Court Opinion

ID: 9687090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:15:49.923287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:24.197539
License: Public Domain

SUNDRY, J.
(concurring).
The interest of prisoners and their correspondents in uncensored communication by letter, grounded as it is in the First Amendment, is plainly a "liberty" interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment even though qualified of necessity by the circumstance of imprisonment. As such, it is protected from arbitrary governmental invasion.
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417-18 (1974), overruled in part, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989). Yoder does not claim that the administrative code provisions — Wis. Adm. Code secs. DOC 309.05 (Inmate mail) and DOC 309.06 (Publications) — -violate his first amendment right of free speech. He claims that the institution's implementation of those regulations violates his right to due process because the *766decision of the institution to censor or withhold delivery of his letter in this case was not accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards. I conclude that Yoder failed to make use of the procedural safeguards available to him and waived his right to complain that his due process rights were violated. I therefore concur in the court's mandate, but not its opinion.
In Procunier, the Court said:
The District Court required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of a letter written by or addressed to him, that the author of that letter be given a reasonable opportunity to protest that decision, and that complaints be referred to a prison official other than the person who originally disapproved the correspondence. These requirements do not appear to be unduly burdensome....
416 U.S. at 418-19. The department has implemented Wis. Adm. Code secs. DOC 309.05 and DOC 309.06 by a form titled "Notice of Non-Delivery of Mail." The form includes the name of the intended receiver, the sender, the date postmarked and the item rejected. The form also includes boxes which may be checked to show the reason(s) for non-delivery. Ihe statement following each box describes that provision of Wis. Adm. Code sec. DOC 309.05 or DOC 309.06 allegedly violated.
In this case, Captain Palmeri checked the box which reads: "Item concerns an activity which, if completed, would violate the laws of Wisconsin, the United States or the administrative rules of the Division of Corrections." This reason for non-delivery is based upon Wis. Adm. Code sec. DOC 309.05(6)(c)5, which provides that incoming and outgoing mail shall not be delivered if it: "Concerns activity that, if completed, would violate the laws of Wisconsin or the United *767States or the administrative rules of the department of corrections_"
Yoder claims that the form violates his right to due process under the fourteenth amendment because the mere restatement of the reason for non-delivery of his letter in terms of the rule does not sufficiently advise him of the reason for non-delivery of his letter. He claims that he must guess as to what part of his letter the officer considered to concern an activity which would violate the laws or administrative regulations.
I agree that Yoder is entitled to be advised of the reason for non-delivery of his letter. I also believe that the form used by the department to advise the sender and intended receiver of the reason for non-delivery of a letter does not adequately explain the officer's reasons in this case. There are items enumerated as reasons for non-delivery which are so self-evident that no further explanation is necessary. For example, one reason is that the "item is in code." That reason needs no farther explanation.
However, I agree with Yoder that in this case, merely checking the box on the form did not adequately inform him and the intended receiver of the reason for non-delivery of Yoder's letter. But due process, as defined by the Court in Procunier, does not require that the decision to censor or withhold delivery of a particular letter must be fully explained in the notice of nondelivery. In Procunier, the Court held that notice of the rejection of a letter accompanied by a reasonable opportunity to protest the non-delivery was sufficient to satisfy the fourteenth amendment.
Under the institution's procedures, both the sender and intended receiver have an opportunity to appeal the non-delivery. Form DOC-243, which Yoder claims is unconstitutional, includes notice to the *768sender and the intended receiver that: "If you dispute this decision, you have the right to appeal to the superintendent by submission of a written complaint."
If such an appeal is taken, I believe that the "minimum procedural safeguards" required under Procunier include an explanation by the superintendent (or equivalent officer) as to the offensive material which caused the institution to reject delivery of the inmate's letter. I believe that the fourteenth amendment requires that the superintendent file an "answer" in response to the sender's or intended receiver's written complaint. Due process does not require a formal hearing. However, I believe that due process does require that after the superintendent has "answered" the sender's or intended receiver's written complaint, the sender or intended receiver be given an opportunity to voice his or her reasons why the decision should be reversed.
Yoder did not file a written complaint with the superintendent. However, the intended recipient, Wayne Taylor, filed a written complaint with the director of the institution on July 23, 1991. The director responded in a memorandum as follows:
Upon your request of July 23, 1991, I have reviewed the correspondence in question and the reasons for the non [-] delivery of mail.
After careful and impartial review, I must support Capt. Palmeri's decision to not deliver the letter for reasons stated.
I do not consider this response to adequately satisfy Procunier's command that the decision not to withhold delivery of Yoder's letter be "accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards."
However, Yoder lacks standing to complain that the director's response to Taylor's complaint was inade*769quate. By not filing a written complaint, Yoder waived his right to insist that he be sufficiently advised of the reasons for non-delivery of his letter and given an opportunity to respond to those reasons. See Wengerd v. Rinehart, 114 Wis. 2d 575, 587, 338 N.W.2d 861, 868 (Ct. App. 1983) ("Due process objections can be waived _"). Because Yoder waived his right to the minimum procedural safeguards required by Procunier, I concur in the court's mandate. However, I do not join in the court's opinion.