Case law · Highest court · Federal

Procunier v. Martinez

Decided
April 29, 1974
Docket
72-1465
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 2,649 timesOverruled in part (verified)Overruled in part by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) (verified: Constitution Annotated, Library of Congress) · Thornburgh v. Abbott

What later courts said

  • recognizing that federal courts will discharge their duty to protect constitutional rights when prison regulations or practices offend fundamental constitutional guarantees — Fortner v. Thomas (1993)
  • holding that a prison's decision to censor or withhold delivery of a particular letter—incoming or outgoing—must be accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards — Jones v. Caruso (2009)
  • holding that the "decision to censor or withhold delivery of a particular letter must be accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards" — Prison Legal News v. Cook (2001)

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

[*398] Mr. Justice Powell delivered- the opinion of the ' Court.

This case concerns the constitutionality of certain regulations promulgated by appellant Procunier in his. capacity as Director of the California Department of Corrections. Appellees brought a class action on behalf of themselves and. all other inmates of penal institutions under the Department’s jurisdiction to challenge the rules relating to censorship of prisoner mail and the ban against the use of law' student's and legal paraprofessionals to conduct attorney-client, interviews with inmates. Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281 a three-judge United States District Court was convened to hear appellees’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief. That court entered summary judgment enjoining continued enforcement of the rules in question and ordering appellants to submit new regulations for the court’s approval. 354 F. Supp. 1092 (ND Cal. 1973). Appellants’ first revisions resulted in counterproposals by appellees.and a court order issued May 30, 1973, requiring further modification of the proposed rules. The second set of revised regulations was approved by the District Court on July 20, 1973, over appellees’ objections. While the first proposed revisions of the Department’s regulations were pending before the District Court, appellants brought this appeal to contest that court’s decision holding the original regulations unconstitutional.

We noted probable jurisdiction. 412 U. S. 948 (1973). We affirm.

Statutes cited

  • 28 U.S.C. § 2281

Cite this

Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974)

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.