United States Tenth Circuit

In cases brought by inmate plaintiffs challenging constitutionality of their mail regulations under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, dismissal of the claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) although complaints may have been erroneously dismissed under applicable law, the dismissals could instead be construed as sua sponte summary judgment rulings; 2) summary judgment was proper as to a county jail's paperback book policy and its regulations banning inmate access to sexually explicit and technical publications; 3) however, summary judgment as to a catalog ban required a remand for evaluation under the applicable standard; and 4) summary judgment as to other defendants was proper.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/28/2007
• Published 10/01/2007

Judges

• O'BRIEN, Circuit Judge., Before TACHA, Chief Judge, McWILLIAMS and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Brian M. Barnhard (James L. Harris, Jr. with him on the briefs), Utah Legal Clinic, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Nicholas M. D'Alesandro, Deputy District Attorney (David E. Yocom, District Attorney for Salt Lake County, and John P. Soltis, Deputy District Attorney, with him on the brief) Office of the District Attorney for Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants-Appellees Salt Lake County, Kennard, Cunningham and Merrick., Brent A. Burnett, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, and Alain C. Balmanno, Assistant Attorney General, with him on the brief) Office of the Attorney General for the State of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants-Appellees Haun, Vanderveur, Galetka and Herman.