United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Magistrate
Judge Lincoln D. Almond filed a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) on September 1, 2016 (ECF No. 96)
recommending that the Court grant Defendants'
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 55). Plaintiff has
filed an Objection to that R&R. (ECF No.
99.[1])
After consideration of the R&R and Plaintiff's
Objection, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the
Court ACCEPTS the R&R and GRANTS Defendants'
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
In
addition to Plaintiff's Objection to the R&R, the
Court has before it the following outstanding matters related
to Plaintiff's claim:
• Plaintiff's Appeal of Magistrate Judge
Almond's May 10, 2016 Text Order Denying Plaintiff's
Motion to Defer Ruling on Defendants' Cross Motion for
Summary Judgment Until Discovery is Taken (ECF No. 70);
• Plaintiff's Appeal of Magistrate Judge
Almond's May 10, 2016 Text Order Denying his Motion to
Stay (ECF No. 71);
• Plaintiff's Appeal of Magistrate Judge
Almond's May 10, 2016 Text Order Denying Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File Objection to Text Order (ECF No.
72);
• Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Replies or
Otherwise Respond to Defendants Filings of Document Nos. 76,
77, 78, 79, 80, and 81 (ECF No. 90);
• Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF
No. 92).
These
Appeals and Motions are addressed below and are DENIED.
I.
Factual Background
The
R&R fully lays out the relevant facts and procedural
background of the case. In brief, Plaintiff is an inmate at
the Maximum Security Facility within the Adult Correctional
Institution (“ACI”). (R&R 3, ECF No. 96.) The
ACI denied Plaintiff access to a specific issue of a
mail-order publication entitled “Inmate Shopper for
Affluent Inmates.” (Id. at 4.) The issue was
reviewed by ACI personnel and found to be in violation of the
Inmate Mail Policy. (Id.) That Policy prohibits mail
that is “detrimental to the security, good order or
discipline of the facility, and/or if the effect of which
might hinder rehabilitation of an inmate, facilitate criminal
activity, or contribute to a hostile work environment.”
(Id. at 3.)
Plaintiff
alleges that the ACI's decision violated Plaintiff's
rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and brings
suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Complaint, ECF No.
1.) Plaintiff originally submitted a Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 44), but later withdrew that Motion.
(R&R 1, ECF No. 96.) Defendants submitted a Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 55), and Magistrate Judge
Almond recommends that the Cross-Motion be granted.
II.
Magistrate Judge Almond's Report and Recommendation and
Plaintiff's Objection
Plaintiff
argues that the ACI's decision to deny him a specific
issue of the “Inmate Shopper for Affluent
Inmates” violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
With regards to Plaintiff's First Amendment claim,
Magistrate Judge Almond correctly explained that the
“constitutional rights that prisoners possess are more
limited in scope than the constitutional rights held by
individuals in society at large. In the First Amendment
context, for instance, some rights are simply inconsistent
with the status of a prisoner or with the legitimate
penological objectives of the corrections system.”
(R&R 6, ECF No. 96 (quoting Shaw v. Murphy, 532
U.S. 223, 229 (2001) (internal quotations omitted).)
Moreover, “[b]ecause the problems of prisons in America
are complex and intractable, and because courts are
particularly ill equipped to deal with these problems . . .
the Supreme Court generally has deferred to the judgments of
prison officials in upholding these regulations against
constitutional challenge.” (Id. at 6-7
(quoting Almeida v. Wall, No. C.A. 08-184S, 2008 WL
5377924, ...