Last month, in Tyree v. Dennehy, the First Circuit upheld a Massachusetts prison regulation that prohibited prisoners from receiving sexually explicit mail asserting that the mail restriction met the 4-part test enunciated in Turner v. Safley:
Eleven pro se inmates appeal from the district court’s rejection of their challenge to a state regulation banning inmates’ receipt of publications that are “sexually explicit” or feature “nudity,” 103 C.M.R. § 481.15(3)(b), and to a policy banning the display of those publications or other “semi-nude, scantily clad, and/or sexually suggestive material” in inmates’ cells, 103 DOC 400.03(2)(c)(1) & (2). For the reasons given by the district court, Moses v. Dennehy, 523 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D. Mass. 2007), supplemented by the discussion below, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants.
Similarly, the Second Circuit, in Pilgrim v. Luther, recently affirmed a ruling that a prisoner’s First Amendment rights are not violated if he is prohibited from writing material that encourages inmates to participate in work stoppages.
Plaintiff-appellant, an inmate in New York’s correctional system who appears pro se, brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants—three prison officials—violated his constitutional rights to free speech and due process of law in the course of an investigation and disciplinary hearing. We write principally to address plaintiff’s argument that defendants retaliated against him, in violation of the First Amendment, for writing a pamphlet that urged inmates to participate in “work stoppages.” We hold that this claim fails as a matter of law.