Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/OR/prison-legal-news-v-cook-ninth-circuit-opinion-reversing-dismissal-oregon-doc-censorship-2001/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:35:16+00:00

Document:
238 F.3d 1145; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 1729; 29 Media L. Rep. 1641; 2001 Cal.
States District Court for the District of Oregon. D.C. No.
Department"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1291 and reverse and remand.
organization mail. The following facts are undisputed.
Salem, Oregon, for the defendants-appellees.
security concerns; and bulk mail increases fire hazards.
non-profit organizations and given to charities.
returned to the Postal Service.
average, 7000 to 8000 pounds of incoming mail a month.
writes the inmate's housing assignment on the envelope.
of any rejection based on written or pictorial content.
gives to first class and periodicals mail, detailed above.
mailed as "Bulk Mail" and were insufficiently addressed.
mailed under special rates fixed by the Postal Service.
circulates newsletters addressing prison-related issues.
mail, priority mail, first class mail or periodicals mail.
posted using first class or periodicals mail rates.
in compliance with Oregon prison regulations.
newsletter since January of 1999.
judgment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.
impermissibly infringes on their First Amendment rights.
Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 129, 53 L. Ed. 2d 629, 97 S.
Ct. 2532 (1977) (quoting Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S.
817, 822, 41 L. Ed. 2d 495, 94 S. Ct. 2800 (1974)).
64, 107 S. Ct. 2254 (1987).
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447, 99 S. Ct.
to send materials to prisoners. See Thornburgh, 490 U.S.
incoming inmate mail regardless of the sender's identity).
addressed and mailed at the standard rate.
When the inmate presents sufficient . . .
and a prison regulation, Walker [v.
188 F.3d at 1060 (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90).
Department's interest in rendering efficient cell searches.
are processed at some Department institutions daily.
processing subscription non-profit mail would impose.
would help control volume. See Or. Admin. R. 291-1310025(1); Or. Admin. R. 291-131-0035.
F. Supp. 1356, 1362 (E.D. Wash. 1997).
objective, we do not consider the other Turner factors.
Rather, we are required to reverse. n7 See id.
presented to us in the briefs.
Officials are entitled to qualified immunity. We disagree.
regarding qualified immunity [**20] in a § 1983 action.
have believed the conduct was lawful. Robinson v.
Solano County, 218 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2000).
(1987), the law in this case was not "clearly established."
subscription bulk rate mail. See id. at 167. In Miniken v.
organization mail such as Publisher's newsletter. 978 F.

References: § 1291
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v.

 v.