Boone v. Oliveros

Background

James Leshawn Boone, a prisoner housed at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, filed this self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint while allowing him to amend it. Boone then filed an amended complaint, which the court reviewed under the prisoner-screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Boone alleged that several pieces of mail were opened and taped closed before being delivered to him: mail from the Fresno County Superior Court on July 24, 2017; mail from the Attorney General’s office on September 23, 2017; mail from the Fresno County Superior Court on September 25, 2017; and mail from the Attorney General’s office on November 6 and November 13, 2017. He described the mail as legal mail. The opinion identifies Tanya Flores as the mailroom staff member who processed the incoming mail, Elda Oliveros as the mailroom supervisor, and C. Koenig as a supervisor.

Legal Standard

For a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by someone acting under state authority. Prisoners have a First Amendment right to send and receive mail, but prison officials may open and inspect incoming and outgoing mail under rules reasonably related to legitimate prison interests.

The court distinguished legal mail from nonlegal mail. Mail to or from a prisoner’s attorney is legal mail and must be opened in the prisoner’s presence. Mail from courts and public officials, however, is nonlegal mail. Prison officials may open and inspect that mail without the prisoner being present, and doing so does not violate the federal Constitution. The court also noted that state prison regulations may provide greater protections, but violating those state regulations alone does not establish a federal constitutional claim under Section 1983.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that all of the mail Boone identified came from California courts or the California Attorney General’s office. Under the authorities discussed in the opinion, that mail was nonlegal mail rather than legal mail. It therefore was not constitutionally impermissible for prison officials to open and inspect it outside Boone’s presence.

The court concluded that Boone’s amended complaint did not allege a constitutional violation and failed to state a claim for relief. It denied further leave to amend, finding that amendment would be futile because the court had already explained the pleading deficiencies and Boone had not corrected them.

Disposition

Judge Edward M. Chen dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk was ordered to close the file.