Opinion ID: 171541
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Process Outgoing Mail

Text: Mr. Brown alleged interference with his outgoing mail, and pointed to two written requests addressed to the Kansas appellate courts for assistance in filing a disciplinary complaint against his attorney, which he alleges were not sent out. 7 The district court correctly rejected “the access-to-court aspect of this claim because [Mr. Brown] had not made a showing of prejudice required by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996).” Wardell v. Duncan, 470 F.3d 954 (10th Cir. 2006). However, the district court erred when it failed to consider whether Mr. Brown’s allegations could state a First Amendment claim for a violation of his freedom of speech. This Court has held that it is clearly established law that “[a] refusal to process any mail from a prisoner impermissibly interferes with the [sender’s] First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights.” Treff v. Galetka, 74 F.3d 191, 195 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 408 (1974)). Therefore, Mr. Brown’s allegations clearly state a claim of a violation of a constitutional right. We note the district court’s concern that Mr. Brown’s allegations were 7 The district court considered the allegation relating to the two specific letters sent to the Kansas appellate courts even though it was included in a supplemental filing to Mr. Brown’s amended complaint, as opposed to in the amended complaint itself. It is appropriate, therefore, to treat these allegations as a constructive amendment of Mr. Brown’s amended complaint. Cf. Green Country Food Mkt., Inc. v. Bottling Group, LLC, 371 F.3d 1275, 1280 (10th Cir. 2004) (“[A] complaint may be impliedly amended under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 15(b) if an issue has been tried with the express or implied consent of the parties and not over objection.”) -7- “insufficient for reasonable finders of fact to conclude that plaintiff’s mail was not in fact sent out of the facility” because Mr. Brown’s only factual allegation supporting his claim is that “he received no response to two recent requests to the Kansas appellate courts for assistance in filing a disciplinary complaint against his attorney.” While Mr. Brown might not be able to prevail on summary judgment on this claim based solely on the fact that he never received a response to his letters, see Treff, 74 F.3d at 195-96, his factual allegation that the jail was not processing his mail is sufficient to state a claim for relief.