NEITHER WIND, NOR RAIN, NOR SLEET, NOR HAIL . . . BUT WATCH OUT FOR A TEMPORARY CHANGE OF ADDRESS!
 

The post office adage that nothing can stop the U.S. mail took a new turn recently when the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a ruling requiring jail officials to transfer inmate legal mail when an inmate is temporarily housed in another facility. Simkins v. Bruce, 406 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2005).

There have been a number of rulings in federal courts in the last couple of years relating to mail operations including challenges under the First Amendment by inmates about the type of mail they can receive and procedures implemented by prisons and jails for mail delivery. The Tenth Circuit jumped on that bandwagon by issuing a decision in May regarding an inmates right to receive legal mail even when the inmate has been transferred temporarily to another facility.

Plaintiff, Willie Simpkins, was housed in a jail in Colorado but transferred to another facility for court related proceedings. The transfer lasted approximately one year. During that time, Willie Simpkins mail was not forwarded to him, including legal mail. (Legal mail is typically marked as such and treated differently than regular mail in institutions for purposes of privacy.) During the period of the transfer, Simpkins did not receive critical documentation from a court on a pending civil rights case. Accordingly, he missed a window of time to respond to a dispositive motion in his case, resulting in the case being dismissed.

The Court looked at an inmates right of access to the courts and ultimately determined that the jail policy of holding the mail until the plaintiff returned from another temporary location was an immediate and obvious impediment to the inmates access to the court. The deliberate delay in delivering the inmates legal mail was considered an intentional act and satisfied the requirement for intent in a right-of-access claim. Since the inmate was away from the facility for nearly one year, and because his underlying federal civil rights case was dismissed because he failed to respond, rather than due to a substantive finding, the Court found that his right of access was unfairly limited, resulting in actual harm to him.

The holding may have been different if the delay in question was less in time, for example, a couple of weeks. In addition, if the Court in the underlying civil rights case had reviewed the merits of the case and dismissed the case on the issues, rather than dismissed it for the simple fact of plaintiffs failure to respond, the finding is likely to have been different. Finally, if there was some practice by the jail of notifying the Court of the change of the inmates address, the result would have been different.

This decision reinforces the importance of handling legal mail in a manner which ensures inmates are not denied access to the Courts. The United States Post Office is probably smiling!

Any questions regarding this decision or other jail related matters may be directed to (mailto:mjones@mdbbe.com) Marie Milie Jones, Esquire, (http://www.mdbbe.com/) Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C., U.S. Steel Tower, Suite 4850, 600 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: (412) 261-6600, Fax: (412) 471-2754.