Nordstrom v. Ryan, No. 16-15277 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a death row inmate, appealed the dismissal of his claims that the ADC policy and practice of inspecting inmates' outgoing legal mail violates his Sixth and First Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit reversed and held that ADC's current inspection policy does not satisfy the standard articulated in Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 906 (9th Cir. 2014) (Nordstrom I). The panel explained that the standard was not satisfied because the policy calls for page-by-page content review of inmates' confidential outgoing legal mail. The policy also does not satisfy the four-part test identified in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89–91 (1987), because ADC did not produce evidence of a threat to prison security sufficient to justify its policy, and because feasible, readily available alternatives were apparent.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by an Arizona state prisoner alleging that the Arizona Department of Correction’s policy and practice of inspecting inmates’ outgoing legal mail violated the Sixth and First Amendment, and remanded. The panel held that Arizona’s current “inspection” policy did not satisfy the standard articulated in Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 906 (9th Cir. 2014) because the policy called for page-by-page content review of inmates’ confidential outgoing legal mail. Further, the policy did not satisfy the four-part test identified in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89–91 (1987), because Arizona did not produce evidence of a threat to prison security sufficient to justify its policy, and because feasible, readily available alternatives were apparent.
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.