Hamilton v. Department of Corrections

Full title: George HAMILTON, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 30, 2002

43 F. App'x 107 (9th Cir. 2002)

Opinion

43 Fed.Appx. 107 (9th Cir. 2002) George HAMILTON, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant, and Cal A. Terhune, Defendant--Appellee. No. 01-17147. D.C. No. CV-98-05755-AWI(SMS). United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. July 30, 2002

Submitted July 22, 2002 ^*.

* This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Hamilton's request for oral argument is denied.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding.

Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

George Hamilton, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was deprived of his First Amendment right to correspond confidentially with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, O'Keefe v. Van Boening, 82 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir.1996), and affirm. We may affirm on any grounds finding support in the record. Kling v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 225 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th Cir.2000).

Although Hamilton may have a right to correspond confidentially with an FBI agent under California law, see Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3141(a) & (c)(2) (inmates may correspond confidentially with federal officials appointed by the President of the United States, and their staff members), no such federal constitutional right exists, O'Keefe, 82 F.3d at 325-27 (noting that a prison need not treat all mail sent to government agencies and officials as legal mail).

Moreover, restrictions on confidential mail are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); O'Keefe, 82 F.3d at 326 ("Regulating correspondence between prisoners and government agencies can serve to prevent criminal activity and maintain prison security.")

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.