Opinion ID: 685664
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Telephone Calls to Attorneys

Text: 29 In Ching v. Lewis, 895 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir.1990), we held that policies will not be upheld if they unnecessarily abridge the defendant's meaningful access to his attorney and the courts, and that the opportunity to communicate privately with an attorney is an important part of that meaningful access. See also Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 419, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1814, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974) (Regulations and practices that unjustifiably obstruct the availability of professional representation ... are invalid.). Because an inmate's access to his attorney is inextricably tied to his meaningful access to the courts, 7 we reject Defendant's argument that to state a claim, Plaintiffs need to allege an actual instance in which their access to the courts has been impeded. 30 The district court correctly concluded that the restrictions on attorney telephone calls interfere with inmates' meaningful access to the courts. ADOC has not advanced any legitimate justification for its restrictions, such as the limitation of calls to issues related to a prisoner's sentence, the granting of calls according to institutional risk score as opposed to need, and the requirement that a prisoner divulge the nature of a call before it is granted.