The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a mixed ruling in a long-running dispute between the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) and officials at Washington’s Coyote Ridge Corrections Center over the censorship and delayed delivery of legal materials sent to inmates. While the court shielded prison officials from paying damages related to broad policy challenges, it reversed key decisions regarding significant mail delivery delays and the denial of injunctive relief, sending parts of the case back to the lower court.
The case centers on two 2018 policies implemented by the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC). Policy One banned inmates from possessing general case law documents unless approved by a superintendent, and Policy Two prohibited legal materials containing information about other Washington state inmates. HRDC challenged these rules, arguing they violated the First Amendment rights of both the publisher and the incarcerated recipients.
Damages Shielded by Qualified Immunity for Policy Challenges
The appellate panel affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the prison officials—Superintendent Jeffery Uttecht and Mailroom Sergeant John Turner—when HRDC sought monetary damages for the initial enforcement of these policies.
The court determined that the officials were protected by qualified immunity. This legal doctrine shields government employees from civil damages unless their actions violated “clearly established” constitutional rights. The Ninth Circuit found that while the foundational Supreme Court cases (like *Turner v. Safley*) govern prison mail censorship, there was no precedent clearly establishing that the DOC’s specific policies—especially Policy Two, which restricted information about other inmates—were unconstitutional in this context.
Even though a DOC correctional manager had noted internally that there was “really no penological reason” to ban most case law, the court concluded this single opinion was insufficient to alert every reasonable official that enforcing the policy was unlawful.
Reversal on Mail Delivery Delays: No Immunity for Stalling Approved Mail
However, the court saw things differently when it came to the delays that occurred *after* the DOC’s central authority stepped in.
Coyote Ridge officials initially rejected HRDC’s publication, *The Habeas Citebook*, citing the DOC policies. HRDC appealed this decision to the DOC’s Publication Review Committee (PRC), which ultimately overturned the local mailroom’s rejection, ruling that the book did *not* violate policy.
Despite this official approval, the mailroom at Coyote Ridge significantly delayed delivering the book to inmates—in some instances by as long as 493 days, with some inmates never receiving it before release.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity on this point. Judge Forrest, writing for the panel, stated that once the PRC determined the publication was permissible, the penological justification for withholding it vanished. The court held that the right against such prolonged, unjustified delays was “clearly established.” The judges noted that while they recognize prisons need time for security inspections, a delay of many months, with no stated security reason after central approval, crosses the line. Therefore, Sgt. Turner could face individual liability for these delays.
Policy Two Challenge Sent Back for Reassessment
The court also reversed the denial of injunctive relief concerning the enforcement of Policy Two (banning mail mentioning other Washington inmates).
The district court had applied a lenient standard (*Mauro* test), accepting the prison’s stated penological interest—preventing inmate-on-inmate harm via “paper checking”—without requiring the officials to prove the policy actually achieved that goal.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that HRDC presented enough evidence to trigger the stricter *Walker* test. HRDC pointed to evidence suggesting the ban was ineffective or irrational, noting that inmates could access the same information via prison law libraries (like LexisNexis) or through news media, undercutting the idea that mail restrictions significantly reduced safety risks. Because the district court failed to require prison officials to demonstrate that Policy Two advanced their asserted safety interests, the case was remanded for a proper assessment of whether an injunction should be issued against enforcing Policy Two.
Fourteenth Amendment Notice Claim: Damages Blocked, Injunction Pending
Finally, HRDC claimed a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation because Sgt. Turner failed to notify HRDC that the PRC had reversed the censorship decision, despite DOC policy requiring notification within ten business days.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed qualified immunity for the officials regarding *damages* on this claim, concluding that the right to receive notice of a *favorable* reversal decision was not “clearly established” under existing Supreme Court precedent (*Procunier v. Martinez*).
However, the court reversed the denial of injunctive relief on this point. HRDC sought an order requiring officials to provide timely notice to publishers of PRC decisions. The court remanded this issue, instructing the district court to analyze whether requiring Coyote Ridge officials to implement a notification system for publishers would be “unduly burdensome,” as required under due process analysis.
In summary, the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the officials’ protection from liability for damages stemming from the initial policy application but opened the door for liability and injunctions related to the severe delivery delays after the publication was approved, and for future requirements regarding notification procedures.