### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 41064

GE OR GE MORGA N P eti ti on er - A p p ell a n t v. NAT HANI ELQUA RT ER M AN, DI RE CT OR , T EXAS DE P AR T M ENT OF CR I M I NALJ US T I CE , C OR RE CT I ONA L I NS T I T UT I ONS DIVI S I ON R espon den t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or th e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas

B ef ore JO L LY , SM ITH , an d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . E
. G R A D YJO L LY , C i rcui tJu dg e: T h i s app ealari ses f

rom a j u dg m en tden yi n g rel i ef i n a h abea s corpus case br oughtunder 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254 by T exas st at e pr i so nerG eo r ge M or gan. M or gan cha l l en ges a di sci pl i n ary proceedi n gin w h ich he w as charged w i t h t h e use of in d e c e n t o rv u lg a rla n g u a g e in a n o te h e m a ile dto o p p o s in gco u n s e l in con n ectionw i th pe n d i n g liti ga ti on . H e sa ys th a t th e F i rst A m en d m en t pro tects h is v u lg a rp e nfr o m p e n a ltya n dth a t t h e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t p r o te c ts h is go o d t i m e c r e dit s f

r o m l o s s . The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d r e l i e f, a nd we gr ant e d a cert i f i cat e of app eal ability ( C O A)
. W e deci de that t h e T exas D epa rt m en tof United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 8, 20 09 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 41064

2 C ri m i n alJu st i ce (T D C J) h as a l egi t i m ate penologi cali n t eresti n rehab i l i t ati on t hatj us t i f

i e d d i s c i pli ni ng M o r ga n, and t hatt he T D CJ di d notdenyM o r ga n du e p r o c e s s a th i s d i s c i p l i n a r yh e a r i n g . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i r m. I. Th e under l yi ng fac t s ar e no tdi spute d. I n 2005, duri ng a habea s p roce ed i n g a p a rt f

rom this on e, i n resp on s e to th e S tate of T ex a s’ s m oti on to d i sm i ss, M org a n m a i l edA ssistan t A ttorn eyG en era lS u sa n S a n M igu el a n ote w r i t t e n on t oi l etpa pe r . Tha tno t e s ai d: “ D e arSus an, Pl e as e us e t hi s t o w i pe y o u ra s s , th a t a r g u m e n t w a s ab u n c h o f s h it ! Y o u [ r s ] T r u ly , G e o r g e M o r g a n .” A ssi st an t A t t orney G en eralS. M i cha elB ozart h ret u rnedth e note t o t h e w arden of t he St eve nso n U ni t , t he c or r ec t i onali nst i tu ti on w her e M or gan w as in c a r c e r a t e d , a lo n gw it h ale t t e rd e s c r ib in gth e c ir c u m s t a n c e s o f M o r g a n ’s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . M organ w as cha rg e d w i t h t h e use of i n decen tor vu l gar l an gu age u n der R u l e 42. 0 of

t h e T D C J D i sci pl i n ary R u l es and P rocedures. A thi s di sci pl i n ary he ar i ng, he w as f

o und guil t y and , a m o ng o t he rpe nalt i e s , w as puni s he d wi t h t he l o s s o f f i f t e e n da y s of

g o o dt i me c r e d i t . Mo r g a n f i l e ds t e p - o n e a n ds t e p - t wo g r ie v a n c e s a p p e a lin gth e d is c ip lin a r yp r o c e e d in g , b o th o f w h ic h w e r e d e n ie d
. M organ t h en f

i l ed the i n st an tapp l i cat i on f or hab eas reli ef

i n t h e U n i t ed St at e s D i s t r i c tCour tf o rt he So u t he r n Di s t r i c to f Te xa s , a l l e gi ng t hatt he di s c i pl i nary pr o c e e di ng vi o l at e d hi s ri ght s unde rt he Fi r s tAm e ndm e nta nd the D u e P roces s C l au se of t h e F ou rt een t h A m en dm en t . Th e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed sum m ary j u dg m en t f or t h e T D C J, di sm i ssed M organ ’ s app l i cat i on , an d d en i ed a CO A. M o r ga n f

i l e d am o t i o n t o a l t e ro ra m e nd j udg m e nt , w hi c h was de ni e d. H e appeal ed, and t hi s c our t gr ant ed a C O A
. W e no w dec i de w het herR ul e 4 2. 0, as app l i ed, vi ol ated M organ ’ s r i gh t s.N o. 07- 41064

3 II. Rul e 4 2. 0 o f

t he TD CJ D i s c i pli nary Rul e s a nd Pr o c e du r e s pr o hibit s t he

“ us e o f i nde c e n tor vul ga rl ang uag e o ri nde c e nto rv ul ga rg e s t ur e s i n t he p r e s e n c e o f o rd ir e c te da t a n e m p lo y e e o ra n yp e r s o n w h o is n o t a n o ffe n d e r .” M o rg an argu es th at th e rul e, as app l i ed to h i s m ai l ed n ot e, i s an u n n ecess ary i nf r i n g e m e n t o f h i s Fir s t Am e n d m e n t r i g h t t o f r e e s p e e c h b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no l egi t i m ate penologi calreason f or ap pl yi n g t h e ru l e to outgoi n g m ai l
. Th e di st ri ct cou rt rej ected tha t arg u m en t, con cl u d i n g th a t th e ru l e w a s p rop erly a p p l i edto r es t ri c tt he useof

i ndec entorvul garl anguage in “ l egalm ai l” di r ec t ed at opp osi n g coun sel
. Th e di st ri ctcourta l so con cl u dedtha tM organ w as n otden i ed due pr oc es s athi s di sc i pl i nary hear i ng. W e rev i ew the distri ct co u rt’ s su m m a ryj u d gm en t, i n cl u d i n g it s c o n c lu s io n s o f la w , de no vo . E. g. , Vi rgi lv. D r e t ke , 4 46 F
. 3d5 98, 6 04-05 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ). A. I ti s w e l l

- e s t ab l i s he d thatapr i s o ne rr e t ai ns c e r t ai n Fi r s tAm e ndm e nt r ig h ts n o tw ith s ta n d in gh is in c a r c e r a t i o n . S ee, e. g. , Pel lv. Procun i er , 4 17 U
. S. 817 , 822 ( 197 4)
. N evert h el ess, “l aw f u li n carcer ati on bri n gs abou tt h e necessary w i t hdraw alorl i m i t at i on o f m any pr ivi l ege s and ri ght s, a r et r ac t i on j ust i f i ed by th e con sider a ti on s u n d erlyingou r p en a lsys tem . ” B el lv. W olf i sh , 441 U
. S. 520, 545- 46 ( 1979) ( quot i ng Pri ce v. Joh n son , 334 U
. S
. 266 , 285 ( 194 8) )
. In t h e F i rst A m en dm en tcontext , a pri soner ret ai n s onl y t h ose r i gh t s “t h at are n ot i nco nsi st entw i t h hi s st atu s as a pr i so nerorw i t h t he l egit i m at e pe nol ogi c al o b je c tiv e s of th e cor rection s sy stem . ” Pell , 41 7 U
. S
. at 82 2 . Iti s ge n era lly r ec ogni ze d t hats ec urit y, or der, and r ehabil i t at i on ar e l egit i m at e pe nol ogi c al o bje c tiv e s . E
. g. , Procun i er v. Mart i n ez , 416 U
. S. 396, 413- 14 ( 1974)
. I n Tu rner v. S afley , 4 82 U
. S. 7 8 ( 19 87 ) , t he Supr e m e Cour ta nno unc e d f o ur factors re l ev a n t t o d eterm i n i n gw h eth er a pr i son reg u l a ti on tha t restri ctsN o. 07- 41064

4 c ons t i t ut i onalr i ght s i s per m i ss ibl e: ( 1) w het hert her e i s a “‘val i d, r at i onal c o nne c t i on ’b et w e e n t he pr i s o n r e gul at i o n a nd the l e git i m at e g o ve r nm e nt i n t erestpu tfor w a rd to j u st i f y i t” ; ( 2) “w h et h er th ere are al t erna t ive m ean s of exerci si n g t h e ri gh t” ; ( 3) “t h e i m pa ctaccom m oda t i o n o f th e asser t ed c o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ghtw i l lha veo n g uar ds a nd o t he ri nm at e s ” ; a n d( 4) w he t he r“t he absen ce of

ready alt erna tiv e s i s evi den ce of t h e reasonab l en ess of a pri son reg u l a ti on . ” I

d. at89- 90. I n a rec entcas e t he S upre m e Court , unsurpr i si ngl y, a c k n o w le d g e d t h e p a r tic u la rim p o r ta n c e o f th e fir s t fa c to r , e x p la in in gth a t in som e cases t h e sec on d, t h i rd, an d f ou rt h fac to rs can “addl i t t l e, one w ay or a n oth er, to the fir s t fa c to r’ s ba sic l og i ca lration a l e.” B e ard v
. B anks , 5 48 U
. S. 52 1, 5 32 (2006)
. I n t he l i ghto f t he f ir s tfac t o r , “t he r e alt as k”i s t o de t e r m i ne w het hert her e i s a “ re a so n a b ler el at i on” – thati s, “ m or e than si m pl y a l ogi c al relati on ” – be tw ee n the pri so n re gul ati on an dthe l eg i ti m a te p en ological i n teres t. I d. a t5 33. O u r ow n cases ref l ectt h i s app roach to Tu rner anal ys i s. Spec i f i c al l y, w e h a ve h eld th a t w h ere , as h ere , a p ri son reg u l a ti on restrict s a p ri son er’ s ri gh ts w ith re s p e c t t o m a il, “th e a p p r o p r ia te in q u ir yis w h e t h e rt h e p r a c tic e is rea son a b l y re l a tedto a l eg i ti m a te p en ological i n teres t. ” B rew er v. Wi lki n son , 3 F. 3d 816, 824 ( 5t h C i r . 1993) (c i t i ng Tu rner , 4 8 2 U .S . a t 7 8 ). W e ne c es sa r i l y be gi n w i t h t he pr i so n’ s as se r t ed l egit i m at e pe nol ogi c al in te r e s t. T h e T D C J a r g u e s th a t ith a s ale g i tim a te p e n o lo g ic a l in te r e s t in r ehabil i t at i ng pr i so ner s i n pre par at i on f ort hei rr et urn t o s oc i et y, and t hatby appl yi ng R ul e 4 2. 0 t o puni sh M or gan f orthe use of

i ndec entorvul garl anguage i n an ou tgo i n g letter, the T D C J i s corre cti n g b eh a vior th a t m a i n strea m society d e e m s u n a c c e p ta b le
. W e ha ve n otha d p ri or oc casi on t o add res s w he the rthepen ol ogi cali n t erest in re h a b ilita tio n ca n ju s tifyth e s u p p r e s s io n o f s p e e c h ino u tg o in gm a il. W e h a ve , h ow ev er, p rev i ou sly rejecte d the peno l ogic alint er ests i n ord er a n dsecu ri ty as j u st i f i cat i on s f

or th e sup pressi on of speech i n outgoi n g m ai lm erely becau seN o. 07- 41064

5 it is c o a r s e a n do ffe n s iv e , v u lg a r , o rd e fa m a to r y . McNam ara v . Mo o dy , 606 F. 2d 6 2 1 , 6 2 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ); se e a lso T h o rn b u rg h v. A b b o tt , 490 U
. S. 401, 411 ( 1989) (ou t goi n g m ai l“ d[oes ] not, by i t s veryna t u re, pose a ser i ou s t h reatt o pri son ord er a n dsecu ri ty”). InMcNam ara, apr i s o ne rw r o t e al e t t e rt o hi s g i r l f ri e nd i n w hi c h he s t at ed thata pr i so n of f i c erhad s ex w i t h a c at . Th e of f i c er , w ho r ead th e le tt e r , re fu s e dto m a il it. McNam ara , 606 F
. 2dat 623 . Th e pri son argu ed t o thi s c our tt hatper m i t t i ng s uch s pee c h i n out goi ng m ai l w oul d l ead t o a“t ot al b r e a k d o w n ” in p r is o n s e c u r itya n dd is c ip lin e . I d. at 624 . Th i s c ou rt , how ever, observed that “ coarse an d of fen sive rem arks are no t in h e ren t l y breach es of di sci pl i n e an d securi t y, ” an d exp l ai n ed that “ [c] en sors h i p f or vi ol ati on of

pri son di sci pl i n ary rul es i s properly l i m i t ed to com m u n i cat i on s th a t r e l ate t o m ore concret e vi ol ati on s s u ch as ‘ escape pl an s, pl an s f or disru p tion of

t h e pri son sy stem or w ork rou ti n e, or plan s for th e i m p orta ti on of con trab a n d
. ’” Id
. ( quo t i ng Mart i n ez , 4 1 6 U .S . a t 4 1 3 ). McNam arai s dif

fe r e ntf r om t hi s c as e i n, a tl e as t , t w o v e r y i m po r t ant r e s pe c t s . Fi r s t , t he pr i s o n i n McNam ara di d n otass er ta l egit i m at e pe nol ogi c al i n t eresti n rehab i l i t ati on , an d ther e fore w e di d n otspecif i cal l y ad dress r e h a b ilita tio n in th a t ca s e . S e c o n d , a lth o u g h re fe r e n c in gag u a r d , th e le tt e rin McNam araw a s p r iv a t e lya d d r e s s e dto , a n din t e n d e do n lyfo r , t h e p r is o n e r ’s g ir lfr ie n d , a n dn o t, a s h e r e , a d d r e s s e dto a n din te n d e dfo ro p p o s in gco u n s e l in con n ectionw i th pe n d i n g liti ga ti o n . A s th e d i stri ct cou rt obs erv ed , the n ote M or gan w r ot e o n t he pi ec e o f t oil etpaperand m ai l ed t o o ppos i ng c ounse lw as u n s o lic ite d , h a r a s s in g , a n dre s e m b le dath r e a t. T h e T D C J h as a l egi t i m ate penologi cali n t eresti n rehab i l it ati n g pri soners i n pre par at i on f

ort hei rr et urn t o s oci ety , and di sc i pl i nary pro c ee di ngs c an fu r th e rth a t in te r e s t. S eeW o lff v. McD o n n ell , 418 U
. S. 539 , 5 62 ( 19 74 ) (“ [T] he p r o c e e d in g s to a s c e r ta in a n d s a n c tio n m is c o n d u c t th e m s e lv e s p la yam ajo rro le i n f u rt h eri n g t h e i n st i t u t i on algoalof m odi f yi n g beh avioran d va l u e syst em s ofN o. 07- 41064

6 pri son i n m ates suff

i ci en t l y t o p erm i tthem to live w i t h i n t h e l aw w h en t h ey are rel eased. ” )
. M organ ’ s note dem on st rat ed a com pl et el y u nj u st i f i ed d i sres pect f

or aut hor i t y, ex pres sed i n t he m os tunacc ept ably vul garf or m , w hi c h w oul d be of fen sive i n m ai n st ream soc i et y; itw ou l d n otbe t ol erat ed f rom a peer m em ber of t he bar , and w oul d not be t ol er at ed f r om a pr o s e li t i ganti n t he f r ee s et t i ng. T h e T D C J ’ s d is c ip lin a r ya c tio n s e rv e s t o c o r r e c t b e h a v io rth a t w o u lds e r io u s ly pr ej udi c e M o r ga n when her e t ur ns t o t he c ivilw o r l d. W e thus c o nc l ude t hatt he TD CJ hadal e git i m at e pe no l o gi c ali nt e r e s ti n r e hab i l i t at i o n t hatj us t i f i e d the di sc i pl i nary ac t i on. Ru l e 4 2. 0, as appl i ed t o M or gan’ s m ai l ed not e, w as notan i m pe r m i s s ibl e i nf

r i nge m e nto f

hi s Fi r s tAm e ndm e ntr i ghtt o f r e e s pe e c h B. M orga n a lso al l eges t h at he w as den i ed d u e process at h i s di sci pl i n ary hear i ng b eca u sehe w as deni ed the r i ghtt o pr es entw i t nes se s, t her e w as i n suff i ci en tevi den ce t o sup port t h e cha rge, an d th e di sci pl i n ary h eari n g of f i cer w a s b ia s e d
. M o r g a n ’ s cla im s a r e w ith o u t m e r it. W e donotdi sput e thatr evo c at i on o f go od t i m e c r edit s t hatem body a lib e r tyin te r e s t m u s t co m p ly w ith m in im u m p r o c e d u r a l re q u ir e m e n ts . Henson v . U
. S. Bur e au of

Pr i s o ns , 2 1 3 F .3 d8 9 7 , 8 9 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). Ap r is o n e ris en t i t l ed to: ( 1) w rit t en noti ce of t h e charges at l east 24 h ou rs prior to a di sci pl i n ary h eari n g; ( 2) an opp ort u n i t y “ t o cal l w i t n esses an d present evi den ce i n h is d e fe n s e w h en pe rm i tti n g h i m to do so w i lln ot be u n d u l y h a za rd ou s to i ns t i t ut i o nalsafe t y o rc o r r e c t i o nalg o al s ” ; a nd ( 3) “ a w r i t t e n s t at e m e ntb y t he fact f i n ders as t o t h e evi den ce r el i ed on an d the reason f or th e di sci pl i n ary a cti on . ” W

o lff , 4 1 8 U .S . a t 5 6 4 -6 5 (c ita tio n s o m itt e d). Are v ie w in gco u r t is r e q u ir e do n lyto fi n d“s o m e e v id e n c e ” s u p p o r t in gad is c ip li n a r yh e a r in go ff ic e r ’s d e c is io n . R i c hards v. D r e t ke , 3 94 F
. 3d 2 91 , 2 94 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 4) (c i t i ng S u p er in ten d en t, Ma ss . Co rr ec tion a l In st. v. Hill , 4 72 U
. S. 445 , 4 55 ( 19 85 ) (“ TheN o. 07- 41064

7 requ i rem en t s of

du e process are s ati sf i ed i f som e ev i den ce s u pp ort s t h e deci si on b yth e p r is o n d is c ip lin a r yb o a r dto re v o k e g o o dtim e cr e d its .”)). W e a r e s at i sf

i ed thatt he r equi r em ent s of due pr oc es s w er e s a ti sf i ed at M organ ’ s di sci pl i n ary h eari n g. M orga n r e ce ived n ot i ce of t h e di sci pl i n ary h eari n g an d h i s at t en da n tri gh t s. A l t h ou gh t h ere i s no c o ns tit ut i on al l y protec t ed r i ghtt o c ounse ls ubst i t ut e i n a di sc i pl i n a ry pr oc ee di ng, he nev er t hel es s w as pro vi ded s uch ass i st ance . A tthe hear i ng, M or gan c al l ed the c hargi ng of f i c eras a w i t n ess, an d that of f i cer t est i f

i ed vi a speak er phon e. M organ al so r equ est ed t h e p rison ’ s m ai lroom sup ervi sor an d A ssi st an tA t t orney G en eralS. M i cha el B oz ar t h b e ca l l ed as w i t nes se s, butt he hear i ng of f i c erpr ope r l y de ni ed that r e que s t . Any t e s t i m o ny o f t he m ailr o o m s upe rvi s o r , w ho s ubm i t t e d as t at e m e nt i ndi c at i ng t hathe d i d no ts c r e e n M o r ga n’ s o ut go i ng m ail , was ir r e l e va nti n t he l i gh t of th e fa ct th a t M org a n ’ s n ote w a s n ot i n tercep ted , bu t i n stea dretu rn edto th e p ri son byB oz a rth
. Itw a s a ls o n o t u n rea son a b l e for the h ea ri n g o ff i cer to r e f us e t o c allBoz ar t h, g ive n t hathi s i nvo lve m e nti n t he fac t s w as no ta ti s s ue and t hatM or gan appar ent l y s oughtB oz ar t h’ s l egalopi ni on, nothi s fac t ual t est i m o ny. At t he c o nc l us i o n o f t he he ar i ng t he r e w as m o r e t han “ som e e vi de nc e ” s uf

f i c i e ntt o s upp o r tdi s ci pl i n ar y ac t i o n. Sp e c i f i c all y, t he c har gi ng o ffic e r ’ s re p o r t a n dte s tim o n y , M o r g a n ’ s a d m is s io n th a t t h e n o te w a s inh is h a n d w r i t i n g , a n d p r i s o n ma i ll o g s a l ls u p p o r t e dt h e f i n d i n ga g a i n s th i m. M or g a n’ s c l a i m s t ha th e was d e ni e dt her i g htt o p r e s e ntwi t ne s s e s a ndt hat th ere w a s i n su ff

i ci en t evide n ce to su p p ort th e ch a rg e a re w i th ou t m erit. Fi nal l y, t o pr evailon hi s c l ai m t hathi s hear i ng of f i c er w as bi as ed, M or gan n eeded t o show t h at t h e act i on s t ak en “ present[ ed] such a h a z a rd of arbi t rary d ecisi on m a k i n g th a t it sh ou l dbe h eld v i olative of d u e p roce ss of l a w . ” W o lff , 418 U
. S. a t5 70 . M o r ga n c o nt e nds t hatt he he ar i ng o f f i c e rw as b i as e d becau s e he rej ect ed M organ ’ s questi on s t o t h e chargi n g of f i cer. Th e hea ri n g of

f i cer al l ow ed m anyo f

M o r ga n’ s q ue s t i o ns , a nd a l s o hi m s e l f q ue s t i o n ed M o r ga n a bo utt heN o. 07- 41064

8 fac t ualb ac kg r o und o f t he c har ge s . M o r ga n’ s b i as c l ai m i s t he r e f o r e a l s o w i t ho ut m erit. III. A c c o r d in g ly , fo rt h e r e a s o n s s ta te dh e r e in , t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t is AF FIRM E D
.