Opinion ID: 3030119
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: otherwise complies with DOC Policy 450.100

Text: Mail for Offenders and has been stamped “approved third-party legal materials” by correctional staff. The district court correctly held that the DOC regulation prohibiting mail that could create a risk of violence and physical harm to any person is constitutional on its face. PLN II, 272 1302 PRISON LEGAL NEWS v. LEHMAN F. Supp. 2d at 1162. The question presented in this case is whether the prison officials applied this rule in a fashion that is unconstitutional. Because we must, for purposes of this appeal, accept the facts as laid out by PLN, we cannot determine on this record whether the prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity. PLN contends that the DOC’s policy was applied by the prison officials in a manner that singled out PLN for discriminatory treatment, while allowing other publishers to deliver similar material. PLN challenges the DOC’s refusal to deliver more than one hundred specific legal documents. [12] PLN suggests that the real motive of the prison officials who prevented third-party legal materials from being delivered was to suppress materials that embarrass the DOC and educate inmates on how to file their claims. Although an improper motive ordinarily will not defeat a request for qualified immunity, see Crawford-El, 523 U.S. at 588, if the policy were applied in a discriminatory fashion based on the content of the material, this would clearly violate PLN’s First Amendment rights. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. at 90 (restrictions on free speech must operate without regard to the content of the restricted material). Accordingly, we hold that the prison officials are not entitled to qualified immunity regarding PLN’s claim that they violated its constitutional rights in banning the receipt of the third-party legal materials.