Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/WA/miniken-v-walter-summary-judgement-ruling-bulk-mail-ban-on-pln-unconstitutional-1997/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:45:31+00:00

Document:
DENIED for the following reasons.
Michael W Gendler, Bricklin & Gendler, Seattle, WA.
publication called Prison Legal News as "bulk mail."
Prison Legal News claiming that it is "bulk mail,"
rejection is sent to either the publisher or the subscriber.
mail" pursuant to current Postal Service regulations.
January 15, 1997, no such statewide policy was issued.
greatly in their "bulk mail" policies.
bulk mail as "mail which is clearly marked "non-profit"
Constitution or laws of the United States. Leer v.
the deprivation of which the Plaintiff complains.
(9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1074, 117 L. Ed.
two grounds (1) either facially or (2) as applied.
790, 842 (9th Cir. 1996), rev'd on other grounds, U.S.
, 135 L. Ed. 2d 1128, 117 S. Ct. 37 (1997).
of alternative means to share the information. 433 U.S.
at issue, [**10] not "mail rights" themselves).
the particular governmental interest involved." Id. 424.
is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests."
administrators faced with difficult problems. Id.
infringements of fundamental constitutional rights.
O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349, 96 L.
Ed. 2d 282, 107 S. Ct. 2400 (1987); Anderson v.
related to legitimate penological interests." Id.; Turner v.
ready alternatives to the regulation. 482 U.S. at 89-91.
restrictive means test in that context. Thornburgh v.
Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413, 104 L. Ed. 2d 459, 109 S. Ct.
independent review. Id. at 406.
covered Prison Legal News as a non-profit publication.
Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 57 L. Ed. 2d 117, 98 S.
this case after it was filed does not change this finding.
volume of mail would be impossible to process.
F.3d 164 (6th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, U.S. , 137 L.
Ed. 2d 339, 117 S. Ct. 1261 (1997) and Kalasho v.
U.S. , 136 L. Ed.
2d 215, 117 S. Ct. 296 (1996) are more to the point.
sender has to say. . .
purposes of first amendment protection. . .
Brooks, supra, 779 F.2d at 1180.
operates in the case of "mass mailings."
no First Amendment interest at stake.
Legal News and any legitimate penological purpose.
delivery of a piece of first class mail.
reasons specified in 21 listed reasons for mail rejection.
subscription to Prison Legal News has been violated.
accompanied by procedural protections. Procunier v.
provides for these very same procedural protections.
review of the decision to restrict the mail.
continue to claim that no process is due for bulk mail.
reasonable person would have known." Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396, 102 S.
was lawful. Newell v. Sauser, 79 F.3d 115, 117 (9th Cir.
understand that what he is doing violates that right."
action." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528, 86 L.
claim of clearly established right." Id.
1385, 1997 WL 39076 (9th Cir. 1997); Blueford v.
Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 255 (9th Cir. 1997).
clearly established that a prohibition against "bulk mail"
prisoner must meet procedural due process requirements.
inmate without any notice to anyone was constitutional.
what would be an appropriate damage award.
damages and a reasonable award of attorney fees.
DATED this 25th day of August, 1997.
paralegal fees for a total judgment of $ 4,370.00. 2.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.