Legal Document

434 U.S. 555 98 Supreme Court Reporter 855 55 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 24 Raymond K. PROCUNIER et al., Petitioners,v.Apolinar NAVARETTE, Jr. Number 76-446. Argued Oct. 11, 1977. Decided Feb. 22, 1978. Syllabus Respondent state prisoner brought an action pursuant to 42 Code KF62 § 1983 against petitioner prison officials, alleging, inter alia, negligent interference with respondent's outgoing mail in violation of his constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The District granted summary judgment for petitioners on this claim basis their asserted qualified immunity from liability damages 1983. Appeals reversed, holding that prisoners are entitled Amendment protection mail, question stated a cause 1983, was improper because, viewing evidence light most favorable respondent, were not prevail as matter law. Held: erred reversing Court's petitioners. Pp. 560-566. (a) Petitioners, unless they "knew or reasonably should have known" took respect would violate federal rights, "malicious intention" deprivation other injury respondent. Wood versus Strickland, 420 308, 322, 95 992, 1000, 43 214. 561-562. (b) There no established right protecting prisoners' privileges at time question, therefore, law, there rejecting defense ground knew known alleged conduct violated right. 562-565. (c) Neither petitioners' be overruled standard authorizing where defendant official has acted deprive plaintiff him "other injury," since charged conduct, intentional injury. 566. 536 Federal Reporter, 2nd 277, reversed. Sanford Svetcov, San Francisco, Cal., Michael E. Adams, Jose, Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 Navarette, inmate Soledad Prison California when events revealed here occurred, filed second amended complaint January 19, 1974, charging six officials various types allegedly violative §§ 1985.1 Three defendants subordinate Soledad;2 three supervisory officials: director State Department Corrections warden assistant Soledad. first nine claims relief wrongful Navarette's mail. officers, who charge handling, had failed items correspondence during 15 months respondent incarcerated Soledad, September 1, 1971, December 1972. These items, described 13 numbered paragraphs, included letters legal assistance groups, law students, news media, inmates prisons, well personal friends. Some these been returned some refused send by registered Navarette requested, and, it alleged, none ever reached intended recipient. This "interference" "confiscation" "knowing disregard" applicable statewide regulations3 "constitutional rights," including free speech due process guaranteed First, Fifth, Amendments Constitution. officers knowingly condoned conspired subordinates forbidden ends. 2 failure same "interference confiscation" conducted "bad faith rights. third posed failures but claimed occurred because "negligently inadvertently" misapplied regulations "negligent[ly]" provide sufficient training direction subordinates, all assertedly 3 Petitioners moved dismissal which could alternatively judgment. Affidavits support motion counter-affidavits opposing also before By order without opinion, court then dismissed remaining claim.4 4 reversed claims. Nav rette Enomoto, 277 (CA9 1976). It held, first, themselves allegations encompass proof entitle damages. Second, ruled two issues fact tried, particularly "a reasonable good belief her is lawful, even not, constitutes complete damages." Id., 280. Third, held "allegations negligently deprived [his constitutional] action" purported "improper case counts one two, we unable say appellees law." 282, n. 6.5 5 We certiorari, 429 1060, 97 783, 50 776, us whether correctly alleging right.6 6 In thei judgment, argued record immune hence shared absolute accorded judges prosecutors those involved Scheuer Rhodes, 416 232, 94 1683, 40 90 (1974), 214 (1975). appeared agree degree nevertheless court's view resolved facts viewed favorably Without disagreeing enjoyed defends proper application cases construing it. 7 Although recognized enacting Congress must expose circumstances, section consistently construed intending wholesale revocation common-law afforded government officials. Legislators, judges, absolutely Tenney Brandhove, 341 367, 71 L.Ed. 1019 (1951); Pierson Ray, 386 547, 87 1213, 18 288 (1967); Imbler Pachtman, 424 409, 96 984, 47 128 (1976). Only available Governor, president university, members National Guard. supra. true local school board members, supra; superintendent hospital, O'Connor Donaldson, 422 563, 2486, 45 396 (1975); policemen, see supra, U.S., 418-419, S.Ct., 989. 8 suit rely only supra.7 declared: 9 "[I]n varying scope, executive branch government, variation being dependent upon scope discretion responsibilities office circumstances sought based. existence grounds formed coupled good-faith belief, affords acts performed course conduct." 247-248, 1692. 10 further "if work schools go forward," so "public understand taken fulfillm nt within bounds reason will punished need exercise undue timidity." 321, 1000. unavailable, however, if he sphere responsibility student affected, malicious intention student." 1001. cannot expected predict future ibid.; 557, 1219, shielded "with such disregard [plaintiff's] clearly characterized faith." 11 Under part Strickland rule, unavailing infringed them challenged right, norm. 1971 1972 place mailing about known. essential agreement 12 ruling encroached relied its own decisions, 1973 Martinez Procunier, 354 F.Supp. 1092 (ND Cal.), three-judge said agreement. earlier opinions, Court, affirming did addressees prisoner's interfered Procunier Martinez, 396, 1800, 224 (1974). himself left open. referred "tension between traditional policy judicial restraint regarding complaints protect rights" "led courts adopt variety widely inconsistent approaches problem" challenges censorship "absence any generally accepted testing constitutionality . ." 406, 407, 1808. Courts maintained "hands off posture";8 others extended degrees mail.9 relevant pronouncements Ninth Circuit than review; apparent one, maintaining challenged.10 relies Hyland 311 749 Rptr. (West’s) 1970); Gilmore Lynch, 319 105 1970), aff'd sub nom. Younger Gilmore, 404 15, 92 250, 30 142 (1971); Northern Nelson, 315 687 Payne Whitmore, 325 1191 1971); Brenneman Madigan, 343 1972). But deals convicted furnishes adequate claiming "clearly established" case.11 14 Whether evaluated reference opinions Appeals, 1971-1972.12 As Because aware yet declared, act "cannot 322,13 standard, authorize rule speaks "intentional contemplating actor intends consequences conduct. See Restatement (Second) Torts 8A (1965). concerned here, charges normally implies although subjected unreasonable risk, intend harm resulted. id., 282 Comment d. Claims bad-faith rights; 3, below understood parties treated it, limited negligence. inadvertent personnel training. To extent intent denying immunity, consideration implicated negligence now us.14 16 accordingly conclude correct entering otherwise. 17 Reversed. Chief BURGER, dissenting. 19 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions dissent departs our practice considering certiorari questions "fairly comprised therein." Rule 23(1)(c). agreed consider question: "Whether certain states 1983?" decides different count complaint. That "comprised" consider. Nor "well-recognized exception" practice. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Incorporated University Foundation, 402 313, 320 6, 91 1434, 28 788 R. Stern Gressman, Practice 6.37, Page 298 (4th ed. 1969). 20 judgmen petitioners, confiscated regulations. meaning allegation means clear. may allege nature intentionally Or apart understanding regulations, mistaken nature. appears adopted latter interpretation entirely pertinent "committed negligently." Having decided acts, addressed issue can give rise liability. purposeful actionable 1983" "that rights] state[s] action." 21 language nor legislative history indicates remedies acts. 22 hold does exhibit deliberate indifference risk causing gives liable remand construe ambiguous determine misapplication action. 23 STEVENS, Today's decision, strongly every assert damage doctrine developed, careful limit holdings specific officials,1 insist considered inquiry into common precondition recognition official.2 limits abandoned. explanation judging mental hospital officials; today purports apply system correction officers.3 25 quarrel extension agents. A public servant conscientiously doing job best ability rarely, ever, exposed makes potential defendants, especially important contours affirmative explained care precision. Unfortunately, believe today's significantly changes overlooks critical importance carefully examining factual each asserted. 26 developed sketchily. accept version true.4 remanded trial. tell prevented corresponding friends, problems expertise. deliberately guards regarded troublesome "writ-writer" mishandled simply careless performing duties. 27 establish defense, except affidavit stating made effort comply while handling mail.5 assertion. According position, despite contrary confiscate don't feel necessary." Record 78. writ-writing activities led authorities punish taking away librarian seizing With state, faith. heart manner carried out job.6 pu lic regular duty sincerely believed acting responsibility. 1691-1692, 90. kind adequately vary case. policymaking responsibility, showing abided institution's long-followed practices. Other whose given greater deference courts, correspondingly implications 29 214, pointed instances might forfeit deviating performance job. An carry duties properly chooses knows, know, unconstitutional. Similarly, steps outside role uses powers inflict individual reasons unrelated duty.7 Selective enforcement able defeat defendants' He therefore assume, responsibilities. If carelessly disregarded standards superiors directed follow, make threshold necessary depends resolution conflict statements affidavit. 31 fare better attention examples bad set actual malice—the injury—cannot faith; benefit misuses singling special unfair injuries.8 case, malice plaintiff's claims, assume proved. eviden e show punishment mislaid letters. jury find animus toward tainted denied caused qualifying previous teaching regard ill totally irrelevant 32 noted successfully rebut based defendant's goodfaith demonstrating knew, known, unconstitutionally. think concluding Amendment's applicability inmate's interfering routine foreclose argument neglect right—the access courts. well-established assistance.9 Cutting communications students groups While lower echelon employees obligation read advance sheets, least protection.10 Certainly knowledge communicate answered after, rather before, Cf. 576-577, 2494; Donaldson O'Connor, 519 59 (CA5 1975). 33 sum, am persuaded unwisely reaching decide merits heard completely possibility disprove pleaded properly.11 34 Accordingly, respectfully decision presented way question. Section provides: "Every person who, color statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, usage, Territory, subjects, causes subjected, citizen jurisdiction thereof privileges, immunities secured Constitution laws, shall party injured equity, proceeding redress." 1985 proscribes conspiracies civil named correctional counselors member staff incoming unnamed Does through IV. Regulations promulgated 5, 1970, permitted persons approved list plus special-purpose authorized. Director's ("D.") 2403. Except permission institutional head, prohibited. D. 2402(13). advised: "You receive pertain criminal activity; lewd, obscene, defamatory; contain gossip discussion inmates; otherwise inappropriate." 2402(8). assured confidentiality stated: "Nothing rules you your attorney, having over matters legitimate concern you." 2402(10). controlled until August 10, 1972, effect posted. Subsequent expanded 4, termination visitation program participated removal post librarian. 7, 8, realleged substance theory vicarious All conspiracy 1985. 4th, 5th, 6th "[t]he denial behalf impermissible courts." F.2d, Since related express below. affirmed (claims 9) predicated 282. raised here. petition were: "1. 1983? "2. student-inmate Civil Rights Act either courts? "3. refusal 1971-1972 prior expression?" Our granting Question 1. submissions merits, deal subsuming occurrence analysis Appeals' reversal complaint, treat subsidiary comprised" presented. 23.1(c). event, power precise terms 1438, (1971). jail administrators discretionary functions monetary g., Knell Bensinger, 522 720 (CA7 1975); Hoitt Vitek, 497 598, 601 (CA1 1974); Dewell Lawson, 489 877 (CA10 Anderson Nosser, 438 183 1971), modified rehearing, 456 835 (1972); Bryan Jones, 530 1210 (CA5), cert. denied, 865, 174, 145 1808, citing McCloskey Maryland, 337 72 (CA4 1964); Lee Tahash, 352 970 (CA8 1965); Krupnick Crouse, 366 851 1966); Pope Daggett, 350 296 1965). 406-407, citing, Sostre McGinnis, 442 178, 199 (CA2 197 ) (censorship "in rational constitutionally acceptable concept system"); Jackson Godwin, 400 529 1968) supported compelling interest); Wilkinson Skinner, 462 670, 672-673 1972) (requiring "clear present danger"). jurisdictional statement "the vast majority reported restrictions character examination inherent incidents penal institutions," "widely diverging views propriety intervention internal regulation," Jurisdictional Statement O.T. 1973, 72-1465, 9. enjoined requiring parolee obtain speeches gatherings. discuss prisoners. Lynch limiting materials mutual assistance. rested Nelson upheld newspaper "necessary effective Muslim religion." F.Supp., 688. Whitmore inmates' newspapers magazines. "prison bear relationship valid goals, infringe require proportionately stronger justification." 1193. contained concerning type reasonable. Toward end period, May Madigan [p]re-trial detainees correspondence. recognized, "[p]re-trial do stand footing inmates." 142. lawyers, r spondent foreclosed asserting infringement prejudice phase Order 9, C-72-1954 SW Cal.). Points Authorities Against Motion Dismiss connection April 17, purport courts," "[i]n Dismiss, February, insofar 171. thus occasion address assumption protected inquire proscription. disposition grounds, submissions: afford remedy Thus, 1001, "Therefore, context discipline, (Emphasis added.) 421, 990, 128, "As above, decisions products fiat branches differently amenable Rather, historically interests behind it." Perhaps reason, Whirl Kern, Cir., 407 781, 791-792 1969), consult gauge th jailer's immunity. 990; 318, 999. Instead, seems unarticulated notion deserve much Governors, administrators, policemen. Ante, 561, 7. elides distinction ministerial tasks. 247, 1691, One joined "was mail." clear, wholly chores, bagging delivering allowing favor, suggests For purposes applies Like deciding, guard misreads improperly interferes neither answer states: "Insofar handled, approved, dealt Apolinar actions times force Director institution. At maliciously interfere conspire act, regulations." principle turned fashioning more rules. example, goal allow jobs faithfully fear: "[H]owever worded, fulfillment Referring 577, 2494, "Under 'knew [Donaldson], [Donaldson].' [420 U.S.], 1001." both expressly injury." Access mails 1941, Ex parte Hull, 312 546, 61 640, 85 1034, refuse inartful pleadings Johnson Avery, 393 483, 89 747, 718, that, absence alternative sources assistance, allowed "writ-writers." 490, 751. 142, summarily ordering heed abandon making difficult get help writ-writers. 105, 112 Cal.1970). students: "Johnson Avery stands general proposition involves corollary preparing communication court. Given fail how countervailing interest appearing, prevent seeking bona fide attorneys working organization Liberties Union." Nolan Scafati, 430 548, 551 1970) (footnote omitted). longer liability, ante, 565, 12, surely attempt prove vio ation license normal pleading requirements perhaps illustrated grant Corrections, shows, advised counsel unconstitutionally enforced, advice instructed uniquely bothersome writ-writer. Even remote approved. Judge Aldrich put "even andabata holds field someone comes forward him." Mack Cape Elizabeth School Bd., 553 720, 722 1977).

Classification Label: 1