AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and
Detention Facilities
Computers, E-Mail, Internet Issues
California prison
ban on mail containing printed-out downloads from the Internet violated
the First Amendment. Clement v. California Department of Corrections, #03-15006,
2004 U.S. App. Lexis 7576 (9th Cir.). [2004 JB Jun]
Federal court strikes down as unconstitutional
Arizona statute prohibiting prisoners from communicating with Internet
websites through the mails or otherwise or receiving mail from them. Court
finds that prohibition is not reasonably related to a legitimate penological
purpose and that other statutes and policies already prohibit communication
involving fraud, harassment of victims, communication with minors, and
other purported purposes of the ban on communication with Internet service
providers. Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty v. Ryan, 269 F.
Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Ariz. 2003). [2003 JB Nov]
293:67 California prison rule prohibiting
the receipt, through U.S. mail, of Internet generated material, including
e-mail, was rationally related to prison's legitimate security concerns;
appeals court overturns order allowing prisoner to receive printouts of
e-mails sent to his internet web page, created via an arrangement with
an outside company. Collins, In Re, 86 Cal. App. 4th 1176, 104 Cal. Rptr.
2d 108 (2001).
267:35 West Virginia Supreme Court upholds
state policy barring prison inmates from possessing computers in their
cells; prior practice allowing such possession did not create any vested
right to continue to possess them, and deprivation of computer possession
did not result in denial of meaningful access to the courts. West Virginia,
State of, Ex Rel. Anstey v. Davis, 509 S.E.2d 579 (W. Va. 1998).
231:35 Federal appeals court rules that inmate/prison
law librarian, allowed computer in his cell by prison officials, had a
right to aid mentally retarded inmate in preparing legal documents; prison
employees not entitled to qualified immunity for seizing legal documents
from law librarian's cell and disciplining him for possessing them. Newell
v. Sauser, 64 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir. 1995).
218:23 Federal trial judge, hoping to make
the "message" clear to prisoner who filed multiple frivolous
lawsuits, confiscates any computer, word processor or typewriter prisoner
has, imposes $5,000 monetary sanction (to be collected by attachment of
prisoner's commissary funds and future prison earnings), and orders that
prisoner state, on the outside of each envelope of outgoing mail, that
he has been "enjoined from asserting fraudulent personal injury claims."
Williams v. Revlon Co., 156 F.R.D. 39 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
Prisoner's rights were not violated by prison's
confiscation of unauthorized computer disks on which he had placed legal
materials pertaining to his appeal; prisoner was not allowed to possess
the disks or use prison computers, so prison authorities properly confiscated
the disks. Bryant v. Muth, 994 F.2d 1082 (4th Cir. 1993).
Warden's decision to deprive prisoner of
his television set and personal computer because of refusal to sign an
"individual performance plan" agreeing to keep himself and cell
clean did not violate prisoner's rights. Jensen v. Powers, 472 N.W.2d 223
(N.D. 1991).
Michigan prisoners had a protected property
interest in possessing computers in their cells, but were not entitled
to a hearing on denial of that interest. Spruyette v. Dept. of Corrections,
459 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. App. 1990).