# Polyns Bieregu v. Janet Reno L. Yearby G. Berman, All Employees of Mail Room Staffs

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · September 11, 1995 · 59 F.3d 1445

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488293

## Case

- **Full name:** Polyns BIEREGU, Appellant, v. Janet RENO; L. Yearby; G. Berman, All Employees of Mail Room Staffs
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** September 11, 1995
- **Citations:** 59 F.3d 1445
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scirica
- **Judges:** Mansmann, Scirica, Sarokin
- **Cited by:** 152 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated on other grounds by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488293

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding a right to be clearly established despite a circuit split, as long as “no gaping divide has emerged in the jurisprudence such that defendants could reasonably expect this circuit to rule” to the contrary
- holding that jury could reasonably find a pattern or practice where the plaintiff alleged fifteen instances of his legal mail being opened and documented five instances
- holding that a pattern of opening a prisoner’s legal mail outside of his presence can be a violation of his constitutional right of access to the courts
- declining to find that a single instance of damaged mail rises to the level of constitutionally impermissible censorship

## Opinion text

SCIRICA, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree that Bieregu has alleged a constitutional violation of his right to court access, and that the law was sufficiently established to preclude a finding of qualified immunity. But I have doubts that Bieregu’s free speech rights are implicated here.
First Amendment free speech rights are implicated when prison officials censor inmates’ mail. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 409 , 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1809 , 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 , 109 S.Ct. 1874 , 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989). But “freedom from censorship is not equivalent to freedom from inspection or perusal.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576 , 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2984 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Because it is far from clear that defendants censored Bieregu’s court mail, I would base this holding on his constitutional right to court access.
*1460 Also, because Bieregu has not claimed his right to privacy was infringed, it is unnecessary to address this issue.
Present: MANSMANN, SCIRICA and SAROKIN, Circuit Judges.
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Sept. 11, 1995
The petition for rehearing filed by appellant in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, the petition for panel rehearing is denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488293. Public record. Not legal advice.