c or r e c t e d the s i tua t i on. I n c ontr a s t , A l - A m i n t e s t i f i e d tha tl e ga l m a i l f

r om K a r i m a c ont i nue d t o be op ened ou t si de hi s pre se nce e ven aft erH ea d’ s N ov em ber 25, 20 03 gri evance re spon se . A l -A m i n p oi nt s t o thi rt ee n env el op es (a tt ac hed t o h i s c om pl ai nt ) m ai l ed b e tw e e n J u n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 a n d F e b ru a r y 8 , 2 0 0 5 a s le g a l m a il o p e n e d o u ts id e h is pres ence . F urther, i n 2 00 5, K ar i m a quest i on ed W ar den S m i th abo utthe cont i nu al

9 o p e n i n g o f

A l - A mi n ’ s l e g a l ma i l . Smi th r e p l i e d th a tth e o p e n e d ma i l f r o m K a r i ma w a s m a il f

r o m h e rh o m e o f

a p e r s o n a l n a tu r e . K a r im a in f o r m e d S m ith th a t a ll c om m uni c a t i ons ha d be e n dul y m a r ke d a s “ l e ga l m a i l ” a nd tha ts he ha d nots e nt any m ai l fr om her hom e. E. A l - A m i n’ s C o m pl a i ntAl-Amin also sued de fenda nts in their official c apac ities. In a Jul y 18, 2005 order , the 10 dis tric t c ourt

dis mis se d th eof

fi c ial c a pac ity c laims a s b arre d b y

theEl e venth

Am e ndment. Al Amin did n ot a

pp e al th is r

uling , a nd thu s w edo no t add

re ss his o ff

ic ial c a pac ity c laims . Although there a

re f ourteen envelope s, the parties refer to thirteen envelopes a nd we 11 assume that they

aredroppingthe one that is not leg ible. At his deposition, Al-Amin testified that after his complaint was filed, herec eived a 12 pieceof “le g al” mail that wa s opened. O n August 23, 2005, Officer Oliver took a letter from Karima to Al-Amin and stated that “ it’s already been opened.” Thereis no testimony about what was on the f

ront of the envelope, a

nd Al-Amin has not filed this envelopein the rec ord.

8 O n M ar ch 21 , 20 05 , A l -A m i n fi l ed a § 19 83 com pl ai ntagai nstW ar den S m i th and M art i n i n thei r i nd i vi du al capaci t i es . A tt ac hed t o the com pl ai ntar e 10 phot oc opi e s of

the thi r t e e n e nve l ope s be tw e e n J une 28, 2004 a nd F e brua r y 8, 2005, w hi ch he al l eges w er e i m prop er l y opened b ef ore r ea chi ng hi m . T he re turn 11 addres s on eac h env el op e i s K ar i m a’ s l aw offi ce addres s a nd ea ch i s m arked “ l egal m a il.” F o u ro f

th e e n v e lo p e s a r e a ls o m a r k e d “a tto r n e y - c lie n t p r iv ile g e .” A lA m i n ’ s l aw su i tseek s d am ag es fo r o n l y th ese th i rt een l ett ers. 12 H ow e ve r , a s ba c kgr ound, A l - A m i n’ s c om pl a i nts tr e s s e s tha tdur i ng 2003 d e f e n d a n ts h a d p r e v io u s ly o p e n e d a n d r e a d h is a tto r n e y m a il a n d b e e n to ld to s to p . A c c or di ng t o A l - A m i n’ s c om pl a i nt , dur i ng 2003, M a r t i n know i ngl y vi ol a t e d the D O C pol i c y by i ns truc t i ng m a i l r oom s t a f f t o ope n a nd r e a d hi s l e ga l m a i l out s i de hi s pr e s e nc e a nd G S P s t a f f c ont i nue d t o do s o e ve n a f t e rH e a d’ s N ove m be r25, 2003 di r e c t i ve t o tr e a tA l - A m i n’ s l e ga l m a i l a s pr i vi l e ge d. A l - A mi n ’ s c o mp l a i n tf

u r th e ra l l e g e s th a tM a r t i n ’ s a u th o r i z i n g o f G SPAlthough A l- Amin initially alle g e d th at G SP st a ff

re a d h is atto rn e y

mail, Al -Amin

also 13 c laime d th at e ven if

hismail w a s n ot re a d, heha s a c on sti tutional right to h avehisprop e rly marke d attorney

mail opened only

in his presenc e, apa

rt from his right to rece ive unre ad attorney mail. The district court’ s order s on appeal addre ssed only Al-Amin’s “mail opening”claim and its limitingits ordersto A l- Am in’ s “mail opening ”c laim i s n ot challeng e d b e fo rethi s Co ur t. Indeed, de fenda

nts do not contend that they areentitled to read Al-Amin’s attorney mail. Nor do de fenda

nts deny that the law is we ll established that Al-Amin has a c onstitut ional right that prec ludes them from re adingAl-Amin’s attorney mail. Instead, de fenda

nts contend that therewa s n o w e ll- e sta

bli sh e d c on sti tution al right re quiringthem to op e n atto rn e y mail o nly

in Al-Amin’s pre sence . For these re asons, we address only Al-Amin’s “mail opening”claim. 9 m a i l r oom s t a f

f t o c ont i nue t o ope n a nd r e a d a l l of A l - A m i n’ s pr i vi l e ge d m a i l f r om K a r im a v io la te d n o t o n ly th e D O C m a il p o lic y b u t a ls o h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . A s t o W ar den S m i th, the com pl ai ntal l eges that , af t erA l -A m i n’ s gri evance w as s u s ta in e d , S m ith k n o w in g ly f a ile d to ta k e c o r r e c tiv e a c tio n s to e n s u r e th a t A lA m i n’ s l e ga l m a i l w a s notope ne d a nd r e a d out s i de A l - A m i n’ s pr e s e nc e , the r e by v i o l at i n g h i s co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h t s. A l- A m in r e q u e s ts : ( 1 ) a d e c la r a to r y ju d g m e n t th a t d e f e n d a n ts v io la te d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts ; ( 2 ) a p e r m a n e n t in ju n c tio n o r d e r in g d e f

e n d a n ts to o p e n h is a tt or ne y m a i l onl y i n hi s pr e s e nc e ; ( 3) nom i na l a nd puni t i ve da m a ge s ; a nd ( 4) att o rn ey’ s fees. 13 F. C r o s s M o t i o ns f o r Sum m a r y J udg m e nt De f e n d a n t s ’ m o t i o n f

o rs u m m a r y j u d g m e n ta r g u e d th a tAl - Am i n h a d s h o wn n o c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n b e c a u s e A l- A m in : ( 1 ) d id n o t lis t h is w if e o n h is a tto r n e y - o f

- r e c o r d lis t a n d th e r e f

o r e h is w if

e ’s m a il w a s n o t p r iv ile g e d ; a n d ( 2 ) d idAl-Amin’s complaint also contains a retaliation claim, which the district cour t 14 dismiss ed without prejudicedue to Al-Amin’s failure to exhaust his admini strative remedies on that c laim. Th is a

pp e al do e s n ot inv olv eAl -Amin ’s retaliatio n c laim. The district cour

t noted that for mail to be tre ated a s privileg ed leg al mail, the state may 15 require : (1) that leg al mail be spec ially marke d as orig inating f

rom an attorney

with the attorney ’s name a

nd addre ss; and (2) that a n attorney desiringto communicate with a prisoner first identify

herse lf and her client to prison off icials to assure that letters marke d privileg ed are a c tually from m e mbersof

theba r. Se eWolf

f v . M c Do nn e ll, 41 8 U .S. 53 9, 57 6- 77 , 9 4 S. Ct 10 n o t a r tic u la te a n y a c tu a l in ju r y c a u s e d b y h is a lle g e d d e n ia l o f c o u r t a c c e s s . D ef endant s a l so ar gu ed thatthey w er e e nt i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed i m m un i ty bec ause they h a d n o f a irw a r n in g th a t th e ira c tio n s w e r e u n c o n s titu tio n a l. I n r e s pons e , A l - A m i n m ove d f ors um m a r y j udgm e nt , a r gui ng tha t : ( 1) de f e nda nt s kne w tha tK a r i m a ’ s l e tt e r s w e r e pr i vi l e ge d a tt or ne y m a i l f r om the envel op es them se l ves, w hi ch bo re her l aw fi rm addres s a nd w er e l abel ed “ l egal m a i l ” ; ( 2) the D O C m a i l pol i c y di d notr e qui r e A l - A m i n t o l i s thi s a tt or ne y s ; a nd ( 3) e ve n a f

t e rH e a d’ s N ove m be r25, 2003 i ns truc t i on nott o ope n l e ga l m a i l f r om K a r i m a out s i de A l - A m i n’ s pr e s e nc e , de f e nda nt s c ont i nue d t o do s o. G . D i st ri ct C ou rt ’s T w o O rd er s In an A u g u st2 3 , 2 0 0 6 o rd er, th e d i stri ctco u rtd en i ed th e p art i es’ cro ss m ot i on s f

or sum m ary j ud gm entas t o A l -A m i n’ s a tt orney m ai l cl ai m . T he di stri ct 14 c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th e la w w a s c le a r ly e s ta b lis h e d in 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 th a t p r is o n o f f ic ia ls v io la te a n in m a te ’s F ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts b y o p e n in g p r o p e r ly m a r k e d le g a l m a il ou t si de the i nm at e’ s pre se nce. H ow ever , the di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned t hat 152963, 2985 (1974). Thedistrict court obser ved that DOC’s SOP IIB04- 0001 require d that attorney mail be spec ially

marke d, but did not require a n attorney to first identify

herse lf and her c lient to p ri so n o ff

ic ials. 11 m a t e r i a l f

a c ti s s ue s e xi s t e d a s t o w he the rthe m a i l i n que s t i on m e tthe s t a nda r ds f or pr i vi l e ge d m a i l , w he the rpr i s on of f i c i a l s r e qui r e d A l - A m i n t o l i s thi s a tt or ne y s , a nd w h eth er A l -A m i n su ffered actu al i n j u ry. T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s S e pt e m be r19, 2006 or de rde ni e d de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on f

or r e c ons i de r a t i on, c onc l udi ng tha tA l - A m i n’ s c om pl a i nts t a t e d c l a i m s f orvi ol a t i ons o f h is r ig h ts to a c c e s s to th e c o u r ts a n d f r e e s p e e c h . D e f

e n d a n ts ap p e a l b o th o rd ers. I I . Q U A LI FI ED I M M U N I TY O n ap p e a l , A l - A mi n d o e s n o tc h a l l e n g e th e D O C p o l i c y th a tp e r mi t s G SP em p lo ye es to o p en in co m in g atto rn ey m ail i n h is p re se n ce . R ath er , A l-A m in ’s c la im s a r e th a t d e f

e n d a n ts , in r e p e a te d ly o p e n in g h is a tto r n e y m a il o u ts id e h is p r e s e n c e , v io la te d n o t o n ly th a t p r is o n p o lic y b u t a ls o h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts to a c c e s s t o the c our t s a nd f r e e s pe e c h. I n thi s i nt e r l oc ut or y appe a l , the s ol e que s t i on i s w he the rde f

e nda nt s a r e e nt i t l e d t o qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty on A l - A m i n’ s a c c e s s - t oco u rt s an d free sp eech cl ai m s. “Q u a lif ie d im m u n ity o f

f e r s c o m p le te p r o te c tio n f o rg o v e r n m e n t o f

f ic ia ls s u e d in th e irin d iv id u a l c ap a c itie s if th e irc o n d u c t ‘d o e s n o t v io la te c le a r ly12

e s ta b lis h e d s ta tu to r y o rc o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts o f w h ic h a r e a s o n a b le p e r s o n w o u ld ha ve know n. ’ ” V i ny a r d v. W i l s on, 311 F . 3d 1340, 1346 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( c i t a t i on o m i tt ed ). T o recei v e q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty, a g o v ern m en to ffi ci al m u stfi rstest ab l i sh tha the w a s a c t i ng w i thi n hi s di s c r e t i ona r y a uthor i ty . M c C l i s h v. N uge nt , 483 F . 3d 1231, 1237 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ; V i ny a r d, 311 F . 3d a t1346. H e r e , W a r de n S m i th a nd M a r tin w e r e a c tin g w ith in th e ird is c r e tio n a r y a u th o r ity a s to in m a te s ’ m a il. O nc e a gove r nm e ntof

f i c i a l e s t a bl i s he s tha the w a s a c t i ng w i thi n the s c ope of hi s di sc re t i on ary autho ri ty, the bu rden shi ft s t o the pl ai nt i ff . M cC l i sh, 48 3 F . 3d at 1 2 3 7 ; V i n yard , 3 1 1 F . 3 d at1 3 4 6 . T h e S u p rem e C o u rth as setfo rth a tw o -p artt est f orqua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . V i ny a r d, 311 F . 3d a t1346 ( c i t i ng H ope v. P e l z e r , 536 U .S . 7 3 0 , 1 2 2 S . C t. 2 5 0 8 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ) . F ir s t, a c o u r t m u s t u n d e r ta k e th e th r e s h o ld i nq ui ry of w hether the pl ai nt i ff’ s a l l egat i on s, i f true, es t abl i sh a c on st i tut i on al vi ol a t i on. I d. I f

a c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtw oul d ha ve be e n vi ol a t e d unde rthe pl a i nt i f f’ s ve r s i on of

the f a c t s , the ne xtque s t i on i s w he the rthe c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght w a s c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d. I d. T he r i ghtm us tha ve be e n c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d a tthe t i m e of the a l l e ge d vi ol a t i on. I d. a t1349. F ur the r , “ [ t ] he r e l e va nt , di s pos i t i ve i nqui r y i n de t e r m i ni ng w he the ra r i ghti s c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d i s w he the ri tw oul d be c l e a rt o a r e a s ona bl e of

f i c e rtha thi s c onduc tw a s unl a w f ul i n the s i tua t i on he c o n f r o n te d .” S a u c ie rv . K a tz , 5 3 3 U .S . 1 9 4 , 2 0 2 , 1 2 1 S . C t. 2 1 5 1 , 2 1 5 6 ( 2 0 0 1 ) .13

S t a t e d a nothe rw a y , “ the s a l i e ntque s t i on . . . i s w he the rthe s t a t e of the l a w [ a tthe t i m e of the event s i n q uest i on ] gave res po nd ent s f ai r w arni ng thatthei r a l l eged tr e a tme n to f

[ th e p l a i n t i f

f ] w a s u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l . ” H o p e , 5 3 6 U . S. a t7 4 1 , 1 2 2 S. C t. a t 2 5 1 6 . W e f i rs tanal yz e w hether A l -A m i n’ s c l ai m s e st abl i sh any c on st i tut i on al v i o l at i o n s. III. A L -A M IN ’S A C C E S S -T O -C O U R T S C L A IM A . A l -A m i n ’s V er si on of F acts D ef en d an ts ar g u e th at ev en if o p en in g atto rn ey m ail o u tsid e a n in m ate’s pres ence vi ol at es the C on st i tut i on , A l -A m i n h as no tshow n a const i tut i on al vi ol a t i on be c a us e he ne ve rl i s t e d K a r i m a a s one of hi s a tt or ne y s a nd the r e w a s no evi dence thatK ar i m a w as A l -A m i n’ s a tt orney. T he prob l em for def endant s i s that in q u alified im m u n ity c as es o n in terlo cu to ry ap p ea l, w e a cc ep t th e p lain ti ff’s vers i on of the fa ct s a nd re sol ve on l y l egal qu es t i on s. S ee A nd uj arv. R od ri gu ez , 486 F . 3d 1199, 1202 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 128 S . C t . 385 ( 2007) ; R obi ns on v. A r ru g u e ta , 4 1 5 F .3 d 1 2 5 2 , 1 2 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; V in y a r d , 3 1 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 6 n .7 . A l- A m in te s tif

ie d th a t K a r im a w a s h is a tto r n e y . A ll th ir te e n e n v e lo p e s in issu e w er e s en t afterH ea d ’s N o v em b er1 5 , 2 0 0 3 re sp o n se su stain in g A l-A m in ’s g r ie v a n c e a b o u t G S P im p r o p e r ly o p e n in g h is a tto r n e y m a il f r o m K a r im a .Whil e Mar tin contends that the enve lopes may have be en opene d by

“a mail sorter,” the 16 envelope s wereundisputedly opened be forereachingAl-Amin. Martin’s a ffidavit uses the term “ mail s or ter”wi thout e xplanatio n o f whe ther t hat is a pers on or a ma c hin e . In e ith e r event, Al Amin c laims that hi s atto rn e y mail w a s il le g ally

op e ne d o uts idehispre senc ee ven a ft e r his grieva nce w as sustained a

nd defendants were instructed not to do so. The majority

opinion in Bounds did not identify the constitutional provision underlying 17 that right. See B ounds, 430 U.S. at 833-34, 97 S. Ct. at 1501 (“The [majority opinion] leave s us unenlightened a s to the sourceof the ‘right of acc ess to the cour

ts.’”) ( Burg er, C.J., di ssenting) . 14 A l though K a r i m a w a s noton the M a y 2002 l i s t , de f e nda nt s kne w , a tl e a s tby N o v e m b e r2 5 , 2 0 0 3 , th a t K a r im a w a s A l- A m in ’s a tto r n e y a n d th a t h e rp r o p e r ly m arked at t orney m ai l shou l d b e opened o nl y i n A l -A m i n’ s pre se nce. A ft er re ce i vi ng H ea d’ s r es po nse, defe nd ant s e ven g ave i nstruct i on s thatK ar i m a’ s l egal m ai l shou l d b e opened o nl y i n A l -A m i n’ s pre se nce. T he thi rt ee n env el op es w er e a l l ma r k e d “ l e g a l ma i l ” w i th K a r i ma ’ s f u l l n a me a n d l a w o f

f i c e a d d r e s s o n th e m, b u tw ere o p en ed b efo re reach i n g A l -A m i n . A cco rd i n g l y, w e rej ectd efen d an t s’ 16 arg u m en tth atA l -A m i n h as n o tsh o w n co n st i tu t i o n al v i o l at i o n s o n th i s b asi s. B . C l e ar l y E s t ab l i s h e d L aw D ef endant s a l t ernat i vel y a rgue thatthe l aw w as no tcl ea rl y e st abl i shed that ope ni ng a tt or ne y m a i l out s i de a n i nm a t e ’ s pr e s e nc e vi ol a t e s hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght t o access t o th e co u rt s. T he S upr e m e C our tha s l ong he l d tha t“ pr i s one r s ha ve a c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght of a c c e s s t o the c our t s . ” B ounds v. S m i th, 430 U . S . 817, 821, 97 S . C t . 1491, 1494 ( 1977) . F ur the r , unde rourbi ndi ng pr e c e de nt , a pr i s one r ’ s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtof

17Recently

we indicated that the constitutional right of ac cess to the c ourts is “grounded in the F ir st Amend

ment, theAr

tic leIV Privi le g e s a

nd Immunitie s Cl a

us e , th eF if

th Amendment, and/or the F ourteenth Amendment.” Chappe ll v. Ri ch, 340 F .3d 1279, 1282 (11th Cir. 2003). See also B arlow v. Amiss, 477 F.2d 896, 898 (5th Cir. 1973) (statingthat “[w]hi le the 18 c ontrol o f p ri so n mail i s a matter o f intern al priso n adminis tratio n w ithwhic h th efe deral c ourt s areloath to interfere, the denial of free a nd unfettered communication between inmate s . . . and attorneys may

constitute a denial of federal c onstitut ional rights”) (c itations omi tted). In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), this Court adopted a s binding prece dent all dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to closeof business on September 30, 1981. 15 a c c e s s to th e c o u r ts r e q u ir e s th a t in c o m in g le g a l m a il f r o m h is a tto r n e y s , p r o p e r ly m arked as s uch, m ay be op ened on l y i n the i nm at e’ s pre se nce a nd on l y t o i nspect f orc ontr a ba nd. S e e T a y l orv. S t e r r e tt , 532 F . 2d 462 ( 5th C i r . 1976) ; G ua j a r do v. E st el l e, 58 0 F . 2d 74 8 (5t h C i r. 19 78 ). 18 D e f e n d a n ts a r g u e th a t T a y lo ra n d G u a ja r d o a r e n o lo n g e rg o o d la w d u e to th e Su p r e me Co u r t ’ s i n t e r v e n i n g d e c i s i o n i n Tu r n e rv . Sa f l e y , 4 8 2 U . S. 7 8 , 1 0 7 S. C t . 22 54 (198 7). D ef

endant s poi ntou tthatthe F i fth C i rc ui t , po st -T urner, re j ec t ed th e h o ld in g s o f

T a y lo ra n d G u a

ja r d o a n d a r g u e th a t w e s h o u ld d o th e s a m e . S e e B r e w e rv . W ilk in s o n , 3 F .3 d 8 1 6 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . A l- A m in r e s p o n d s th a t p o s tT u r n e r , s e v e r a l o th e rc ir c u its h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t in m a te s h a v e c o n s titu tio n a lly p r o te c te d r ig h ts to h a v e p r o p e r ly m a r k e d a tto r n e y m a il o p e n e d o n ly in th e ir pr e s e nc e . W e r e vi e w the s e c a s e s i n de t a i l i n or de rt o e xpl a i n w hy T a y l ora nd G uaj ar do ’ s hol di ng s–thata pri soner has const i tut i on al ri gh t s t o h ave hi s a tt orney m a il o p e n e d o n ly in h is p r e s e n c e – a r e n o t c h a n g e d b y T u r n e r , a n d r e m a in w e ll-Although T aylor also addressed other ty pes of mail betwe en inmates a nd prosecuting 19 attorneys, courts, and probation/parole of ficers, we f

ocus on only

attorney mail in this case . Additionally , prison officials in Taylor challeng ed the district cour t’s rulingthat attorney mail c ould n ot b eop e ne d, e ven in an inmate ’spre senc e , unle ss “thereis a re a so na blepo ssibil ity that contra

band is included in the mail . . . .” Id. at 464. We upheld the re quirement of opening only in the inmate’s pre senceas constitutionally compelled, but re

jected theadditional re stric tio n th at th e remus t bea “ re a so na blepo ssibil ity”of

c ontra ba nd be fo reop e ningthemail t o c he c k f or c ontra ba nd . I d. at 46 9. Th eTa

ylor Court no te d, ho wever, tha

t “ [t]his inspe c tio n is limit ed to locatingcontra band. It does not entail reading a n enclose d letter. It should be emphasized that this requirement does not prec lude a ‘ probablecause ’ sea rch or seizure of the envelopeand its contents in the appropriate c ircumstance s.” I d. at 475. 16 e s t a bl i s he d l a w i n thi s c i r c ui t . W e be gi n w i th T a y l ora nd G ua j a r do. C . Ta yl o r a nd G uaj a r do In T ay l or, pri son o ff

i ci al s c hal l enged a res tri ct i on , i m po se d b y adi stri ct courtorder, forbi dd i ng them fr om op eni ng an i nm at e’ s a tt orney m ai l exce pti n that i nm at e’ s pre se nce. T ay l or, 53 2 F . 2d at46 4. T he T ay l or C ou rtconcl ud ed thatan i nm a t e ’ s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtof a c c e s s t o the c our t s “ s uppor t s tha tpor t i on of the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rr e q u ir in g th a t in c o m in g p r is o n e rm a il f r o m . . . a tto r n e y s . . . be ope ne d onl y i n the pr e s e nc e of the i nm a t e . ” I d. a t475. 19 I n r e a c hi ng thi s r e s ul t , the T a y l orC our tw e i ghe d “ the bur de n on the pr i s one r ’ s a c c e s s t o the c our t s a ga i ns tthe l e gi t i m a t e gove r nm e nt a l i nt e r e s tof pri son sec uri ty. ” I d. at47 2. T he C ou rtno t ed that“ [b] ef ore procedures that i m p ed e a p ri so n er’ s access t o th e co u rt s m ay b e co n st i tu t i o n al l y v al i d at ed , i tm u st be c l e a rtha tthe s t a t e ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l i nt e r e s t s c a nnotbe pr ot e c t e d by l e s s r e s tr i c t i ve m e a ns . ” I d. T he gove r nm e nti nt e r e s tw a s “ j a i l s e c ur i ty a s a f

f e c t e d by theTh eTa ylor Court loo ke d totheSup remeCourt ’sguidanc efrom Wo lf f v . M c Do nn e ll, 20 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. C t. 2963 (1974). However, be causeof the proc edural posture in Wolff, the Supreme Court did not actually decidethe issue of whether opening a prisoner’ s leg al mail in the prisoner’ s presence w as constitutionally require d. Instead, in Wolff, the petitioner-prison officials agree d that they

could not open and read inc oming leg al mail but argued that they “may open all letter s from attorneys as longas it is done in the presence of the prisoner s.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 575, 94 S. Ct . at 2984. In agree ing that openingleg al mail in a prisoner ’s pre sencewas permissible, the Supreme Court c oncluded that “petitioners, by acc edingto a rule whereby the inmate is present when mail from attorneys is inspected, havedone all, and perhaps even more , than the Constituti on require s.” I d. at 577, 94 S. Ct. at 2985. The Ta ylor Court, in holding that leg al mail must be opened in the presenc e of the 21 inmate, stated that “ [c] onsistent with [ Wolff] , we think it permissible that prison officials require attorneys wishing to cor

respond c onfidentially

with prisoners first to identify themselves by means of a

signe d letter.”I d. at 475 n.20. The Court identified a proce dure ordere d by

a district court a s “one a

pproac h to this problem. There, a n attorney was re quired to enc lose confidential wri t i n gs i na s ea l edenv el o p e t o b e m ai l edt o th e p ri s o ni n s i d e al arger env el o p e c o nt ai n i n g a signe d letter.”I d. (discussingMarsh v. Moore , 325 F. Supp. 392 (D. Ma ss. 1971)). 17 i ntr oduc t i on of

c ontr a ba nd i nt o the j a i l a nd by the c om m uni c a t i on of e s c ape pl a ns o ro th e r. . . c r im in a l a c tiv itie s .” I d . a t 4 7 3 . T h e C o u r t id e n tif ie d th e “b a s ic pr i s one ri nt e r e s t ” i n “ uni nhi bi t e d c om m uni c a t i on w i th a tt or ne y s . ” I d. a t475. T he T a y l orC our tc onc l ude d tha t“ [ a ] l l ow i ng the i ns pe c t i on of i nc om i ng i n m at e m ai l fro m [at t o rn eys] o n l y i n th e p resen ce o f th e i n m at e acco m p l i sh es a com prom i se of [tho se ] tw o i m po rt anti nt er es t s w i tho utsa cr i fi ci ng ei ther of them . ” I d. a t477. “ P r i s one r s a r e noti nhi bi t e d i n us i ng thi s tr a di t i ona l c om m uni c a t i on

20 m e d iu m to p u r s u e th e ird e f e n s e o rto p r e s e n t th e irle g a l g r ie v a n c e . A n d ja il o f f ic ia ls a r e n o t d e n ie d th e u s e o f a n y m a il p r o c e d u r e s h o w n to b e e s s e n tia l to ja il s e c u r ity .” I d . I n o th e rw o r d s , th e in m a te ’s p r e s e n c e in s u r e s th a t a tto r n e y m a il w ill notbe r e a d a nd pr i s on of f i c i a l s a r e a s s ur e d tha tthe m a i l c ont a i ns no c ontr a ba nd. 2118

S i m i l ar l y, i n G uaj ar do , pri son o ff i ci al s app ea l ed a di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng that i nc om i ng a tt or ne y m a i l c oul d be ope ne d a nd i ns pe c t e d f orc ontr a ba nd onl y i n the i nm at e’ s pre se nce. G uaj ar do , 58 0 F . 2d at75 7. T he G uaj ar do C ou rtfol l ow ed T a y l or ’ s hol di ng tha t“ i nc om i ng [ l e ga l ] m a i l c oul d be ope ne d onl y t o i ns pe c tf or cont raband and i n the pres ence of the i nm at e r ec i pi ent . ” I d. at75 8. T he C ou rt no t ed thatT ay l or’ s r equi re m ent“ deri ved from the nature of the corre spon dence i nvol ve d” a nd tha t“ [ t ] he pr ot e c t i on a f f or de d e xt e nds onl y t o a tt or ne y s r e pr e s e nt i ng or bei ng as ked t o repres entan i nm at e i n ei ther acr i m i nal or ci vi l m att er . ” I d. at 758. T he C our tdi s m i s s e d c onc e r ns a bouti nm a t e s us i ng a tt or ne y s t o vi ol a t e pr i s on rul es because a tt orneys ar e bou nd by profes si on al st andards and w ou l d fac e c r im in a l s a n c tio n s . I d . a t 7 5 8 - 5 9 . T h e C o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t “[ t]h e d a n g e rto pr i s on s e c ur i ty , or de ra nd r e ha bi l i t a t i on doe s notoutw e i gh the r i ghtof a c c e s s t o the c our t s . ” I d. a t759. D . T u rn er v. S afl ey W e w oul d e nd ourc l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d l a w a na l y s i s w i th T a y l ora nd G ua j a r do bu tfor the i nt erveni ng S up re m e C ou rtdeci si on i n T urner, w hi ch adop t ed a m ore defe re nt i al , “ re as on abl y r el at ed” t es tfor det erm i ni ng w hether pri son p ra ct i ce s i m p erm i ssi b l y b u rd en i n m at es’ co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h t s. A lth o u g h th e p r is o n r e g u la tio n s a t is s u e in T u r n e rin v o lv e d in m a te - to - in m a teThe SupremeCourt upheld the re strictions on inmate-to-inmate c orre spondence , but 22 invalidated the restrictions on inmate marriag es. I d. at 91, 107 S. Ct. at 2262-63. 19 corr es po nd ence and i nm at e m arri ages , T urner i s i m po rt antbecause i thel d that

“ w he n a pr i s on r e gul a t i on i m pi nge s on i nm a t e s ’ c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s , the re gu l at i on i s val i d i f i ti s r ea sonabl y r el at ed t o l egi t i m at e penol og i ca l i nt er es t s. ” T ur ne r , 482 U . S . a t89, 107 S . C t . a t2261; s e e V a n P oy c k v. S i ngl e t a r y , 106 F . 3d 15 58 , 15 60 (11t h C i r. 19 97 ) ( st at i ng T urner a l l ow s “ pri son rul es t o b urden i nm at es ’ const i tut i on al ri gh t s w hen reas on abl y r el at ed t o a l egi t i m at e penol og i ca l i nt er es t ”) . 22 T h e T u rn er C o u rti d en t i fi ed fo u r fact o rs i n d et erm i n i n g th e reaso n ab l en ess of a pr i s on r e gul a t i on: ( 1) a “ ‘ va l i d, r a t i ona l c onne c t i on’ be tw e e n the pr i s on re gu l at i on and t he l egi t i m at e gov ernm ent al i nt er es t ”; (2) “ w hether there ar e a l t e r na t i ve m e a ns of

e xe r c i s i ng the r i ghttha tr e m a i n ope n t o pr i s on i nm a t e s ” ; ( 3) the i m pa c ttha ta c c om m oda t i on of the a s s e r t e d c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtw i l l ha ve on gua r ds , i nm a t e s , a nd the a l l oc a t i on of pr i s on r e s our c e s ; a nd ( 4) the “ a bs e nc e of r e a d y a lte r n a tiv e s ” to th e r e g u la tio n . I d . a t 8 9 - 9 0 , 1 0 7 S . C t. a t 2 2 6 2 . P o s t- T u r n e r , th is C o u r t h a s a c c o r d e d “w id e - r a n g in g ” a n d “s u b s ta n tia l” defe re nce t o p ri soner a dm i ni stra t ors i n thei r e xecut i on of po l i ci es and p ra ct i ce s that th e y c o n s id e rn e c e s s a r y to p r e s e r v e in te r n a l o r d e ra n d d is c ip lin e a n d to m a in ta inThe Te x as Department of Criminal Just ice had a policy whereby “IncomingSpecial 23 Correspondence f

rom a spec ific name d official will be delivere d to the inmate sealed and uninspected. IncomingSpecial Corre spondencenot from a spe cific na med offic ial may

be opened a nd inspected f

or contra band only . The inspec tion shall be in the inmate’s pre sence .” I d. at 818 n.2. 20 i nst i tut i on al se curi ty. S ee B as s v. P erri n, 17 0 F . 3d 13 12 , 13 19 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ); L a w s o n v . S in g le ta r y , 8 5 F .3 d 5 0 2 , 5 0 9 - 1 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . S u c h d e f e r e n c e is j ust i fi ed because of “ the com pl exi ty of pri son m anagem ent , the fa ctthat re spon si bi l i ty there for i s nec es sa ri l y ves t ed i n p ri son o ff i ci al s, and t he fa ctthat c o u r ts a r e ill- e q u ip p e d to d e a l w ith s u c h p r o b le m s .” L a w s o n , 8 5 F .3 d a t 5 1 0 . B e f or e w e appl y T ur ne r ’ s f a c t or s t o the m a i l - ope ni ng i s s ue he r e , w e r e vi e w the p o s t- T u r n e rs p lit in o th e rc ir c u its a b o u t th is is s u e . E . O th er C i rc u i ts P ost- T u rn er S ubs e que ntt o T ur ne r , the F i f th C i r c ui tr e c ons i de r e d T a y l ora nd G ua j a r do a n d r e je c te d th e irh o ld in g s u n d e rT u r n e r ’s “r e a s o n a b ly r e la te d ” te s t. S e e B r e w e r , 3 F . 3d at82 5. T he pl ai nt i ff -i nm at es i n B re w ercom pl ai ned thatthei r l egal m ai l w as op ened ou t si de thei r pre se nce, despi t e apri son p ol i cy re qu i ri ng otherw i se . 23 B re w eri nv ol ved b road “ l egal m ai l ” w hi ch the F i fth C i rc ui tdesc ri bed as “ l egal m a il f r o m v a r io u s c o u r ts , a tto r n e y s , a n d g o v e r n m e n t o f f ic ia ls .” I d . a t 8 1 8 . T he F i f th C i r c ui ta c know l e dge d pr i s one r s ’ “ c ons t i tut i ona l l y pr ot e c t e d r i ght of ac ce ss t o the court s” bu tconcl ud ed that“ w hatw e once re cogn i ze d i n [T ay l or] asIn Thornburgh v. Abbott, the Supreme Court applied Tur ner to a prison’s re gulation of 24 incoming mail in the form of subscription publications. 490 U.S. 401, 407-19, 109 S. Ct. 1874, 1878-85 (1989) . 21 b ein g ‘co m p elled ’ b y p riso n er s’ co n stitu ti o n al rig h ts– i. e., th at a p riso n er ’s i nc om i ng l e ga l m a i l be ope ne d a nd i ns pe c t e d onl y i n the pr i s one r ’ s pr e s e nc e –i s no l onge rthe c a s e i n l i ghtof T ur ne ra nd T hor nbur gh. ” I d. a t820, 825 ( c i t a t i on 24 om i tt e d) . T he F i f

th C i r c ui ts t a t e d tha tT a y l or ’ s r e qui r e m e nt s of the l e a s tr e s tr i c t i ve m ea ns and a subst ant i al or i m po rt antgo vernm enti nt er es t“ appear[ ed] t o h ave been m odi f i e d” by T ur ne r ’ s “ i ns truc t i on tha tw he n a pr i s on pr a c t i c e i m pi nge s on in m a te s ’ c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts , w h a te v e rth o s e r ig h ts m ig h t b e , s u c h a p r a c tic e is v a lid if it is ‘r e a s o n a b ly r e la te d to le g itim a te p e n o lo g ic a l in te r e s ts .’” I d . a t 8 2 3 - 2 5 . T he F i fth C i rc ui tno t ed thatthe pri soners di d n otal l ege “ thatthei r m ai l has bee n c e ns or e d” a nd “ the y c onc e de tha ts uc h m a i l w a s ope ne d a nd i ns pe c t e d f orthe

‘ l egi t i m at e penol og i ca l obj ec t i ve’ of pri son sec uri ty, i . e. , t o d et ec tcont raband . ” I d. a t825. T he F i f

th C i r c ui tc onc l ude d tha t“ the vi ol a t i on of the pr i s on r e gul a t i on r e qui r i ng tha ta pr i s one rbe pr e s e ntw he n hi s i nc om i ng l e ga l m a i l i s ope ne d a nd in s p e c te d is n o t a v io la tio n o f a p r is o n e r ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts .” I d . a t 8 2 5 . I n c ontr a s t , s e ve r a l othe rc i r c ui t s pos t - T ur ne rha ve c onc l ude d tha tope ni ng pr ope r l y m a r ke d a tt or ne y m a i l out s i de a pr i s one r ’ s pr e s e nc e i nf r i nge s the c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtt o a c c e s s t o the c our t s . S e e S a l l i e rv. B r ooks , 343 F . 3d 868,In Bieregu, “cour t mail” was de scribed a s “cor respondence between a

n inmate and a 25 state or f ederal judg e, clerk’s off

ice, or other c ourthouse address.” 59 F .3d at 1449. See infra notes 32-33. B iere gu’s holding that a prisoner is not required to show actual 26 injury in an ac cess- to-courts c laim was later overr uled by Casey . See Oliver

v. Fa uver, 118 F .3d 175, 177-78 (3d Cir. 1997). H owever, the Third Circuit in J ones v. B rown e xpressly rea ffirme d B iere gu’ s h oldingthat a

pattern and pra c tic eof

op e ningan inmate ’sle g al mail o uts idehis pre senc evio late s h is c on sti tution al rights . Se eJone s, 46 1 F .3 d 3 53 , 3 58 -5 9 ( 3d Cir . 2 00 6) , c e rt . denied, 127 S. Ct. 1822 (2007). 22 87 7-78 (6th C i r. 20 03 ) ( concl ud i ng thatno peno l og i ca l i nt er es tor se curi ty c on ce rn j ust i fi es op eni ng att orney m ai l ou t si de pri soner’ s pre se nce w hen p ri soner r equest ed o th e r w is e ) ; B ie r e g u v . R e n o , 5 9 F .3 d 1 4 4 5 , 1 4 5 8 ( 3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( d is a g r e e in g w ith F ifth C ircu it ’s B re w er , an d co n clu d in g th e p attern an d p ra ctice o f o p en in g in m ate’s prop er l y m arked i ncom i ng “ courtm ai l ” ou t si de hi s pre se nce f ai l s the T urner 25 r e a s o n a b le n e s s s ta n d a r d a n d v io la te s in m a te ’s r ig h ts to f r e e s p e e c h a n d a c c e s s to c our t s ) ( a br oga t e d i n pa r ton othe rgr ounds by L e w i s v. C a s e y , 518 U . S . 343, 116 S . C t. 2 1 7 4 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ) ; s e e a ls o K a u f m a n v . M c C a u g h try , 4 1 9 F .3 d 6 7 8 , 6 8 6 ( 7 th 26 C i r. 20 05 ) ( st at i ng , “ w hen a pri son rec ei ves al ett erfor a n i nm at e thati s m arked w ith a n a tto r n e y ’s n a m e a n d a w a r n in g th a t th e le tte ris le g a l m a il, o f f ic ia ls p o ten ti ally v io late th e in m ate’s r ig h ts if th ey o p en th e letter o u tsid e o f th e in m ate’s pr e s e nc e ” ) ; D a vi s v. G oor d, 320 F . 3d 346, 351- 52 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( not i ng,

“ [ i ] nt e r f e r e nc e w i th l e ga l m a i l i m pl i c a t e s a pr i s on i nm a t e ’ s r i ght s t o a c c e s s t o the court s” bu tconcl ud i ng tw o i nci dent s of m ai l i nt er fe re nce “ ar e i nsuffi ci entt o st at e aPre-Tur ner, several circuits conc luded that inmates haveconstitutionally protec ted 27 rights to have properly

marke d attorney

mail opened only

in their presence. SeeWashington v. Jame s, 78 2 F .2 d 1 13 4, 11 39 -4 0 ( 2d Cir . 1 98 6) (c on c ludingthat alle g atio n th at priso n o ff ic ials repe atedly

opened outg oing attorney mail states a F irst Amendment claim); Jensen v. Klec ker, 64 8 F .2 d 1 17 9, 11 82 -8 3 ( 8th Cir . 1 98 1) (c on c ludingtha t alle g atio n th at priso n o ff ic ials deliberately

and repeate dly

opened attorney

mail outside prisoner’s presenc e def eate d defendants’ motion for summary judgment); Ramos v. L amm, 639 F.2d 559, 582 ( 10th Cir. 1980) (opening outg oing attorney mail outside inmate’s presence violate s First Amendment); Smith v. Robbins, 454 F.2d 696, 697 (1st Cir. 1972) (af firmingdistrict court order that attorney mail may not be opene d in prisoner’s a bsencebeca

use “[i] f the prisoner is present, he ca n see that the letter is not beingread” and notingthat otherwise, theresultingfea r that mail will be read “may

chill communications between the prisoner and his counsel” ); cf. Smith v. Maschner , 899 F.2d 940, 944 ( 10th Cir. 1990) (conc luding that where de fenda nts opened onepieceof prisoner’ s constitutionally protec ted leg al mail by

acc ident, “[s] uch an isolate d incident, without any e vide nc eof

imp roper m otiveor

re sultingint e rf

e renc ewi th S mith’ s right to c ouns e l or to acc ess to the cour

ts, does not giverise to a c onstitut ional violation”). 23 c l a i m f orde ni a l of

a c c e s s t o the c our t s be c a us e [ the i nm a t e ] ha s nota l l e ge d tha tthe i nt er fe re nce w i th h i s m ai l ei ther c on st i tut ed an on go i ng prac t i ce of un j ust i fi ed ce nsorshi p o r c ause d h i m t o m i ss courtdeadl i nes or i n any w ay prej ud i ce d h i s l egal ac t i on s” ); P ow el l s v. M i nn ehaha C ou nty S heri ff D ep’ t , 19 8 F . 3d 71 1, 71 2 (8t h C i r. 1999) ( c onc l udi ng i nm a t e s t a t e d c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m ba s e d on of f i c e r s ope ni ng l egal m ai l w hen h e w as no tpres ent ). 27 T h e T h ir d C ir c u it in B ie r e g u n o te d th a t a lth o u g h r e a d in g le g a l m a il w o u ld in f r in g e th e r ig h t o f

a c c e s s m o r e th a n s im p ly o p e n in g a n d in s p e c tin g it, “th e o n ly w a y to e n s u r e th a t m a il is n o t r e a d w h e n o p e n e d , a n d th u s to v in d ic a te th e r ig h t to a c c e s s , is to r e q u ir e th a t it b e d o n e in th e p r e s e n c e o f th e in m a te to w h o m it is a ddr e s s e d. ” 59 F . 3d a t1456 ( c i t i ng W ol f f v. M c D onne l l , 418 U . S . 539, 576- 77, 94The Third Circuit acknowledg ed that its conclusion differed f rom the F ifth Circuit’s 28 B rewer de c isi on , b ut t

hat it s o wn

c on c lus ion

“ c omp or ts w iththere sults re a c he d b y thema jority 24 S . C t . 29 63 , 29 84 -85 (19 74 )) . A l tho ug h B i er egu i nv ol ved cou rtm ai l , the T hi rd C i r c ui te m pha s i z e d tha t“ i nt e r f e r e nc e w i th a tt or ne y m a i l pr oba bl y i nf r i nge s the r ig h t o f c o u r t a c c e s s e v e n m o r e th a n in te r f e r e n c e w ith c o u r t m a il . . . . O f a ll c o m m u n ic a tio n s , a tto r n e y m a il is th e m o s t s a c r o s a n c t.” I d . T h e T h ir d C ir c u it poi nt e d outtha tpr ovi di ng i nm a t e s w i th c onf i de nt i a l r e l i a bl e m e a ns of c om m uni c a t i on w i th the i ra tt or ne y s a boutgr i e va nc e s “ r e l e a s e s t e ns i on i n the pr i s ons a nd i t s e l f

a dva nc e s the s t a t e i nt e r e s ti n m a i nt a i ni ng i ns t i tut i ona l or de ra nd se curi ty. ” I d. at14 57 . T he benefi t s of s uch a “ sa fe ty val ve” a dv ance s, ra ther than fru strat es, st at e i n t erest s. T h e T h ird C ircu italso co n clu d ed th at o p en in g leg al m ail i n an in m ate’s pr e s e nc e “ pl a c e s no bur de n a ta l l on gua r ds , pr i s one r s , a nd the a l l oc a t i on of pr i s on re source s: i ti s w hatthe [pri son] re gu l at i on s have r equi re d si nce 198 5. ” I d. at 1458. W he n ope ni ng m a i l i n the pr i s one r ’ s pr e s e nc e , the pr i s on c a n c he c k f or c o n tr a b a n d th e n , w h ic h s a tis f ie s th e s ta te ’s s e c u r ity in te r e s t. T h e T h ir d C ir c u it, how e ve r , w a s “ c a r e f

ul t o di s t i ngui s h be tw e e n a s i ngl e , i na dve r t e ntope ni ng of prop er l y m arked l egal m ai l ou t si de an i nm at e’ s pre se nce a nd a patt ern o r pra ct i ce of such ac t i on s. ” I d. “ T he form erm ay no ti nfri ng e apri soner’ s r i gh tt o fre e s pe e c h, norhi s r i ghtt o c our ta c c e s s a bs e nta s how i ng of a c tua l i nj ur y . ” I d. 28of cour

ts of appeals to consider these preciseor similar issues.” B iere gu, 59 F.3d at 1458. The Six th Circuit noted that “[n] ot all mail that a prisoner rece ives from a leg al source 29 will impl icate c onstitut ionally protec ted leg al mail rights,” but when it does, “w e must balanc e theint e re st o f p ri so n s e c urity ag ains t th epo ssibil ity

of tamperingthat c ould u

nju sti fi a bly c hil l the prisoner ’s right of ac cess to the c ourts or impair the right to be repre sented by counsel.” Sallier, 343 F.3d at 874. In Sallier, the prison system’s policy require d that a prisoner

make a written re quest that 30 hisle g al mail b eop e ne d o nly in his p re senc e . I d. at 87 4- 75 . TheSixth C irc uit had p revious ly found that this opt-in policy was sound. I d. at 874 (c iting Knop v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 996, 1012 (6 th C ir . 1 99 2) ). Al -Amin madesu c h a

re qu e st. 25 T he S i xth C i r c ui ta l s o r e c e nt l y c onc l ude d tha tno pe nol ogi c a l i nt e r e s tor se curi ty c on ce rn j ust i fi es op eni ng att orney m ai l ou t si de a pri soner’ s pre se nce w hen the pr i s one rs pe c i f

i c a l l y r e que s t e d othe r w i s e , a nd tha tthe pr a c t i c e vi ol a t e s the pr i s one r ’ s F i r s tA m e ndm e ntr i ght s . S e e S a l l i e r , 343 F . 3d a t877- 78. A l though 29 30 n o t e x p lic itly c itin g T u r n e rits e lf , th e S ix th C ir c u it a r tic u la te d T u r n e r ’s r e a s o n a b ly re l at ed st andard and ci t ed t o M uh am m ad v. P i t cher , 35 F . 3d 10 81 (6th C i r. 19 94 ), w hi c h di d us e the T ur ne rf a c t or s . S a l l i e r , 343 F . 3d a t873, 877; s e e M uha m m a d, 35 F . 3d a t1084- 86 ( a na l y z i ng pr oc e dur e of ope ni ng i nm a t e ’ s i nc om i ng m a i l f r om s t a t e a tt or ne y ge ne r a l out s i de of hi s pr e s e nc e a nd c onc l udi ng, “ [ a ] l l f ourof the T u rn er factors ind i cat e th atth e p o l i cy d o es n o tp ass m u st er” u n d er th e F i rst A m endm entri gh t ). F. T u r n e r D i d N ot C h an ge O u r W e l l - E s t ab l i s h e d L aw A pp l yi ng T urner’ s f

ac t ors t o thi s c as e, w e c on cl ud e thatou r w el l -e st abl i shed la w in T a y lo ra n d G u a

ja r d o – th a t in m a te s h a v e a c o n s titu tio n a lly p r o te c te d r ig h t to26

have thei r properl y m arked at t orney m ai l op ened i n thei r pre se nce–i s notchanged b y T u r n e ra n d r e m a in s v a lid , w e ll- e s ta b lis h e d la w . A s to th e f ir s t T u r n e rf

a c to r , a “v a lid , r a tio n a l c o n n e c tio n ” b e tw e e n th e p r is o n p r a c tic e a n d a le g itim a te g o v ern m en t al i n t erest , w e fu l l y reco g n i ze th atth e g o v ern m en th as a stro n g i n t erest in p r is o n s e c u r ity . H o w e v e r , d e f e n d a n ts d o n o t d is p u te th a t a tto r n e y s a r e u n lik e ly to s e n d c o n tr a b a n d , n o rh a v e th e y a r tic u la te d a le g itim a te s e c u r ity in te r e s t in ope ni ng pr ope r l y m a r ke d a tt or ne y m a i l out s i de A l - A m i n’ s pr e s e nc e . I nde e d, de f e nda nt s c a n r e a di l y c he c k f orc ontr a ba nd i f

a tt or ne y m a i l i s ope ne d i n the in m a te ’s p r e s e n c e , a n d th e D O C ’s o w n p o lic y p r o v id e s f o ro p e n in g a tto r n e y m a il i n the i nm at e’ s pre se nce. A ss uri ng the i nm at e of the confi dent i al i ty of i nm at eatt orney m ai l by op eni ng such m ai l on l y i n the i nm at e’ s pre se nce a ctual l y a dv ance s the s t a t e ’ s i nt e r e s ti n pr om ot i ng i ns t i tut i ona l or de ra nd s e c ur i ty . S e e B i e r e gu, 59 F .3 d a t 1 4 5 7 . T h e f

ir s t T u r n e rf

a c to rth u s f

a v o r s A l- A m in . A s t o the s e c ond T ur ne rf a c t or , A l - A m i n ha s no othe rm e a ns of e xe r c i s i ng h is a c c e s s - to - c o u r ts r ig h t w h e r e th a t a c c e s s d e p e n d s o n c o n f id e n tia lly c om m uni c a t i ng w i th hi s a tt or ne y s . E ve n i f pr i s on of

f i c i a l s vow t o ope n butnot re ad att orney m ai l , court s have not ed the i nm at es ’ l ac k o f trusti n thatvo w and fear th at th eir a tt o rn ey m ail w il l b e r ea d . O p en in g atto rn ey m ail o n ly in th e in m ate’s pres ence ensure s thatthe i nm at e’ s c orre spon dence w i th h i s a tt orney i s noti nh i bi t edIn L emon, def endant- prison officials did not contest the prisoner’s c onstitut ional right 31 no t to havehis mail re a d, but c laime d th at th e y had p roba

blec a us eto re a d th email a

nd that th is p ro b a b l ec a u s etr ump e d Le m o n ’ s c o n s t i tut i o n alri ghtn o tt o h av eh i s m ai lre a d . Id . at1 4 6 8 . In reje ctingthis claim, L emon re lied on Taylor’s holding“that it was a violation of an inmate’s constitutional rights for

the prison offic ials to read le g al mail.” I d. at 1467 (emphasis added) .

27 or chi l l ed by hi s f

ea r thatthi s c orre spon dence m ay be re ad by pri son o ff i ci al s. S ee , e. g. , T ay l or, 53 2 F . 2d at47 6 (ci t i ng R ob bi ns, 45 4 F . 2d at69 7). A s t o the thi rd fa ct or, there i s no sho w i ng thatop eni ng att orney m ai l i n an i n m at e’ s p resen ce b u rd en s g u ard s, p ri so n ers, o r th e al l o cat i o n o f p ri so n reso u rces; as n o ted ab o v e, D O C p o li cy alre ad y r eq u ires o p en in g atto rn ey m ail i n an in m ate’s pres ence . W hi l e openi ng al l pri son m ai l i n an i nm at e’ s pre se nce w ou l d p ose a n im p e r m is s ib le b u r d e n , w e c o n c lu d e p r o p e r ly m a r k e d a tto r n e y m a il d o e s n o t. A s to the f our th f a c t or , ope ni ng a n i nm a t e ’ s a tt or ne y m a i l i n hi s pr e s e nc e i t s e l f i s the e a s y a lte r n a tiv e ; it “f

u lly a c c o m m o d a te s th e p r is o n e r ’s r ig h ts a t d e m in im is c o s t to v a lid p e n o lo g ic a l in te r e s ts .” T u r n e r , 4 8 2 U .S . a t 9 1 , 1 0 7 S . C t. a t 2 2 6 2 . T h u s , a ll f ourT ur ne rf

a c t or s w e i gh i n A l - A m i n’ s f a vora nd T ur ne rdoe s notunde r m i ne T a y l or ’ s orG ua

j a r do’ s hol di ng. B oth pa r t i e s c i t e ourpos t - T ur ne rde c i s i on i n L e m on v. D ugge r , 931 F . 2d 1 4 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) , b u t L e m o n w a s a r e a d in g - a tto r n e y - m a il c a s e . I n c o n tr a s t, 31 A l - A m i n c l a i m s a c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtt o r e c e i ve a tt or ne y m a i l unope ne d ort o ha ve a tto r n e y m a il o p e n e d o n ly in h is p r e s e n c e , ap a r t f r o m h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to28

r e c e i ve unr e a d a tt or ne y m a i l . T hus , T a y l ora nd G ua j a r do, bi ndi ng pr e c e de ntf r om o u r p red ecesso r co u rt , sp eak m o re d i rect l y t o th e m ai l -o p en i n g i ssu e. N o n eth el ess, L e m o n ’s r e a s o n in g d o e s s u p p o r t o u rc o n c lu s io n th a t th e T u r n e rf a c to r s f a v o rA lA m i n. A l though notdi s c us s i ng T ur ne r , the L e m on C our ts tr e s s e d tha t“ ‘ [ t ] he basi c pri soner i nt er es ti s a n u ni nh i bi t ed com m un i ca t i on w i th att orneys ’ ” a nd that

“ ‘ [p] ri soners have a vi t al need t o com m un i ca t e e ff ec t i vel y w i th [thei r a tt orneys ] . ’ ” I d. a t1467 ( quot i ng T a y l or , 532 F . 2d a t475) ( thi r d a l t e r a t i on i n or i gi na l ) . T he L em on C ou rtshar ed T ay l or’ s c on ce rn that“ the es se nt i al rol e of post al c o m m u n ic a tio n c a n n o t b e ig n o r e d ” b e c a u s e th e f a c t o f in c a r c e r a tio n s h a rp ly re stri ct s a n i nm at e’ s m ea ns of com m un i ca t i on w i th h i s a tt orney. Id. T he C ou rt n o te d th a t o p e n in g m a il in a n in m a te ’s p r e s e n c e “in s u r e s th a t p r is o n o f f ic ia ls w ill notr e a d the m a i l ” a nd thus doe s notc hi l l a tt or ne y - i nm a t e c om m uni c a t i on. I d. (quo t i ng W ol ff

, 41 8 U . S . at57 7, 94 S . C t . at29 85 ). G i ve n thi s C our t ’ s pr e c e de nti n T a y l or , G ua j a r do, a nd L e m on, w e c onc l ude th a t: ( 1 ) a r e a s o n a b le o f f ic ia l w o u ld h a v e k n o w n in 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 th a t o p e n in g p r o p e r ly m a r ke d, i nc om i ng a tt or ne y m a i l out s i de the i nm a t e ’ s pr e s e nc e i s unl a w f ul a nd un const i tut i on al ; and (2) T urner di d n otchange ou r w el l -e st abl i shed l aw i n that r e ga r d. A l - A m i n w oul d be hom e f r e e on hi s a c c e s s - t o- c our t s c l a i m butf orthe S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s actu al i n j u ry d eci si o n i n C asey.The SupremeCourt in Casey explained that the actual injury requirement in acc ess-to- 32 courts ca ses “derives ultimately from the doc trine of standing , a constitutional principle that prevents courts of law f

rom undertaking ta sks assigne d to the political branc hes.” Casey , 518 U. S. at 34 9, 11 6 S. Ct. at 21 79 . TheSup remeCourt e xplaine d th at “ [i]t is thero leof c ourt s to prov idere lie f to c laima

nts. . . who havesu ff

e re d, or wi ll imminently

su ff e r, a c tual ha

rm ; it is no t th ero leof

c ourt s, but th at of

thepo litic al branc he s, to s ha petheins tit

uti on s o f g ov e rnment in such fa shion as to comply with the laws and theConstitution.” I d. The SupremeCourt added that “the distinction between the two roles would beobliterated if, to invoke inter vention of the courts, no ac tual or imminent harm were nee ded, but mere ly the status of beingsubject to a g overnmental institution that was not org anized or manag ed properly .” I d. at 350, 116 S. Ct. at 2179. 29 G . A c t ua l I nj ur y R e qui r e m e nt S ub se qu entt o T ay l or, G uaj ar do , and L em on , the S up re m e C ou rtcl ar i fi ed th a t “a c tu a l in

ju r y ” is a c o n s titu tio n a l p r e r e q u is ite to a n in m a te ’s a c c e s s - to - c o u r ts cl ai m . S ee C asey, 5 1 8 U . S . 3 4 3 , 3 4 9 , 1 1 6 S . C t . 2 1 7 4 , 2 1 7 9 ; B arb o u r v . H al ey, 47 1 F . 3d 12 22 , 12 25 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ) ( ci t i ng C as ey and st at i ng , “ i n o rdert o ass ert a cl ai m ari si n g fro m th e d en i al o f m ean i n g fu l access t o th e co u rt s, an i n m at e m u st f i r s te s t a bl i s h a n a c tua l i nj ur y ” ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 127 S . C t . 2996 ( 2007) ; P e r r i n, 170 32 F . 3d at13 20 n. 13 ; W i l son v . B l ankenshi p, 16 3 F . 3d 12 84 , 12 90 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ); B ass v . S i n g l et ary, 1 4 3 F . 3 d 1 4 4 2 , 1 4 4 5 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ). “ [P ] ri so n o ffi ci al s’ a c t i ons tha ta l l e ge dl y vi ol a t e a n i nm a t e ’ s r i ghtof a c c e s s t o the c our t s m us tha ve im p e d e d th e in m a te ’s p u r s u it o f a n o n f r iv o lo u s , p o s t- c o n v ic tio n c la im o rc iv il r i ght s a c t i on. ” W i l s on, 163 F . 3d a t1290; a c c or d S i ngl e t a r y , 143 F . 3d a t1445 ( i de nt i f y i ng the l i m i t e d ty pe s of l e ga l c l a i m s pr ot e c t e d by the a c c e s s - t o- c our t s r i ghtOther c ircuits also require ac tual injury to pursue a le g al mail acc ess-to-c ourts claim as 33 a constitutional prerequisite under Ca sey . See, e.g ., Kauf man, 419 F.3d at 686; Si mkins v. Br uce, 406 F .3d 1239, 1243-44 (10th Cir. 2005); Oliver, 118 F .3d at 177-78. In Bieregu, 59 F .3 d at 14 55 , th eTh ird Circuit had h e ld t

hat a sh ow ingof

a c tual in jur y wa s n ot re quire d b ut in Oliver, it conc luded that the SupremeCourt’s decision in Casey “ha[d] effec tively

overr uled Bieregu” in that re g ard a

nd that acc ess-to-c ourts claims require a show ing of actual injury . Oliver, 118 F .3d at 177-78. 30 as no nfri vo l ou s app ea l s f rom a c on vi ct i on , habeas pet i t i on s, or ci vi l ri gh t s s ui t s) . 33 In order t o sho w ac tual i nj ury, “ a pl ai nt i ff m ustprov i de evi dence of s uch d e te r r e n c e , s u c h a s a d e n ia l o rd is m is s a l o f a d ir e c t ap p e a l, h a b e a s p e titio n , o rc iv il r i ght s c a s e tha tr e s ul t s f r om a c t i ons of

pr i s on of

f i c i a l s . ” W i l s on 163 F . 3d a t1290- 9 1 ; s e e a l s o Pe r r i n , 1 7 0 F. 3 d a t1 3 2 0 n . 1 3 ( s t a t i n g i n a n a c c e s s - t o - c o u r t s c l a i m,

“ p l ai n t i ffs m u stsh o w ‘ actu al i n j u ry’

– i n o th er w o rd s, th e p l ai n t i ffs m u st d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e y h a d a le g itim a te c la im th a t th e y w e r e u n a b le to p u r s u e d u e to th e p r is o n ’s r e s tr ic tio n s ” ) . H er e, A l -A m i n h as no tal l eged the re qu i si t e a ctual i nj ury. A l -A m i n st at ed tha thi s w i f

e ha ndl e d a l l hi s c a s e s , i nc l udi ng a l a w s ui t , a ha be a s c orpus pe t i t i on (n o t yet filed ), an d th e a p p ea l o f h is cr im in al co n v icti o n . H o w ev er , A l-A m in ’s t e s t i m ony c ont a i ns onl y a c onc l us or y a l l e ga t i on tha tthe m a i l ope ni ng c o m p r o m is e d h is c a s e s a n d d o e s n o t id e n tif y h o w a n y le g a l m a tte r s s p e c if ic a lly w e r e da m a ge d. A tm os t , K a r i m a ’ s a f f i da vi ts t a t e s c onc l us or i l y tha t“ [ t ] he vi ol a t i on of op eni ng l egal m ai l fr om m y off i ce ov erm ore than a three -y ea r per i od has c a u s e d h a r m to th e c lie n t/a tto r n e y p r iv ile g e , c o n f id e n tia lity o f

le g a l m a tte r s , a n d in31

s a t i s f y i ng de a dl i ne s . ” H e ra f f i da vi tpr ovi de s no s pe c i f i c c a s e s orc l a i m s be i ng p u r s u e d , n o ra n y d e a d lin e s m is s e d , n o ra n y e f f e c t o n A l- A m in ’s le g a l c la im s . B ec ause A l -A m i n h as no tshow n the re qu i si t e a ctual i nj ury, the di stri ctcourterre d i n d e n y i n g d e f

e n d a n t s q u a l i f

i e d i mmu n i ty o n A l - A mi n ’ s a c c e s s - t o - c o u r t s c l a i m. IV . F R E E S P E E C H C L A IM A . C on s t i t u t i on al V i ol at i on A l- A m in a ls o c o n te n d s th a t d e f e n d a n ts ’ c o n d u c t– r e p e a te d ly o p e n in g h is a tto r n e y m a il o u ts id e h is p r e s e n c e – in h ib ite d , c h ille d , a n d in te r f e r e d w ith h is c om m uni c a t i on w i th hi s a tt or ne y a nd c ons e que nt l y vi ol a t e d hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght t o f r e e s pe e c h. A f

t e rr e vi e w , w e a gr e e w i th the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c onc l us i ons tha t( 1) A l - A m i n’ s f

r e e s pe e c h c l a i m i s di s t i nc tf r om hi s a c c e s s - t o- c our t s c l a i m ; ( 2) de f e nda nt s ’ c onduc tvi ol a t e d hi s r i ghtt o f r e e s pe e c h; a nd ( 3) he ne e d nots how a ny a c tu a l in ju r y b e y o n d th e f

r e e s p e e c h v io la tio n its e lf to s ta te a c o n s titu tio n a l c la im . T h e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t, a s in c o rp o r a te d b y th e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t, p r o h ib its s ta te s f

r o m “a b r id g in g th e f

r e e d o m o f

s p e e c h .” U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . I . M a il is o n e m e d iu m o f

f r e e s p e e c h , a n d th e r ig h t to s e n d a n d r e c e iv e m a il e x is ts u n d e rth e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. S e e C ity o f C in c in n a ti v . D is c o v e r y N e tw o r k , I n c ., 5 0 7 U . S . 4 1 0 , 4 2 7 , 1 1 3 S . C t . 1 5 0 5 , 1 5 1 5 -1 5 1 6 (1 9 9 3 ) (“ A p ro h i b i t i o n o n th e u se of the m ai l s i s asi gn i fi ca ntre stri ct i on of F i rs tA m endm entri gh t s. W e have not ed32

th a t th e U n ite d S ta te s m a y g iv e u p th e P o s t O f f ic e w h e n it s e e s f

it, b u t w h ile it carri es i to n th e u se o f th e m ai l s i s as m u ch a p arto f free sp eech as th e ri g h tt o u se ourt ongue s . ” ) ( quot i ng B l ountv. R i z z i , 400 U . S . 410, 416, 91 S . C t . 423, 428 (197 1)) ( al t er at i on and q uo t at i on m arks om i tt ed). F u rth er, i ti s w el l est ab l i sh ed th ata p ri so n i n m at e “ ret ai n s th o se F i rst A m e ndm e ntr i ght s tha ta r e noti nc ons i s t e ntw i th hi s s t a tus a s a pr i s one rorw i th the l e gi t i m a t e pe nol ogi c a l obj e c t i ve s of the c or r e c t i ons s y s t e m . ” P e l l v. P r oc uni e r , 417 U .S . 8 1 7 , 8 2 2 , 9 4 S . C t. 2 8 0 0 , 2 8 0 4 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ; s e e T u r n e r , 4 8 2 U .S . a t 9 5 , 1 0 7 S . C t. a t2265 ( quot i ng thi s pr opos i t i on f r om P e l l ) ; H uds on v. P a l m e r , 468 U . S . 517, 523, 1 0 4 S . C t . 3 1 9 4 , 3 1 9 8 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ( s a m e ) ; L a ws o n , 8 5 F . 3 d a t5 0 9 ( s a m e ) . As e x p la in e d e a r lie r , A l- A m in ’s u s e o f th e m a il to c o m m u n ic a te c o n f id e n tia lly w ith a tto r n e y s a b o u t h is c a s e s is n o t in c o n s is te n t w ith h is p r is o n e rs ta tu s o rw ith l egi t i m at e penol og i ca l obj ec t i ves, bu tprom ot es the st at e’ s i nt er es ti n i nst i tut i on al o r d e ra n d s e c u r ity . I n d e e d , g iv e n th e irin c a r c e r a tio n a n d o f te n d is ta n c e f

r o m th e ir a tt or ne y s , pr i s one r s ’ us e of the m a i l t o c om m uni c a t e w i th the i ra tt or ne y s a bout the i rc r i m i na l c a s e s m a y f r e que nt l y be a m or e i m por t a ntf r e e s pe e c h r i ghttha n the use of thei r t on gu es . T hu s, w e c on cl ud e thatA l -A m i n h as a F i rs tA m endm entfr ee s pe e c h r i ghtt o c om m uni c a t e w i th hi s a tt or ne y s by m a i l , s e pa r a t e a nd apa r tf r om h i s co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h tt o access t o th e co u rt s.J ones examined New J ersey ’s prison policy

allowingit to open incoming “ leg al 34 c or re sp on denc e ”outsi dethepriso ners ’ p re senc ein o rde r to p ro te c t th esa fety and se c urity of its priso ns by

re du c ingtheri sk

of anthrax co nta

min atio n. 46 1 F .3 d at 35 6. Th eTh ird Circuit conclude d that, threeyear s after September 11 a

nd the anthraxletters sent in Oc tober 2001, “ there[wa ]s nore a so na

blec onne c tio n”be tw e e n th eop e ningpo lic y and thea ssert e d s tate interest, and, thus, the policy “d[id] not withstand constituti onal scrutiny” under the Turner fac tors. I d. at 356, 363-64. The “ leg al cor

respondence”in J ones included c orre spondencefrom cour ts and third parties, in addition to inmates’ attorneys. Nothing herein rule s as to leg al mail in general be c a us eour c a seinv olv e s o nly atto rn e y-c lient m ail a

nd our de c isi on

is n e c e ssa

ri ly lim ite d to att o r n e y- c l i e ntm ai lo n l y. 33 T he cl oserqu es t i on here i s w hether def endant s’ cond uctvi ol at ed that const i tut i on al ri gh tt o fre e s peec h. T hi s i s nota c as e w here defe nd ant s c ensore d in m ates ’ m ail o r r ef

u se d to d eliv erm ail. In stea d , d ef en d an ts o p en ed A l-A m in ’s a tto r n e y m a il o u ts id e h is p r e s e n c e b e f o r e d e liv e r in g it to h im . T h e is s u e th u s is w h eth erd ef

en d an ts’ p attern an d p ra ctice o f o p en in g (b u t n o t rea d in g ) A l-A m in ’s c l e a r l y m a r ke d a tt or ne y m a i l out s i de hi s pr e s e nc e s uf f i c i e nt l y c hi l l s , i nhi bi t s , or in te r f e r e s w ith A l- A m in ’s a b ility to s p e a k , p r o te s t, a n d c o m p la in o p e n ly to h is a tt or ne y s o a s t o i nf

r i nge hi s r i ghtt o f

r e e s pe e c h. I n a ns w e r i ng thi s que s t i on, w e a r e pe r s ua de d by the T hi r d C i r c ui t ’ s de c i s i on i n J one s v. B r ow n, w hi c h c onc l ude d tha ta s t a t e pr i s on’ s “ pa tt e r n a nd pr a c t i c e ” of op eni ng att orney m ai l ou t si de the i nm at e’ s pre se nce “ i nt er fe re s w i th p rot ec t ed co m m u n i cat i o n s, stri p s th o se p ro t ect ed co m m u n i cat i o n s o f th ei r co n fi d en t i al i ty, an d acco rd i n g l y i m p i n g es u p o n th e i n m at e’ s ri g h tt o freed o m o f sp eech . ” Jo n es, 461 F . 3d a t359. T he T hi r d C i r c ui ti n J one s r e a s one d tha tthe pr a c t i c e of ope ni ng 3434

a tt or ne y m a i l out s i de the i nm a t e ’ s pr e s e nc e “ de pr i ve s the e xpr e s s i on of c onf i de nt i a l i ty a nd c hi l l s the i nm a t e s ’ pr ot e c t e d e xpr e s s i on, r e ga r dl e s s of the s t a t e ’ s good- f

a i th pr ot e s t a t i ons tha ti tdoe s not , a nd w i l l not , r e a d the c ont e ntof the c om m uni c a t i ons . ” I d. T he T hi r d C i r c ui te xpl a i ne d tha t“ [ t ] hi s i s s o be c a us e ‘ the onl y w a y t o e ns ur e tha tm a i l i s notr e a d w he n ope ne d . . . i s t o r e qui r e tha ti tbe done i n the pr e s e nc e of

the i nm a t e t o w hom i ti s a ddr e s s e d. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng B i e r e gu, 5 9 F . 3 d at1 4 5 6 (ci t i n g W o l ff, 4 1 8 U . S . at5 7 6 -7 7 , 9 4 S . C t . at2 9 8 4 -8 5 )); see al so D av is, 3 2 0 F .3 d at 3 5 1 (“In terf er en ce w ith leg al m ail i m p li ca tes a p riso n in m ate’s r i ght s t o a c c e s s t o the c our t s a nd f r e e s pe e c h a s gua r a nt e e d by the F i r s ta nd F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n ts to th e U .S . C o n s titu tio n .” ) . W e a l s o a gr e e w i th the T hi r d C i r c ui ttha tthe a c tua l i nj ur y r e qui r e m e nt appl i e s t o a c c e s s - t o- c our t s c l a i m s butnott o f r e e s pe e c h c l a i m s . S e e J one s , 461 F . 3 d at3 5 9 -6 0 . B ecau se th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s C asey d eci si o n co n cern ed an accesst o- c our t s c l a i m , the T hi r d C i r c ui tde t e r m i ne d tha t“ nothi ng i n the r e a s oni ng of C as ey . . . sugg es t s thata pri soner . . . need al l ege a ny consequent i al i nj ury s t e m m i ng f

r om [ a n a l l e ge d F i r s tA m e ndm e nt ] vi ol a t i on, a s i de f r om the vi ol a t i on i t se l f. ” I d. at35 9. T he T hi rd C i rc ui texpl ai ned t hatw hi l e the prov i si on of l egal s e r vi c e s a nd l a w l i br a r i e s a r e m e a ns t o e ns ur e r e a s onabl e a c c e s s t o pr e s e nt c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s to th e c o u r ts , “p r o te c tio n o f a n in m a te ’s f

r e e d o m to e n g a g e in pr ot e c t e d c om m uni c a t i ons i s a c ons t i tut i ona l e nd i n i t s e l f . ” I d. a t359- 60.B e c a us eour interl ocuto ry

jurisdic tio n e xten ds on ly to q ualif ie d immunity

le g al is su e s, 35 we do not address def

endants’ c laim, made in the district cour t, that the Prison L itigation Refor m Ac t ba rsAl -Amin

from s e e kingno min al and punitivedamag e s. Se edis c us sio n o f t he seiss ue s in Smith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 35 I n a s im ila rv e in , w e h a v e s ta te d th a t “‘[ n ]o m in a l d a m a g e s a r e ap p r o p r ia te if a pl a i nt i f f e s t a bl i s he s a vi ol a t i on of a f unda m e nt a l c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght , e ve n i f he ca nn otprov e a ctual i nj ury s uffi ci entt o ent i t l e hi m t o com pensat ory dam ages . ’ ” K H O ut door , L L C v. C i ty of T rus s vi l l e , 465 F . 3d 1256, 1260 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng H ughe s v. L ott , 350 F . 3d 1157, 1162 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ) ; s e e a l s o C a r e y v. P i ph us, 43 5 U . S . 24 7, 26 6-67 , 98 S . C t . 10 42 , 10 53 -54 (19 78 ) ( concl ud i ng that p l ai n t i ff co u l d b e co m p en sat ed w i th n o m i n al d am ag es fo r p ro ced u ral d u e p ro cess vi ol at i on s e ven absentproo f of a ctual i nj ury) . W e a l so have sa i d that“ no m i nal d a m a g e s a r e . . . ap p r o p r i a t e i n th e c o n t e x to f a F i r s tAm e n d m e n tv i o l a t i o n . ” KH O ut door , 465 F . 3d a t1261; s e e a l s o M c N a m a r a v. M oody , 606 F . 2d 621, 622, 625- 26 ( 5th C i r . 1979) ( a f

f i r m i ng nom i na l da m a ge s a w a r d t o pr i s one rw hos e f r e e dom o f s p e e c h r ig h t w a s v io la te d w h e n o f f ic ia ls r e f u s e d to m a il le tte rto h is g ir lf r ie n d ) . O urpr e c e de ntthus r e c ogni z e s the a w a r d of nom i na l da m a ge s f

orvi ol a t i ons of

the fu n d am en t al co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h tt o free sp eech ab sen tan y actu al i n j u ry. 35 B ec ause A l -A m i n h as st at ed a f re e s peec h v i ol at i on and b ec ause ac tual i nj ur y i s nota c ons t i tut i ona l pr e r e qui s i t e t o a f r e e s pe e c h c l a i m , the onl y r e m a i ni ng qu es t i on i s w hether A l -A m i n’ s f re e s peec h ri gh tt o h ave hi s a tt orney m ai l op enedDe fe n d ant s ’ argum entre l i es i np arto nth ei r c o nt ent i o nth atKari m a’ s m ai l , al th o u gh 36 showingher la

w offic e address and mar ked “privilege d, leg al mail,” wa s not attorney mail. As we ha ve already

explained, acc eptingthe ver sion of the facts most favora ble to Al-Amin, by November

25, 2003, defendants knew that Karima w as Al-Amin’s attorney and that Ka

rima’s properly marke d attorney

mail should not be opened outside Al-Amin’s presenc e.

36 o n ly in h is p r e s e n c e w a s c le a r ly e s ta b lis h e d a t th e tim e o f d e f e n d a n ts ’ c o n d u c t. B . C l e ar l y E s t ab l i s h e d L aw D e f e n d a n ts a r g u e th a t th e y d id n o t h a v e “f a irw a r n in g ” th a t o p e n in g m a il f r o m K a r im a o u ts id e A l- A m in ’s p r e s e n c e w a s a f r e e s p e e c h v io la tio n a n d th a t, th e r e f o r e , th e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f i e d i mmu n i ty o n A l - A mi n ’ s f r e e s p e e c h c l a i m. 36 D ef endant s s tre ss thatou r bi nd i ng prec edenti n T ay l or, G uaj ar do , and L em on w as ba s e d on the c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtt o a c c e s s the c our t s , notthe r i ghtt o f r e e s pe e c h, a nd thus A l - A m i n’ s f

r e e s pe e c h r i ghtw a s notc l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d. T he que s t i on be c om e s w he the r , f

orqua l i f i e d i m m uni ty purpos e s , de f e nda nt s ha ve “ f

a i rw a r ni ng” w h en re as o n ab le o ff

icials k n o w th at th eir p re cise co n d u ct (o p en in g an in m ate’s a tt or ne y m a i l out s i de hi s pr e s e nc e ) i s unl a w f ul a nd a c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on, but they do n otkn ow thati tvi ol at es no ton l y one const i tut i on al ri gh t(the ri gh tt o cou rt ac ce ss ), bu tal so a s ec on d con st i tut i on al ri gh t(the ri gh tt o fre e s peec h). T he pr obl e m w i th de f

e nda nt s ’ a r gum e nti s tha tthe “ c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d” i nq ui ry for qual i fi ed i m m un i ty f ocuses on the defendant ’ s c on du ctand w hether gi ven a part i cul arfa ctual si tuat i on , a r ea sonabl e off i ci al w ou l d k no w hi s c on du ct w a s u n la w f

u l a n d u n c o n s titu tio n a l. S e e H o p e , 5 3 6 U .S . a t 7 4 1 , 1 2 2 S . C t. a t 2 5 1 6 ;In addition to our prior ca se law, theGSP’s own regulations provide that an inmate’ s 37 incoming attorney

mail should be opened in the inmate ’s pre sence . Whil e the regulations themse lve s do n ot c on sti tut ec on sti tution al la w, they fu rt her u nd e rmineany

c laim b y de fendants that they were unaw areof their leg al obliga tions in handling Al-Amin’s mail. 37 S auci er , 53 3 U . S . at20 2, 12 1 S . C t . at21 56 . W e have never r equi re d that , i n o rder f o ra n o f f ic ia l to k n o w h is c o n d u c t is u n la w f u l, a r e a s o n a b le o f

f ic ia l m u s t b e a b le t o ci t e by c hapt erand v er se al l of the const i tut i on al base s thatm ake hi s c on du ct u n la w f u l. R a th e r , w h a t c o u r ts h a v e s a id is th a t a h ig h d e g r e e o f f a c tu a l s im ila r ity w i th con du ctprevi ou sl y hel d u nl aw ful and u ncon st i tut i on al i s r equi re d t o g i ve a r e a s o n a b le o f

f ic ia l f a ira n d c le a rw a r n in g ( o rn o tic e ) th a t h is p a r tic u la rc o n d u c t is un l aw ful and u ncon st i tut i on al . S ee , e. g. , H op e, 53 6 U . S . at74 0-41 , 12 2 S . C t . at 2 5 1 5 - 1 6 ; V in y a r d , 3 1 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 3 . I n thi s c a s e , e xa c tf

a c tua l i de nt i ty e xi s t s be tw e e n pr i orc a s e l a w a nd defe nd ant s’ fa ctual cond uct . S peci fi ca l l y, ou r pre ce dent , as di sc usse d abo ve, c le a r ly e s tab lis h e s th a t a p r is o n o f f ic ia l v io la te s a n in m a te ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts w hen t he offi ci al op ens a tt orney m ai l ou t si de the i nm at e’ s pre se nce. S ee T ay l or, 5 3 2 F .2 d a t 4 6 2 ; G u a

ja r d o , 5 8 0 F .2 d a t 7 4 8 . T h u s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t d e f e n d a n ts 37 had fai r a nd cl ea r not i ce thatop eni ng A l -A m i n’ s a tt orney m ai l ou t si de hi s pre se nce w as u n law fu l an d v io lated th e C o n stitu ti o n . S ee V in ya rd , 3 1 1 F .3 d at 1 3 5 0 (“‘[I]f th e la w d id n o t p u t th e o f f ic e ro n n o tic e th a t h is c o n d u c t w o u ld b e c le a r ly u n la w f u l, sum m ary j ud gm entbase d o n q ual i fi ed i m m un i ty i s app ropri at e. ’ ” ( qu ot i ng S auci er ,In th e ir reply brie f, de fend antsraisetw o additi on al arguments : ( 1) e ven if Al -Amin 38 su ff e re d c on sti tution al vi olatio ns , th e y sti ll c ann ot b ehe ld l ia

blebe c a us ethey did no t pers on ally pa rtic ipatein t

heill e g al c on du c t th at g averi seto t hec on sti tution al vi olatio ns ; and (2 ) t hereis ins uf fi c ient evidenc eof

a pattern , p rac tic e , o r p oli c y of op e ningatto rn e y

mail t o e sta

bli sh supervisory

liability . However, def

endants ne g lected to makethese a rguments in their initial brie f o n a pp e al, a nd our p re c e dent u

nambi guo us ly

prov ide s th at “ [i]ssu e s th at areno t c le arly outlined in an appellant’ s initi al brief aredeeme d abandone d.” Allison v. McGhan Me d. Corp., 184 F.3d 1300, 1317 n.17 ( 11th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. L evy, 416 F.3d 1273, 1276 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (c ollectingcase s and obser ving this Court “de clines to consider issues raised for the f irst time in an appellant’s reply brief” ). 38 53 3 U . S . at20 2, 12 1 S . C t . at21 56 -57)). A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm the di stri ct c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f

q u a l i f i e d i mmu n i ty o n th e f

r e e s p e e c h c l a i m. 38 V . CONCL US I ON F or these re as on s, w e r ever se the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty on A l -A m i n’ s a cc es s- t o-court s c l ai m and aff i rm on hi s f

re e s peec h c l a i m. A FFI R M ED I N PA R T A N D R EVER SED I N PA R T.