Gene Taylor, Plaintiff--appellant, v. R. Michael Cody; Phil Gilstrap, Defendants--appellees, 89 F.3d 851 (10th Cir. 1996)

Mr. Taylor, an inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Mr. Taylor contends that prison officials violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by refusing to deliver white supremacist literature to him. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Wolf v. Prudential Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 793, 796 (10th Cir. 1996). Prisons may regulate incoming literature to prisoners if such regulations are "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413 (1989) (quoting Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). The district court held that the regulations in question were valid both facially and as applied. Considering the violent and hateful content of the literature, the court found that Defendant's refusal to allow Plaintiff access to the literature was reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest, namely the maintenance of a safe and orderly prison. We agree.

As to Mr. Taylor's claim of due process violation, the availability of procedures for appealing the decision to withhold his mail satisfies due process. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417-19 (1974), partially overruled on other grounds, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989).