Koger v. Dart

Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that defendant’s policy limiting prisoners to three books per cell, when plaintiff-prisoner had 30 books in his cell, did not violate plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, where: (1) defendants allowed plaintiff to read as many books as he wanted; and (2) instant limitation represented valid penal interest of curtailing labor intensive search of contraband capable of being hidden in books. However, Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated his due process right when they destroyed excess books without his permission and without asking him which three books he wished to retain. In this respect, defendants failed to establish that books are “contraband” that would support defendants’ decision to destroy excess books without notice. As such, remand was required to allow plaintiff to establish that defendants had policy of destroying excess book and to determine what choices were offered to plaintiff when guards discovered excess books.