Opinion ID: 443261
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutionality of postage regulations

Text: 8 In granting the state's motion for summary judgment, the district court correctly found that the prohibition against the receipt and use of postal stamps was constitutional. Although recognizing that this case was not a censorship case, the district court looked to Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974). In Procunier, the Supreme Court held that when implementation of a prison policy affects first amendment rights, a court must determine whether or not the policy furthers an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to suppression of expression[,] such as an interest in prison security, and that the limitation    must be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved. Id. at 413, 94 S.Ct. at 1811. We agree with the district court that the challenged policy advanced the interest of penal security and order in prohibiting contraband trading, and that the intrusion was minimal and no greater than was necessary. 9 In addition, we find that the district court did not err in concluding that the state need not provide postage for indigents' nonlegal mail. Although appellant asserts that he is not requesting unlimited postage but only reasonable postage for personal mail, the district court noted that the state does provide indigent inmates with limited postage assistance through the chaplains' fund. As appellee points out, more restrictive mail policies have been found constitutional. See Jensen v. Klecker, 648 F.2d 1179, 1183 (8th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (inmates have no right to unlimited free access to mails); Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 359 (10th Cir.1978) (states not required to pay postage on all legal mail; [r]easonable regulations are necessary to balance the rights of prisoners with budgetary considerations). 10 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.