Pell v. Procunier

417 U.S. 817 (1974)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A California law disallowed the practice of reporters being granted interviews with specific prisoners. Reporters could still tour prisons and interview random inmates. California justified the law by claiming that there were often disciplinary problems with the prisoners after they have been interviewed. Reporters Pell, Segal, and Jacobs each requested permission from the appropriate corrections officials to interview inmates Spain, Bly, and Guile, respectively. These requests were all denied. The plaintiffs thereupon sued to enjoin the continued enforcement 415.071 contending it violates their rights of free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The media plaintiffs asserted that the limitation that this regulation places on their newsgathering activity unconstitutionally infringes the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court granted the inmate plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that 415.071, insofar as it prohibited inmates from having face-to-face communication with journalists, unconstitutionally infringed their First and Fourteenth Amendment freedoms. With respect to the claims of the media plaintiffs, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court noted that 'even under 415.071 as it stood before today's ruling [that inmates' constitutional rights were violated by 415.071] the press was given the freedom to enter the California institutions and interview at random,' and concluded 'that the even broader access afforded prisoners by today's ruling sufficiently protects whatever rights the press may have with respect to interviews with inmates.' The correction authorities appealed, and the reporters appealed.