Williams v. Hansen, No. 15-2236 (7th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Williams, serving a 65‐year prison sentence for murder at the Pontiac Illinois maximum‐security prison, ordered the death certificate of the woman whom he murdered. Staff confiscated the certificate (which had arrived from the county clerk's office with an unsigned note: “There is a place in hell waiting for you, as you must know you will reap what you have sowed!” The stated reason for confiscation was “it posed a threat to the safety and security of the institution and would negatively impact Inmate Williams’ rehabilitation.” The district court dismissed a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, reasoning that confiscating the certificate had decreased the risk that inmates would retaliate against “boasting inmates” like Williams, and had protected the victim’s family from being identified. The Seventh Circuit affirmed as to defendants not involved in the confiscation, but otherwise reversed. The right of an inmate to read the mail he receives, provided that his reading it would not infringe legitimate interests, is clearly established. The prison must present “some evidence” to show that the restriction is justified. A prison has a legitimate safety concern about “boasting inmates” carrying around trophies, but Williams asserted that he needed the death certificate for use in state post‐conviction proceedings; the defendants presented no contrary evidence.

Download PDF

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 15 2236 KEVIN A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. SHARON HANSEN, et al., Defendants Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 13 C 1187 — Michael M. Mihm, Judge. ____________________ SUBMITTED AUGUST 18, 2016 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 ____________________ Before POSNER, EASTERBROOK, and SYKES, Circuit Judges. POSNER, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff, Kevin Williams, who is serving a 65 year prison sentence for murder and for con cealing the murder and is incarcerated at Pontiac Correc tional Center, an Illinois maximum security state prison, or dered a death certificate from the county clerk’s office—the death certificate of the woman, Traci Todd, whom he’d murdered. Members of the prison’s staff confiscated the cer tificate (which had arrived at the prison accompanied by an 2 No. 15 2236 unsigned note that read: “There is a place in hell waiting for you [i.e., Williams] as you must know you will reap what you have sowed!” (the accompanying note was also confis cated, although there is no indication that Williams wants it). The reason given for confiscating the certificate was that “Williams could not have the death certificate because it posed a threat to the safety and security of the institution and would negatively impact Inmate Williams’ rehabilita tion.” The confiscation precipitated this suit by Williams under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the staff members involved in the confiscation, as well as against the prison warden at the time and the director of the state prison system. Williams con tends that by confiscating the certificate without even giving him a chance to read it, the defendants had infringed the First Amendment. The judge dismissed some of the defend ants at the outset of the case; their dismissal was justified be cause they hadn’t been involved in the decision to confiscate the certificate. Summary judgment for defendant Hansen was justified on the same ground. The judge granted sum mary judgment for the other defendants on a different ground: that their confiscating the certificate had decreased the risk that inmates would retaliate against “boasting in mates” like Williams, and also had protected Todd’s family because the death certificate might include information iden tifying members of the family. Although “prisoners have protected First Amendment interests in both sending and receiving mail,” Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 782 (7th Cir. 1999), a prison can confiscate an inmate’s mail if confiscation “is reasonably related to legiti mate penological interests.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 No. 15 2236 3 (1987). But the prison must present “some evidence to show that the restriction is justified.” King v. Federal Bureau of Pris ons, 415 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir. 2005); see also Brown v. Phil lips, 801 F.3d 849, 854 (7th Cir. 2015). The defendants’ brief argues that the “place in hell” note that accompanied the cer tificate threatened violence against Williams; yes, but vio lence in hell, not in the prison; no prison official suggested that the note portended violence in the prison. Again with out any supporting statement by a prison official, the de fendants argue that Williams could use the death certificate as a “trophy,” which would increase tension within the pris on and decrease his chances for rehabilitation. A prison does have a legitimate safety concern about “boasting inmates” carrying around trophies of their victims. But Williams as serted in his deposition and affidavit that he had ordered the death certificate for use in state post conviction proceedings rather than to save as a trophy of his crime, and the defend ants have presented no contrary evidence to support their assumption that Williams wanted a trophy. And the prison could have avoided this controversy in the first place by holding on to the death certificate except for the short time needed to include it (or indeed just a xerox copy of it) in Wil liams’s court filing. The remaining defendants argue however that even if Williams has stated a claim for relief, they are insulated from liability because the right that he asserts was not clearly es tablished when they violated it. Ashcroft v. Al Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011). Wrong. The right of a prison inmate to read the mail he receives, provided that his reading it would not infringe the prison’s legitimate interests, is, as noted above, clearly established. 4 No. 15 2236 The judgment of the district court is affirmed with regard to the dismissal of the defendants not involved in the confis cation of the death certificate, but is otherwise reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.