# Wright v. Lassiter

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · June 9, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10258696

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** June 9, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10258696

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:18-cv-90-KDB

KAYIE SHAUNE WRIGHT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
) ORDER
KENNETH LASSITER, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________ )

THIS MATTER comes before the Court to document the Court’s ruling dismissing
Plaintiff Kayie Shaune Wright’s First Amendment claim against Defendant Adam J. Hergenrother
during trial of this matter.
Plaintiff Wright filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging certain
unlawful conduct by officials at a facility at which he was previously incarcerated. He is
proceeding in forma pauperis. Among his claims, Mr. Wright asserts that Defendant Hergenrother
opened three pieces of the Plaintiff’s legal mail outside of his presence thereby violating his rights
under the First Amendment. (Doc. No. 13 at 24). This claim came before the Court for trial on
June 8, 2022.1 In discussion with the Court prior to the presentation of evidence, the Plaintiff
clarified that he only wished to proceed with regards to one of those pieces of mail, i.e., a letter
marked “Confidential Mail” that is addressed to the “NC Judicial Standards Commission” in
Raleigh, North Carolina. (Doc. No. 66-36 at 19-20). The Court thereafter gave the Plaintiff the

1 A First Amendment religion claim was also before this Court for trial, but it was voluntarily
dismissed by the Plaintiff.
opportunity to proffer all the evidence he would seek to present to the jury with respect to this
claim.
After considering the Plaintiff’s statements and carefully reviewing the mail at issue, the
Court ruled orally that the letter is not “legal mail” as a matter of law because the letter at issue
did not involve confidential legal communications but rather was a non-privileged communication

to the NC Judicial Standards Commission (even though as a lay person Plaintiff Wright considered
the letter to be “legal” in nature). See, e.g., Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (addressing
the opening of attorney-prisoner mail); Haze v. Harrison, 961 F.3d 654, 656 (4th Cir. 2020)
(addressing the opening of attorney-pretrial detainee mail); see also Webb v. Butler, 2021 WL
4447629, *11 n.13 (E.D.N.C. Sept, 28, 2021) (“The court is aware of no authority extending the
protections to mail the inmate himself deems legal in nature regardless of the addressee”); NCDPS
Policy & Procedure, Inmate Use of the Mail 3.0308(b) (defining “Legal Mail” as “Mail to and
from attorneys, state and federal courts, the Attorney General of the United States or the Attorney
General of North Carolina, the judiciary, and the Industrial Commission, consular officials, or

legal aid services or a paralegal”).
Furthermore, the Court finds that Defendant Hergenrother is entitled to qualified immunity
on this claim because it is not clearly established that an inmate letter marked “confidential” that
is addressed to the Judicial Standards Commission qualifies as “legal mail,” such that its opening
outside of the Plaintiff’s presence would violate the First Amendment. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 539;
Haze, 961 F.3d at 656.
Thus, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because
even if the Plaintiff were able to demonstrate that Defendant Hergenrother had opened and
inspected that letter outside of the Plaintiff’s presence, that conduct is not wrongful because the
letter is not protected “legal mail” as discussed above. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1), (2) Gudgment
as a matter of law may be entered at any time before the case is submitted to the jury); see also 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)Gi) (in an in forma pauperis proceeding, “the court shall dismiss the case
at any time if the court determines that ... the action ... fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.”) (emphasis added).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff's First Amendment claim against
Defendant Hergenrother is DISMISSED.

Signed: June 9, 2022

Kenneth D. Bell ey,
United States District Judge il of

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10258696. Public record. Not legal advice.