University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Muhammad v. Pitcher PC-MI-0012
Docket / Court 91-76489 ( E.D. Mich. )
State/Territory Michigan
Case Type(s) Prison Conditions
Case Summary
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Standish Correctional Facility in Michigan brought a Section 1983 suit pro se in the Eastern District of Michigan against the Michigan Department of Corrections challenging its policy of treating mail from the State Attorney General's Office as regular mail rather than ... read more >
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Standish Correctional Facility in Michigan brought a Section 1983 suit pro se in the Eastern District of Michigan against the Michigan Department of Corrections challenging its policy of treating mail from the State Attorney General's Office as regular mail rather than confidential legal correspondence. Represented by private counsel, he requested damages, an injunction, and a declaratory judgment.

On September 17, 1991, in accordance with a Michigan Department of Corrections policy directive, plaintiff requested in writing that prison staff open his legal mail only in his presence. On October 9, 1991, a mail room staff opened mail addressed to Plaintiff that was clearly marked as having come from the State Attorney General's office. That letter did not actually contain any confidential correspondence. Defendants opened the letter pursuant to a February 7, 1991 Department of Corrections memorandum stating that mail to inmates from the Attorney General's Office need not be treated as legal mail, and thus need not be treated as confidential. The memorandum explained that there is no requirement of confidentiality in correspondence with that office, or any prosecutor, because they represent the state. Plaintiff's suit complained that this policy violated his constitutional rights. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The district court (Judge Avern Cohn) for the Eastern District of Michigan granted partial summary judgment to defendants on the issue of availability of damages. The court granted partial summary judgment awarding declaratory relief to the plaintiff ruling that the opening of such mail outside of Plaintiff's presence was unconstitutional. Defendants appealed that decision.

On appeal, the defendants raised two arguments, both of which the Sixth Circuit (Judge Nathan R. Jones) found unpersuasive. Muhammad v. Pitcher, 35 F.3d 1081 (6th Cir. 1994). First, they contended that plaintiff had no cognizeable interest in maintaining confidentiality regarding mail from the State Attorney General's Office as that office represents the prison and is adverse to the inmates. The Sixth Circuit rejected this argument, and noted, as had plaintiff and the lower court, that the Attorney General's Office frequently provides legal assistance to prisoners. The court also found defendants' argument that mail from the inmate to the Attorney General's Office may be confidential, but mail from the Attorney General to the inmate was not meritless as a matter of common sense, authority from other circuits, and in comparison to the Federal Bureau of Prisons guidelines.

Defendant's second contention was that because the piece of mail that was opened was not confidential, plaintiff suffered no actual prejudice. The Sixth Circuit noted that such an argument overlooks the chilling effect that policy would have on inmates' First Amendment Rights, and said that the actual content of the letter opened is not relevant in the determination of the constitutionality of the practice. The court held that the chilling effect amounted to present injury by creating a roadblock to the redress of legal problems and that the policy was prejudicial because, it would to confidential and non-confidential correspondence alike.

The Sixth Circuit then applied the four-factor Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), test to determine if the regulation was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Based on that analysis, the court concluded that the regulation regarding mail from the Attorney General's Office was not related to any legitimate penological concern, and therefore was unconstitutional, thus affirming the district court.

Judge Siler dissented, stating that the plaintiff had not shown a constitutional violations and moreover, that the issue was not ripe, as the prison officials did not actually read any confidential correspondence from the Attorney General to the Plaintiff. He argued that the regulation was related to the reasonable penological interest of preventing contraband from entering the prison, and therefore was reasonable.

The docket for this case obtained from PACER indicates that on October 6, 1994, plaintiff amended his application for attorneys fees and costs. After briefing, Judge Avern Cohn granted plaintiff's application and entered a judgment of $9,956.70 against defendants.

Sherrie Waldrup - 09/07/2005


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
General
Mail
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Defendant(s) Michigan DOC
Plaintiff Description Inmate alleging correctional facility treated inmate mail from State Attorney General's Office as ordinary mail, rather than as legal mail
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration 1991 - 1994
Case Closing Year 1994
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders
N.Y.U. Law Review
By: Margo Schlanger (Washington University)
Citation: 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 550 (2006)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons
By: Malcolm M. Feeley & Edward Rubin (UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law & Vanderbilt School of Law Faculty)
Citation: (1998)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
91-76489 (E.D. Mich.) 11/03/1994
PC-MI-0012-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Reported Opinion 09/21/1994 (35 F.3d 1081)
PC-MI-0012-0001 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Judges Cohn, Avern Levin (E.D. Mich.)
PC-MI-0012-9000
Jones, Nathaniel Raphael (Sixth Circuit)
PC-MI-0012-0001
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Manville, Daniel E. (Michigan)
PC-MI-0012-0001 | PC-MI-0012-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Isom, Deborah K. (Michigan)
PC-MI-0012-9000
Norton, Terry L. (Michigan)
PC-MI-0012-9000
Olivieri, Linda M. (Michigan)
PC-MI-0012-0001
Sugierski, Chester S. Jr. (Michigan)
PC-MI-0012-0001 | PC-MI-0012-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -