Mark Lane v. Marion Feather

MEMORANDUM

In three separate cases, federal prisoner Mark Alan Lane appealed the denials of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petitions. In each of the three petitions, Lane challenged the loss of 27 days of good-conduct time following prison disciplinary decisions, finding that he “[t]hreaten[ed] another with bodily harm” in violation of Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) Prohibited Act Code 203, 28 C.F.R. § 541.3 Table 1, 203. The statements for which Lane was punished were contained in letters Lane sent to various individuals and government entities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We vacate and remand.

When a prisoner is punished for statements made in outgoing mail, the prisoner’s First Amendment rights are implicated, and the regulation authorizing the punishment must satisfy the test outlined in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 , 94 S.Ct. 1800 , 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 , 109 S.Ct. 1874 , 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989). Barett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1062 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). For a prison regulation to be valid under Procunier , the regulation must “further an important or substantial…