A federal judge has permitted an incarcerated man to challenge prison officials’ decision to withhold a book that allegedly depicted or encouraged disruption.
Rodney C. Hamrick is incarcerated at the Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, also known as “supermax” or “ADX.” In 2022, the warden rejected two books Hamrick received, both of which were written by former prisoners at the U.S. detention camp in Guantanamo Bay. Hamrick alleged the confiscations violated his First Amendment right to speech, his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and amounted to “arbitrary and capricious decision making.”
In a Nov. 12 order, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang granted almost the entirety of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ motion to dismiss. However, she agreed the allegations showed that the prison’s notice of rejection for one of the books omitted necessary information and negatively affected Hamrick’s ability to appeal the decision.
“Without page numbers, a specification of which material was objectionable, or an explanation of the ‘actual reasons for a given rejection,’ Mr. Hamrick’s only insight into BOP’s reason,” Wang wrote, “was BOP’s one-sentence explanation parroting its regulations.”
Nominee to be United States District Judge for the District of Colorado Nina Nin-Yuen Wang, testifies before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington U.S., May 25, 2022.
Hamrick alleged that two books arrived for him at ADX between August and December 2021. According to Bureau of Prisons regulations, the warden is empowered to screen and reject incoming materials. If the warden does so, he must “promptly advise the inmate” of the decision and the reasons, including page numbers and quotes considered objectionable.
Hamrick received a rejection letter for each book. The first, pertaining to the memoir of Guantanamo detainee Mansoor Adayfi, alleged the publication “contains inflammatory substance and “incites group demonstrations.” Weapons-related content “could be used as a tool to radicalize inmates on a larger scale if shared within the prison system,” the warden wrote.
A warden’s letter rejecting a book for Rodney C. Hamrick at the Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence. Source: Hamrick v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
A rejection letter for the second memoir by Mohamedou Ould Slahi contained a single-sentence justification: that the book “describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption.”
In neither instance did the rejection letters contain page numbers or quotations from the books.
“Defendant’s censorship of these books is not rationally related to any legitimate and neutral government purpose,” wrote attorney Matthew W. Buck, representing Hamrick. Further, “Defendant’s failure to provide adequate reasons for rejection, both in initial rejection notices and in appeals decisions, constitutes arbitrary and capricious decision making.”
The Bureau of Prisons moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing Hamrick received the minimal level of process he was constitutionally entitled to, and the ADX warden’s significant discretion to reject materials meant no meaningful judicial review was possible.
As for the claim that ADX violated his free speech rights by censoring the books, “Hamrick is a dangerous inmate, and the ADX houses convicted terrorists,” wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Brad Leneis. “Given these facts, the warden reasonably could conclude that two books about detention at Guantanamo Bay (a facility self-evidently connected to the war on terror) could have inflammatory or disruptive effects within the ADX if Hamrick received them.”
In this Nov. 21, 2013, file photo reviewed by the U.S. military, dawn arrives at the now closed Camp X-Ray, which was used as the first detention facility for al-Qaida and Taliban militants who were captured after the Sept. 11 attacks, at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. The Pentagon announced Monday, Aug. 15, 2016, that fifteen prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention center were released to the United Arab Emirates in the single largest transfer of detainees during the Obama administration. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)
Wang broadly agreed with the government. She noted Hamrick’s attorney failed to argue that censoring the books was unrelated to ADX’s “legitimate penological interest,” including the warden’s belief that the contents posed a security threat. Wang also observed Hamrick was able to internally appeal the warden’s rejection, suggesting he received an appropriate level of process.
Turning to whether the Bureau of Prisons acted arbitrarily and capriciously in rejecting Hamrick’s books, Wang believed she could review the warden’s decisions, notwithstanding his discretion. Wang agreed both rejection notices did not include page numbers or identify problematic quotations as prison regulations required.
Still, she believed the justification for withholding Adayfi’s book was sufficiently detailed to identify allegedly problematic portions.
“That effort enables the Court to discern the rationale behind the rejection decision,” she wrote.
Wang came to the opposite conclusion with the single-sentence explanation for withholding Slahi’s book.
“Mr. Hamrick alleges that this failure was more than a mere technical error because it deprived him of meaningful information that explained the decision and would have aided him in his appeal,” she wrote.
Although a further review of the decision-making might show the Bureau of Prisons acted reasonably, “the Court concludes that Mr. Hamrick has adequately alleged that he was prejudiced by BOP’s failure to follow its regulations when it rejected the Slahi book.”
The case is Hamrick v. Federal Bureau of Prisons.
This post was originally published on here
