inmates from receiving out of state newspapers is unconstitutional.
It is well established that prison authorities have a wide range of discretion in the promulgation and enforcement of rules to govern the prison community in order to maintain order, discipline and security therein. United States ex rel. Wagner v. Ragen, 213 F.2d 294 (7th Cir. 1954), cert. denied 348 U.S. 846, 75 S. Ct. 68, 99 L. Ed. 667 (1954). Generally, the federal courts will not interfere with the internal administration of state prisons except in those extreme instances of institutional treatment of "such character or consequences as to shock general conscience or to be intolerable in fundamental fairness." Lee v. Tahash, 352 F.2d 970, 972 (8th Cir. 1965).
Unless the regulation in question here is so unreasonable as to fit into this extreme exception it must stand. Defendant argues that the reason for the rule is one of censorship and handling. It is maintained that the limited prison staff cannot possibly censor and handle the influx of newspapers from all over the country. Accordingly, inmates are limited to receiving the relatively small number of available Pennsylvania newspapers. It is not the function of this Court to determine the wisdom of this regulation nor the above policy behind it. It is sufficient to hold that the restriction of incoming correspondence for reasons of censorship and handling is a reasonable restriction relating to prison order and functional operation. Indeed, this Court has recently stated that prison officials have wide discretion as to what type of mail prisoners may receive. United States ex rel. Henson v. Myers, 244 F. Supp. 826 (E.D.Pa.1965).
It is held therefore that the regulation is a reasonable one and can be enforced, and the Court so finds as a fact. The foregoing will serve as this Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 52.
Permanent injunction denied.
And it is so ordered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.