Civil rights
| Pages | 42-44 |
42 Volume 22, July–September 2016 international law update
© 2016 International Law Group, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
CIVIL RIGHTS
In case where Chinese-born prisoner has
been unable to communicate in Chinese
with his relatives in China, Eighth
Circuit reviews § 1983 claims alleging
infringement of his rights under the
First Amendment, the Equal Protection
Clause, and the Due Process Clause
Richard Yang, born in China in 1940, moved
to United States in 1984, where he became a citizen.
His relatives remained in China. In 2005, Yang was
sentenced to twenty years in prison for second-degree
murder, and has been incarcerated by the Missouri
Department of Corrections since then.
Yang’s rst language is Mandarin Chinese, but
he can also speak, read and write English. None of
his relatives in China understands English.
When Yang was imprisoned, the Department
allowed Yang to correspond in Chinese. For security
reasons, and pursuant to Department’s censorship
and mail policies, from late 2007 to some point in
2008, and after January 2011, Department ocials
refused to deliver Yang’s incoming and outgoing
mail written in Chinese. e policies provided
for censoring of mail that poses a threat to the
security of the penal institution and dened it as
items written in a “language that sta are unable
to interpret with current available resources.”
Accordingly, all mail in a foreign language is sent to
a committee that determines whether an employee
on the Department’s “institutional translator list”
is available to interpret the mail. If there is such
employee, the mail is sent to him for review and
screening before it’s delivered to the inmate.
Otherwise, the committee censors the mail and
informs the inmate of the basis for its decision.
During the period Yang’s Chinese-language
mail was rejected, the Department screened other
inmates’ Spanish-language letters because several of
employees knew Spanish.
Yang complained through the Department’s
grievance process explaining that his family
was unable to understand English, requested
permission to send and receive Chinese-language
mail, and demanded that the Department provide
an interpreter who could review the mail and clear
it for delivery. However, Yang’s grievances were
denied by Department ocials.
Before February 2012, the Department
prohibited all international calls, which were
permitted after this date. Yang remained unable
to call people in China until the Department’s
international-calling provider resolved the technical
diculties.
At all times, Yang has been able to place
domestic telephone calls and send and receive
English-language mail.
In May 2012, Yang brought a § 1983 action
against the Department and several ocials
alleging infringement of his rights under the First
Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the
Due Process Clause by denying him the ability to
correspond in Chinese or to place telephone calls to
his family and friends in China. e district court
dismissed Yang’s complaint against the Department
for failure to state a claim, and granted summary
judgment for the Department’s ocials. Yang
appealed.
e United States Court of Appeals for Eighth
Circuit armed district court’s decision.
Yang asserted that the Department ocials
violated his First Amendment rights when they
censored his Chinese-language mail and prohibited
international calling at the same time.
“[…] A prison inmate retains those First
Amendment rights that are not ‘inconsistent with
his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate
penological objectives of the corrections system.’
Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974). ese
include the right to communicate with persons
outside the prison walls, subject to regulation
that protects legitimate governmental interests.
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 412-13
(1974); ongvanh v. alacker, 17 F.3d 256,
To continue reading
Request your trial