Opinion ID: 3030119
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mail which otherwise complies with DOC Pol-

Text: icy 450.100 Mail for Offenders and has been PRISON LEGAL NEWS v. LEHMAN 1291 stamped “approved third-party legal materials” by correctional staff. Id. at 1161 (citations omitted). PLN sued the DOC under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that these regulations violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court held that the DOC’s policies regarding non subscription bulk mail and catalogs violated PLN’s First Amendment rights, id. at 1159, but that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity for their decisions. Id. at 1163. The district court further concluded that summary judgment was not appropriate for the claim regarding third-party legal material, because “resolution of these issues requires highly fact-dependent inquiries that . . . are not amenable to summary determination.” Id. at 1162. Furthermore, the district court limited its finding of qualified immunity to the issues resolved on summary judgment, and expressed no opinion regarding whether the officials will be entitled to qualified immunity if PLN should ultimately prevail on its claim regarding third-party legal materials. Id. at 1163 n.14.