Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/KS/jacklovich-v-simmons-10th-circuit-opinion-reversing-dismissal-of-pln-suit-kansas-doc-censorship-2004/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:33:31+00:00

Document:
Missouri, on behalf of Plaintiffs-Appellants.
OPINION: [*422] KELLY, Circuit Judge.
U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse.
inmate account. I R. (03-3229) Doc. 29, attach. 16 at 11.
or a vendor shall be accepted.
material, as described in K.A.R.
see also Kan. Admin. Regs. § 44-12-601(q) (Feb.
44-5-103 as authority for this policy. See I R.
approval. Kan. Admin. Regs. § 44-12-210.
approval. Kan. Admin. Regs. § 44-12-209.
the subscription. I R. (03-3229) Doc. 29, attach. 8.
Doc. 54, Ex. [*424] 24, attach. A to IMPP 11-101.
months for the purchase of one newspaper subscription.
of the $ 30.00 per pay period limit.
outgoing funds in order to do so.
I R. (03-3227) Doc. 54, Ex. 24.
R. (03-3230) Doc. 53, Ex. 20 at P 5. Kan. Admin. Regs.
contract or incur a financial obligation absent approval.
conformity with these policies [**7] are censored. Kan.
Admin. Regs. § 44-12-601(g)(2) & former Kan. Admin.
decision to a different prison official. Kan. Admin. Regs.
storage and fire concerns. Id.
and therefore is deemed abandoned.
its First Amendment right to communicate with inmates.
R. Doc. 1 at 8.
fees and other outstanding financial obligations.
Plaintiffs. See United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S.
matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
the prison. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822, 41 L.
reasonableness of the regulations and policies matters.
facts may be. As the Court stated in Procunier v.
(1974), overruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v.
arising in a federal or state institution.
their duty to protect constitutional rights.
Procunier, 416 U.S. at 405-06.
on Level I inmates obtaining publications altogether.
gift publications is to enforce the $ 30 monthly limit.
procedural decision not requiring notice to the publisher.
judgment. Zimmerman, 260 F. Supp. 2d at 1084-85.
The district court also relied upon Scott v.
Defendants have brought to our attention Rice v.
disputes. Rice does not control the outcome of this case.
inmates, but not constitutionally protected publications.
gift subscriptions. Zimmerman, 260 F. Supp. 2d at 1084.
either party at this point.
under the Turner factors is still appropriate. See Wares v.
a factor. See I R. (03-3229) Doc. 32, Ex. 3 at 10.
favorable to the Plaintiffs, assumed that it did not exist.
constitutionality of RLUIPA. See Hammons v.
Saffle, 348 F.3d 1250, 1258 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003).
Though stated many ways, the prevention of strongarming is the central concern of the security rationale.
Level I inmate who has been transferred to another state.
money for the other inmate's own benefit.
the facility canteen are limited to $ 30 per month. I R.
consumables, as opposed to magazine subscriptions. I R.
to the purchase of money orders.
P.3d 994, 1006 (Kan. 2004).
limited selections, as well as missing pages and titles.
Prison Legal News is not available. I R. (03-3229) Doc.
Doc. 29, attach. 16 at 11.
gift subscriptions to inmates that are not delivered. I R.
evidentiary basis for the claims made by either party.
Martinez, 416 U.S. at 414 n.14.
suggest an exaggerated response to a problem.
information. Aplt. Br. at 10.
withhold delivery or censor incoming prison mail.
was sufficient to protect PLN's due process rights.
person who originally disapproved the correspondence."
Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413-14, 104 L.
Amendment interest in access to prisoners." Id. at 408.
publications are rejected. See Prison Legal News v.
Montcalm Publ'g Co. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 109 (4th Cir.
by inmate-subscribers." 80 F.3d at 106. We agree.
an SPO associated with the publication.

References: § 1291
 § 44
 § 44
 § 44
 § 44
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.