# Shine-Johnson v. Chambers-Smith

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · September 26, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10665417

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** September 26, 2024
- **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/10665417

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

JOESEPH SHINE-JOHNSON, et al.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-3236
Plaintiffs,

v. Graham, J.
Bowman, M.J.
ANNETTE CHAMBERS-SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1
This pro se civil rights case was filed by co-plaintiffs Joeseph Shine-Johnson and
Richard Stanton Whitman in part to challenge a change to the categorization and opening
of “legal mail” addressed to them. Presently before the undersigned are Plaintiffs’ two
motions for an order finding Defendants in civil contempt. For the reasons that follow,
Plaintiffs’ motions should be DENIED.
I. Background
On April 22, 2024, the Court entered an Order that stated, in relevant part, that
“[d]uring the pendency of this case, mail from this Court addressed to the two Plaintiffs
shall be classified as ‘legal mail,’ regardless of whether it contains a ‘control number.’”
(Doc. 46, Order at ¶3, PageID 618).2 See also, generally, Sallier v. Brooks, 343 F.3d 868,

1“Magistrate judges possess limited authority to discipline by way of civil contempt in cases where the
parties have not consented to their jurisdiction.” New London Tobacco Market, Inc. v. Ky. Fuel Corp., No.
6:12-cv-00091-GFVT-HAI, 2023 WL 2672916, at *3 (E.D.Ky., March 28, 2023). For that reason, the
undersigned issues this Report and Recommendation.
2Plaintiffs had specifically moved for such relief through a separate motion, as well as through a motion
seeking a preliminary injunction. The undersigned recommended against entry of preliminary injunctive
relief in favor of entry of the more limited order. Notably, in response to Plaintiffs’ motion, the State of Ohio
indicated that it did not object ”to the Court or Magistrate Judge issuing a limited order that relates only to
‘legal mail’ sent to Plaintiffs by the Court itself that would be similar to those other orders referenced herein.”
(Doc. 39, PageID 518).
877 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e hold that mail from a court constitutes ‘legal mail’ and cannot
be opened outside the presence of a prisoner who has specifically requested otherwise.”);
accord Vinson v. Brown, No. 2:23-cv-80-EAS-SKB, 2024 WL 84149 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 8,
2024) (entering similar order).
Service of the Court’s April 22, 2024 Order was effective that same day through

Notice of the entry of the order provided through the ECF system. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
77(d), Local Rule 77.1. But two weeks after the Court entered its Order directing
Defendants to treat mail from this Court as “legal mail,” Plaintiffs filed a “motion for civil
contempt sanctions.” According to Plaintiffs, Defendants immediately violated the Court’s
April 22, 2024 Order, twice, when several days later they re-classified the copies of that
same Order and a Report and Recommendation addressed to both Plaintiffs as regular
mail. Once reclassified as regular mail, the April 22, 2024 Order was opened and copied
outside of each Plaintiff’s presence, causing further delays in delivery to Plaintiffs.
On May 28, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a “Notice” of a second violation by mailroom staff

of the Court’s Order. In a second motion seeking civil contempt sanctions, Plaintiffs state
that Defendants and mailroom staff continue to reclassify mail from this Court as “regular
mail,” thereby permitting Defendants to open, copy and read Plaintiffs’ legal mail outside
of Plaintiffs’ presence in clear violation of the Court’s April 22 Order. Specifically, Plaintiffs
assert that this Court’s May 10, 2024 Order directing Plaintiffs to Show Cause, along with
Marshal Service Forms and other notices from the Court, have all been continually and
improperly re-classified as regular mail. Plaintiffs further state that their institutional
grievances regarding the violations of the Court’s April 22 Order were denied, ironically
based on the institution’s position that they reclassified and opened the legal mail
because it arrived without control numbers – in conformity with the mail policy at issue in
this lawsuit and in direct violation of this Court’s April 22 Order.
On May 31, 2024, the State of Ohio as an Interested Party, as well as Defendant
Haley, filed its response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ first motion for civil contempt sanctions.
(Doc. 61). In that response, counsel initially argued that Defendants did not know about

the contents of the Court’s April 22, 2024 Order until they violated it by opening copies of
the April 22 documents mailed from this Court. But that is not accurate, because defense
counsel received Notice of the order through the cm/ecf system on the day it was filed. In
fact, in a memorandum responding to Plaintiffs’ second motion for sanctions, counsel
concedes that he informed ODRC’s in-house legal counsel about the Order on April 22,
2024, when counsel received Notice through the Court’s cm/ecf system. (Doc. 70, PageID
960).
II. Analysis
Despite the clear violations, Defendants ask this Court to excuse the violations as

isolated incidents. But Plaintiffs point out that mailroom staff continued to reclassify, open,
and copy legal mail on multiple occasions for nearly all of the mail sent by this Court to
Plaintiffs in the first few weeks after the April 22, 2024 Order was filed. (Doc. 67). Not to
belabor the point, but the record is clear that Defendants repeatedly violated the Court’s
April 22 Order. Seeking to avoid a finding of civil contempt, defense counsel suggests
that the violations that occurred on April 30, May 2, and May 13 “occurred while …ODRC’s
legal counsel, and Be.C.I. prison officials were engaged in cross-communication about
the proper method in addressing the Court’s Order. (Doc. 70, PageID No. 960; see also
id., PageID 961, "While it is unfortunate these purported violations occurred, it was the
result of mistake, cross-communication, and additional delay in determining how to
properly address the Court's order while ensuring that contraband did not enter the
institution."). But the terms of the April 22 Order were unambiguous and not subject to
interpretation. The only mail required to be treated as “legal mail” is mail originating from
this Court – a category that Defendants have never suggested contains “contraband” and

as to which the Sixth Circuit has previously held must be treated as “legal mail.” For
precisely that reason, substantially the same Order has been entered in multiple prior
cases concerning the same “legal mail” issues; a fact acknowledged by counsel in the
State’s response to Plaintiffs’ initial motion seeking the April 22 Order. Therefore, the
Court rejects the suggestion that any further “communication” was required to properly
interpret the April 22 Order or to prevent the introduction of contraband.
Defense counsel alternatively argues that the issue has been resolved and is now
moot. Counsel explains that in addition to informing ODRC’s in-house legal counsel about
the Order on April 22, he informed the same counsel about Plaintiffs’ first motion for

contempt on May 10. Next, on May 14 (the day following the most recent violation alleged
in Plaintiffs’ second motion, “mailroom staff were reminded about the Court’s order and
further instructed on how to approach such issues should they have any additional
concerns.” (Doc. 70, PageID 960, emphasis added). Defense counsel assures this Court
that the third “reminder” was effective, and Defendants will now obey the April 22 Order.
On the one hand, a promise that defense counsel has convinced Defendants to
comply with the Court’s Order moving forward does not excuse their repeated past
violations. On the other hand, Plaintiffs do not appear to have been prejudiced in any way
from the handful of past violations, all of which occurred in the first three weeks following
entry of the Order, and which Defendants have now fully acknowledged. Considering the
equities of this case and in the exercise of the Court’s discretion, the undersigned declines
to recommend the imposition of civil contempt at this time. That said, Defendants are
forewarned that they will face a higher hurdle to avoid sanctions should they continue to
violate the same Order in this case in the future.

III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons stated, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT:
Plaintiffs’ motions for civil contempt (Docs. 56 and 63) be DENIED, without
prejudice to renew should future violations of the Court’s April 22, 2024 Order occur.

s/Stephanie K. Bowman _____
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

JOESEPH SHINE-JOHNSON, et al.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-3236
Plaintiffs,

v. Graham, J.
Bowman, M.J.
ANNETTE CHAMBERS-SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of
the filing date of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely
motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of
the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of
the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN (14)
DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10665417. Public record. Not legal advice.