Harksen v. Pease

Fourth Circuit

Harksen v. Pease

282 F. App'x 292

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 2008

Docket05-6015

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 F. App'x 292 (Harksen v. Pease) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harksen v. Pease, 282 F. App'x 292 (4th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Robb M. Harksen appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) *293 motion. Harksen asserted, inter alia, that he was denied free or gift publications in violation of the First Amendment. The district court held that the prison regulation banning receipt of free or gift publications was constitutional. However, the case on which the district court relied to reach that conclusion was reversed on appeal. See Zimmerman v. Simmons, 260 F.Supp.2d 1077 (D.Kan.2003) (applying four-part test in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), and concluding that regulation banning receipt of gift publications was constitutional), rev’d sub nom. Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 420, 428-32 (10th Cir.2004) (finding genuine issues of material fact existed regarding behavior management and security rationales proffered by defendants in support of policy denying access to publications and to remaining Turner factors); see also Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 698-701 (9th Cir.2005) (applying Turner and holding that ban on nonsubscription bulk mail and catalogs requested by inmate was unconstitutional). Although we express no view on the merits, we conclude that it is appropriate to vacate the district court’s summary dismissal of Harksen’s First Amendment claims regarding receipt of free or gift publications. On remand the district court should consider the state’s justification for its regulation and resolve any factual issues relevant to the merits of Harksen’s claims.

With regard to Harksen’s remaining claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm those claims for the reasons stated by the district court. Harksen v. Braxton, No. 7:04-cv-00243 (W.D.Va. Nov. 9, 2004; Dec. 10, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Robb M. Harksen appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) *293 motion. Harksen asserted, inter alia, that he was denied free or gift publications in violation of the First Amendment. The district court held that the prison regulation banning receipt of free or gift publications was constitutional. However, the case on which the district court relied to reach that conclusion was reversed on appeal. See Zimmerman v. Simmons, 260 F.Supp.2d 1077 (D.Kan.2003) (applying four-part test in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), and concluding that regulation banning receipt of gift publications was constitutional), rev’d sub nom. Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 420, 428-32 (10th Cir.2004) (finding genuine issues of material fact existed regarding behavior management and security rationales proffered by defendants in support of policy denying access to publications and to remaining Turner factors); see also Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 698-701 (9th Cir.2005) (applying Turner and holding that ban on nonsubscription bulk mail and catalogs requested by inmate was unconstitutional). Although we express no view on the merits, we conclude that it is appropriate to vacate the district court’s summary dismissal of Harksen’s First Amendment claims regarding receipt of free or gift publications. On remand the district court should consider the state’s justification for its regulation and resolve any factual issues relevant to the merits of Harksen’s claims.

With regard to Harksen’s remaining claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm those claims for the reasons stated by the district court. Harksen v. Braxton, No. 7:04-cv-00243 (W.D.Va. Nov. 9, 2004; Dec. 10, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 F. App'x 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harksen-v-pease-ca4-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack