Court Opinion

ID: 9484109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:40:49.012534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:01.500296
License: Public Domain

*308COFFEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The plaintiff, Miguel Castillo, alleged an ongoing activity of mail tampering by the Cook County Department of Corrections in his complaint based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff claims that he received three separate letters containing legal correspondence that had been opened outside his presence. Based on the scant record, it appears that only one of these letters was clearly marked as legal mail. Furthermore, the record reveals that on at least one occasion a letter was opened by a machine on a day when the mail load was quite heavy. Thus, no matter how generously one views the complaint, the plaintiff has alleged nothing but three instances of unintentional and isolated negligence. Negligence alone will not support a § 1983 claim. Averhart v. Shuler, 652 F.Supp. 1504, 1508 (N.D.Ind.), aff'd, 834 F.2d 173 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1073, 108 S.Ct. 1045, 98 L.Ed.2d 1008 (1988).
To maintain a § 1983 claim, in addition to a constitutional violation, the plaintiff must demonstrate injury such as denial of meaningful access to the courts. See Martin v. Tyson, 845 F.2d 1451, 1456 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 863, 109 S.Ct. 162, 102 L.Ed.2d 133 (1988). I fail to understand how the inadvertent opening of three letters, only one of which was clearly marked legal mail, violated any constitutional right or constituted an injury. See Martin v. Brewer, 830 F.2d 76, 78 (7th Cir.1987). The accidental opening of three letters amounts to nothing more than a relatively short term, noncontent-based interruption in the delivery of mail. See Sizemore v. Williford, 829 F.2d 608, 610 (7th Cir.1987); Moreover, I am unable to discover why we must appoint counsel for a defendant who has not requested it, and in particular when the record before us falls far short of revealing that he “has presented a colorable claim.” Slip op. at 6. A more prudent approach would be to direct the plaintiff to amend his complaint. After amendment, if the complaint still fails to state a claim, it should be dismissed.
Finally, it is incumbent upon me to remind the court that the operation of the prisons is not a judicial function. “[T]he federal courts should defer to the judgment of the legislative bodies and prison authorities who are responsible for the day-to-day administration of prison facilities_” Smith v. Shettle, 946 F.2d 1250, 1258 (7th Cir.1991) (Coffey, J., concurring); see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547-48, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1878-79, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (“Prison administrators therefore should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.”).