Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Paiva v. Wall

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island

January 4, 2017

RICHARD LEE PAIVA, Plaintiff,
v.
ASHBEL T. WALL, JAMES WEEDEN, and LYNDA AUL, Defendants.

          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, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.