Opinion
NO. 2013 CA 0979
02-10-2014
EMMETT TAYLOR v. JAMES LEBLANC, BURL CAIN & CINDY VANNOY
Emmett Taylor Louisiana State Penitentiary Angola, Louisiana Appellant/Pro Se Terri L. Cannon Legal Programs Department Louisiana State Penitentiary Angola, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellee, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
On Appeal from the
19th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
No. 610,419
Honorable Todd W. Hernandez, Judge Presiding
Emmett Taylor
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Angola, Louisiana
Appellant/Pro Se Terri L. Cannon
Legal Programs Department
Louisiana State Penitentiary
Angola, Louisiana
Attorney for Defendant/Appellee,
Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections
BEFORE: PARRO, GUIDRY, AND DRAKE, JJ.
DRAKE, J.
Appellant, Emmett Taylor, an inmate in the Louisiana State Penitentiary located in Angola, Louisiana, brings this appeal from the dismissal of his suit challenging the constitutionality of withholding certain sexually explicit publications that he ordered through the mail. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Taylor, a death row inmate, filed this suit claiming a deprivation of his constitutional rights when the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (Department) withheld two books, "Into Darkness" and "Possession," from him after each was deemed impermissible under Department Regulation C-02-009 because the material was sexually explicit. Taylor filed a grievance in accordance with Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure, La. R.S. 15:1171, et seq., complaining that he was unconstitutionally denied his rights to the two books he ordered. Department Regulation C-02-009 allowed refusal of printed material only if it interfered with "legitimate penological objectives, (including but not limited to deterrence of crime, rehabilitation of inmates, maintenance of internal/external security of an institution, or maintenance of an environment free of sexual harassment.)." The Department responded to Taylor's grievance by denying his request, stating that the two books contained explicit descriptions of sexual acts. Based on Department Regulation C-02-009, the Department found that "[p]ublications that depict nudity or sexually explicit conduct ... will not be allowed."
Taylor filed a request for an administrative review of the Department's decision, to which the Department responded, "[a]]lthough offenders retain limited constitutional rights while imprisoned, those rights must be analyzed in light of the Department's need to maintain and advance its legitimate interest. Department Regulation No. C-02-009 protects the interest of other offenders and staff because accommodation of sexually explicit materials could restrict the liberty and safety of both staff and inmates."
Taylor filed a Petition for Judicial Review with the district court claiming that the Department refused to honor a ruling issued previously by the same court, thereby committing discrimination against him and others in his position. The Department answered Taylor's suit and denied the allegations. Excerpts from each book were placed under seal in the district court suit record. The 19th Judicial District Court Commissioner (Commissioner) issued a ruling, pursuant to La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(9), denying Taylor's relief and dismissing his suit. The district court affirmed the ruling of the Commissioner after a de novo review of the record. It is from this judgment that Taylor appeals.
The office of commissioner of the 19th Judicial District Court was created by La. R.S. 13:711 to hear and recommend disposition of criminal and civil proceedings arising out of the incarceration of state prisoners. The commissioner's written findings and recommendations are submitted to a district court judge, who may accept, reject, or modify them. La. R.S. 13:713(C)(5); see Martinez v. Tanner, 2011-0692 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/9/11), 79 So. 3d 1082, 1084 n.3, writ denied, 11-2732 (La. 7/27/12), 93 So. 3d 597.
DISCUSSION
Louisiana Revised Statute 15:1177(A)(9) sets forth the appropriate standard of review by the district court, which functions as an appellate court when reviewing the Department's administrative decision through the Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure, La. R.S. 15:1171, et seq. A review is to be conducted by the trial court without a jury and must be confined to the record. La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(5). Specifically, the court may reverse or modify the administrative decision only if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings are: (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency, (3) made upon unlawful procedure, (4) affected by other error of law, (5) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion, or (6) manifestly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. La. R.S. 15:1177(A)(9); Lightfoot v. Stalder, 00-1120 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/22/01), 808 So. 2d 710, 715-16, writ denied, 01-2295 (La. 8/30/02), 823 So. 2d 957.
On review of the district court's judgment under La. R.S. 15:1177, no deference is owed by the court of appeal to the factual findings or legal conclusions of the district court, just as no deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to factual findings or legal conclusions of the court of appeal. McCoy v. Stalder, 99-1747 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/22/00), 770 So. 2d 447, 450-51.
At issue in the instant case is Department Regulation C-02-009 regarding inmate mail and publications, promulgated in the Louisiana Administrative Code, Title 22, Part I, Section 313, which provided at the time of the denial, in part:
3. PURPOSE: To establish the Secretary's policy regarding inmate mail privileges, including publications, at all adult institutions.Department Regulation C-02-09
* * *
6. DEFINITIONS:
* * *
F. Publication: Book, booklet, pamphlet, or similar document, or a single issue of a magazine, periodical, newsletter, newspaper, magazine/ newspaper clipping, article printed from the internet, plus other materials addressed to a specific inmate such as advertising brochures, flyers, and catalogs.
G. Sexually Explicit Material: Any book, pamphlet, magazine, or printed matter however reproduced, which contains any picture, photograph, drawing or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body which depicts nudity, sexual conduct, sadomasochistic abuse, bestiality and homosexuality. Explicit sexual material also includes that which contains detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of
deviant sexually behavior. (A publication will not be prohibited solely because it contains pictorial nudity that has a medical, educational or anthropological purpose.)7. POLICY: It is the Secretary's policy that inmates may communicate with persons or organizations subject to the limitations necessary to protect legitimate penological objectives, (including but not limited to deterrence of crime, rehabilitation of inmates, maintenance of internal/external security of an institution, or maintenance of an environment free of sexual harassment), to prevent the commission of a crime, or to protect the interests of crime victims.
H. Sexually Explicit Features: The publication contains depictions of nudity or sexually explicit conduct on a routine or regular basis or promotes itself based upon such depictions in the case of individual one-time issues. A publication will not be prohibited solely because it contains pictorial nudity that has a medical, educational or anthropological purpose.
8. INMATE CORRESPONDENCE:
Inmates may write and receive letters subject to the following provisions:
* * *
F. Incoming General Correspondence:
1. Review, Inspection, and Rejection: ... All incoming general correspondence may be rejected if such review discloses correspondence or material(s) which would reasonably jeopardize legitimate penological interests, including, but not limited to, material(s) which contain or concern:Incoming general correspondence containing any of the foregoing may be restricted, confiscated, returned to the sender, retained for further investigation, referred for disciplinary proceedings or forwarded to law enforcement officials.
* * *
h. Sexually explicit material;
At the district court, Taylor alleged that the Department discriminated against him by denying him access to the type of books that other inmates had received by court orders. He also claimed that material in the written form did not interfere with a legitimate penological interest, drawing a distinction between written material and printed pictures or illustrations. The Commissioner noted that Taylor was essentially claiming that his First Amendment rights to read what he wanted were being violated.
The Supreme Court has stated that a prisoner retains "those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system." Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2804, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974). The Supreme Court has determined that courts must scrutinize prison regulations under a reasonableness standard. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 1881, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989). "When a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2261, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). Although imprisonment does not automatically deprive a prisoner of certain important constitutional protections, including those of the First Amendment, the constitution sometimes permits greater restriction of such rights in a prison than it would allow elsewhere. Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528, 126 S.Ct. 2572, 2577-78, 165 L.Ed.2d 697 (2006). Substantial deference must be accorded to the professional judgment of prison administrators, who bear a significant responsibility for defining the legitimate goals of a corrections system and for determining the most appropriate means to accomplish them. Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132, 123 S.Ct. 2162, 2167, 156 L.Ed.2d 162 (2003). Turner reconciles these principles by holding that restrictive prison regulations are permissible if they are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and are not an exaggerated response to such objectives. Beard, 548 U.S. at 528, 126 S.Ct. at 2578.
To determine the reasonableness of a regulation, Turner requires a court to consider four factors. The first factor is whether the regulation has a valid, rational connection to the legitimate governmental interest invoked to justify it. Turner, 482 U.S. at 89, 107 S.Ct. at 2262. Taylor argues that since he is on death row, he is in his cell for twenty-three hours a day, thereby giving him little or no opportunity to distribute the materials to other inmates. The Department cited, at both the administrative level and the district court, legitimate penological objectives, which included, maintaining order, deterrence of crime, maintaining internal/external security of an institution, maintaining an environment free of sexual harassment, and providing the opportunity for rehabilitation of inmates. The Department also noted that Department Regulation C-02-009 "protects the interest of other offenders and staff because accommodation of sexually explicit materials could restrict the liberty and safety of both staff and inmates."
The Department asserted that once sexually explicit materials enter into the institution, other inmates may engage in behaviors in order to be placed in lockdown areas where the materials are known to be. Furthermore, it would be impossible for the prison officials to control who viewed sexually explicit material once those materials entered the institution. The Department noted that these materials can jeopardize the security and good order of the prison and cause an increase in incidents involving sexual molestation and other forms of sexual harassment of inmates and staff. The Department also contended that access to sexually explicit materials, which can portray individuals in dehumanizing and submissive roles, can lead to disrespect for female or male officers, which can endanger the lives of the staff and other inmates. The Department further asserted that death row inmates do have access to other inmates and prison staff members, including, but not limited to, maintenance personnel, medical personnel, and religious personnel. Therefore, the potential for the staff to be sexually harassed is present, even from death row inmates.
The Department has determined, as expressed in Department Regulation C-02-009, the following:
It is well established in corrections that sexually explicit material causes operational concerns. It poses a threat to the security, good order and discipline of the institution and can facilitate criminal activity. Examples of the types of behavior that result from sexually explicit material include non-consensual sex, sexual molestation of other inmates or staff, masturbation or exposing themselves in front of staff and inappropriate touching or writing to staff or other forms of sexual harassment of staff and/or inmates.
Accordingly, given the deference afforded to the professional judgment of prison administrators, we find that the Department has put forth a valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it.
The second factor of Turner is whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates. Turner 482 U.S. at 90, 107 S.Ct. at 2262. Department Regulation C-02-009 does not preclude Taylor's having access to all reading material. He is still entitled to exercise his First Amendment rights and receive other publications. As evidenced by the record and Department Regulation C-02-009, inmates can receive sexually explicit material if it has a medical, educational, or anthropological purpose. Furthermore, Taylor has not asserted that he was denied alternative publications, only two specific books.
The third factor of Turner is the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and the allocation of prison resources generally in the prison environment. Turner, 482 U.S. at 90, 107 S.Ct. at 2262. We agree with the Department that the introduction of sexually explicit material into the prison population would have a "ripple effect" as there would be an inability to control who viewed the material. The threat to staff and other inmates of sex offenses and sexual harassment is a sufficient threat to warrant the restrictions in Department Regulation C-02-009.
Furthermore, the Department has also asserted that the introduction of sexually explicit material would strain the scarce prison resources by adding to the challenges faced by staff by their having to contend with sexual harassment by the inmate population. Sexually explicit material could lead to stimulated inmates who become disrespectful or agitated, resulting in bodily fluids being thrown on the staff or other inmates. The Department correctly asserts that it would suffer an increase in costs to control this type of harassment.
Under the fourth Turner factor, if an inmate can point to an alternative that fully accommodates the inmate's rights at de minimus cost to valid penological interests, a court may consider that as evidence that the regulation does not satisfy the reasonable relationship standard. Turner, 482 U.S. at 90-91, 107 S.Ct. at 2262. Taylor has not identified any alternatives that accommodate his rights, and therefore, he has not satisfied this element.
As noted by the Commissioner, both of the books at issue "represent collections of fantasy and numerous detailed scenes which are often sexually explicit, violent and oppressive in nature." We agree with the Commissioner that "[i]t is logical to assume that the confiscation of the books was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests in light of Department Regulation C-02-009 and substantial deference should be given to the decision of the prison administrators to confiscate these books." Therefore, we find no error or abuse of discretion in the Department's determination that the two books at issue violate Department Regulation C-02-009 and were properly denied to Taylor.
Taylor also makes an equal protection challenge, contending that he was subjected to disparate treatment by the prison authorities, because other inmates were allowed to receive sexually explicit written material. The Department points out that all of the other cases referred to by Taylor resulted from court orders, not from the decisions of the Department. Taylor does not allege that other inmates would have been allowed to receive the two books that he ordered. His complaint does not contain any assertion that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment because he was treated differently due to some personal or class characteristic, such as race or religion, or other improper motive.
Taylor's equal protection argument is without merit. The Department stated legitimate and neutral objectives of preserving prison security in its decision to deny Taylor the books he ordered. Prison authorities have a certain degree of discretion, and absent any allegation of an improper motive, a claim of inconsistent outcomes in an individual instance is no basis for relief. See Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 417 n.15, 109 S.Ct. at 1883 n.15.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court did not err in finding that the Department's decision was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor manifestly erroneous, nor was it in violation of Taylor's constitutional or statutory rights, and for those reasons, we dismiss Taylor's appeal All costs of this appeal are assessed to Emmett Taylor.
AFFIRMED.