×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
WA Mail Policy Illegal
Timothy O'Keefe is a prisoner at the Washington State Penitentiary (WSP) at Walla Walla. In October, 1993, O'Keefe tried to mail six pieces of outgoing mail as legal mail. The letters were addressed to the prison warden; US Postal Inspector; State Higher Education Coordinating Board; Employment Security Dept. and a DOC official. WSP mailroom officials refused to mail the letters as legal mail and returned them to O'Keefe who refused to accept them. Prison officials sent three of the letters as regular mail, O'Keefe sent the remaining letters to the court as exhibits. Prison officials contended that the mail did not meet the definition of "Legal Mail" set forth in Department of Prisons (DOP) mail policy 590.500. O'Keefe filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that the actions of WSP staff and DOP policy 590.500 violated the US constitution.
District Court Judge Alan McDonald granted summary judgement in O'Keefe's favor. As the court notes, it is an issue of first impression for the ninth circuit of whether mail between prisoners and non-attorneys, i.e. government officials and agencies, is protected from being opened and read by prison officials. The court held they are. Agreeing with Faulkner v. McLocklin, 727 F. Supp 486 (ND IN 1989) the court found: "...that O'keefe's mail, when sent to government agencies or officials as a grievance, is protected by his first amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances... To permit prison officials to read prisoners' `grievance mail' would cause the same chilling of meritorious petitions as with officials' reading mail to attorneys or courts."
The court held that a reasonable alternative for prison officials is to open and inspect such "grievance mail" in the prisoner's presence, just as "legal mail" to attorneys and courts is treated. The court concluded "DOP policy of reading grievance mail unconstitutionally impinges on prisoners' federal right to petition the government for redress of grievances." The court held that Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 137-48-020(8), governing prisoner mail which includes mail to government agencies and officials in its definition of legal mail, does not create an independent liberty interest enforceable via §1983 because it merely defines the right.
The court held: "DOP Policy 450.100, to the extent it permits prison officials to read prisoners' grievances to government agencies or officials (or the agencies and officials' replies), violates prisoners' First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances." "DOP Policy 590.500, to the extent it permits prison officials to read prisoners' grievances to government agencies or officials (or the agencies and officials' replies), violates prisoners' First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances."
"Defendants are permanently enjoined from reading prisoners' grievances to government agencies or officials (or the agencies and official's replies." "Defendants are permanently enjoined from opening prisoners' grievances to government agencies or officials (or the agencies and officials replies), except in the presence of those prisoners." The court order is dated June 2, 1994. While issued by Judge McDonald in Spokane the ruling has statewide effect. As we write this we do not know if Judge McDonald will publish his ruling, given its precedent setting effect it is likely he will. We ask readers to keep us posted of unpublished decisions resulting in wins for prisoners. AAG Douglas Carr represented prison officials in this case. See: O'Keefe v. Murphy, Case No. CV-93-3122-AAM.
District Court Judge Alan McDonald granted summary judgement in O'Keefe's favor. As the court notes, it is an issue of first impression for the ninth circuit of whether mail between prisoners and non-attorneys, i.e. government officials and agencies, is protected from being opened and read by prison officials. The court held they are. Agreeing with Faulkner v. McLocklin, 727 F. Supp 486 (ND IN 1989) the court found: "...that O'keefe's mail, when sent to government agencies or officials as a grievance, is protected by his first amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances... To permit prison officials to read prisoners' `grievance mail' would cause the same chilling of meritorious petitions as with officials' reading mail to attorneys or courts."
The court held that a reasonable alternative for prison officials is to open and inspect such "grievance mail" in the prisoner's presence, just as "legal mail" to attorneys and courts is treated. The court concluded "DOP policy of reading grievance mail unconstitutionally impinges on prisoners' federal right to petition the government for redress of grievances." The court held that Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 137-48-020(8), governing prisoner mail which includes mail to government agencies and officials in its definition of legal mail, does not create an independent liberty interest enforceable via §1983 because it merely defines the right.
The court held: "DOP Policy 450.100, to the extent it permits prison officials to read prisoners' grievances to government agencies or officials (or the agencies and officials' replies), violates prisoners' First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances." "DOP Policy 590.500, to the extent it permits prison officials to read prisoners' grievances to government agencies or officials (or the agencies and officials' replies), violates prisoners' First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances."
"Defendants are permanently enjoined from reading prisoners' grievances to government agencies or officials (or the agencies and official's replies." "Defendants are permanently enjoined from opening prisoners' grievances to government agencies or officials (or the agencies and officials replies), except in the presence of those prisoners." The court order is dated June 2, 1994. While issued by Judge McDonald in Spokane the ruling has statewide effect. As we write this we do not know if Judge McDonald will publish his ruling, given its precedent setting effect it is likely he will. We ask readers to keep us posted of unpublished decisions resulting in wins for prisoners. AAG Douglas Carr represented prison officials in this case. See: O'Keefe v. Murphy, Case No. CV-93-3122-AAM.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
O'Keefe v. Murphy
| Year | 1993 |
|---|---|
| Cite | Case No. CV-93-3122-AAm |
| Level | District Court |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Injunction Status | Granted |