Opinion ID: 768124
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Overcharging for Telephone Use

Text: 21 Johnson alleges that Respondents conspired with telephone companies to overcharge inmates in exchange for kickbacks. He claims that a comparison of phone bills reveals that phone calls plaintiff made to [friends and family members] cost them . . . more than a non-incarcerated person who made a call from the same area where plaintiff is incarcerated. As a result of the overcharging, he claims that his mother's phone service was canceled and she now has a mandatory block on the phone preventing her from making calls to the prison. 22 Although prisoners have a First Amendment right to telephone access, this right is subject to reasonable limitations arising from the legitimate penological and administrative interests of the prison system. See Strandberg v. City of Helena, 791 F.2d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 1986). There is no authority for the proposition that prisoners are entitled to a specific rate for their telephone calls and the complaint alleges no facts from which one could conclude that the rate charged is so exorbitant as to deprive prisoners of phone access altogether. Instead, Johnson admits in the complaint that his mother lost phone service in large measure because of a failure to pay the charges for high frequency use, not just rates for prison calls. Moreover, Johnson's conspiracy allegations are quintessentially vague and conclusory. The district court properly dismissed this aspect of the complaint with prejudice.