Rizzi v. Blount

305 F. Supp. 634, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10060
CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 10, 1969
DocketNo. 69-64-R
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 305 F. Supp. 634 (Rizzi v. Blount) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rizzi v. Blount, 305 F. Supp. 634, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10060 (C.D. Cal. 1969).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge, and CARR and REAL, District Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Postmaster General of the United States and the Postmaster of the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that 39 U.S.C. § 4006,1 on its face, and as construed and applied to plaintiff, violates rights guaranteed to the plaintiff by the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments of the United States Constitution. A three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284 to hear plaintiff’s application for an injunction to restrain enforcement of the statute.

The statute authorizes the Postmaster General, after an administrative hearing, to decide whether mailed matter is obscene and further authorizes the Postmaster General to impose a mail block against the sender of such matter following the Postmaster General’s determination that the matter is obscene. The burden of seeking judicial review of the Postmaster General’s decision is placed on the person against whom the mail block has been imposed.

The statute is unconstitutional on its face, because it fails to meet the requirements of Freedman v. Maryland (1965) 380 U.S. 51, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649. (Cf. Lamont v. Postmaster Gener[636]*636al (1965) 381 U.S. 301, 85 S.Ct. 1493, 14 L.Ed.2d 398.) We have no occasion to consider the remaining contentions of the parties, and we do not pass upon the nature of the materials claimed to be the subject of the administrative hearing.

Counsel for plaintiff is directed to prepare proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment, pursuant to Local Rule 7 of this court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

Related

Blount v. Rizzi
400 U.S. 410 (Supreme Court, 1971)
United States v. The Book Bin
306 F. Supp. 1023 (N.D. Georgia, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
305 F. Supp. 634, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rizzi-v-blount-cacd-1969.