Case: Martin v. Kelley

1:81-cv-01021 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Filed Date: Dec. 30, 1981

Closed Date: 1990

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On 12/30/1981, William E. Martin, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility filed a Section 1983 suit, pro se, in the Southern District of Ohio against officials of the facility. Plaintiff's complaint raised First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges concerning censorship of incoming prisoner mail. At some point private counsel agreed to represent the plaintiff.The District Court (Judge Spiegel) held that plaintiff had failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment and permitted…

On 12/30/1981, William E. Martin, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility filed a Section 1983 suit, pro se, in the Southern District of Ohio against officials of the facility. Plaintiff's complaint raised First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges concerning censorship of incoming prisoner mail. At some point private counsel agreed to represent the plaintiff.

The District Court (Judge Spiegel) held that plaintiff had failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment and permitted plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge who recommended that summary judgment be granted to defendants on each of the claims. Judge Spiegel adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed arguing that the Ohio Administrative Code, which allowed prison officials to censor mail, was unconstitutional on its face.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. The Sixth Circuit (Judge Contie) held the regulation violated due process because it did not provide inmates the option to appeal to a third party prior to the letter being returned to sender. Martin v. Kelley, 803 F.2d 236 (6th Cir. 1986).

The PACER docket states that the proceedings for this case are not available and that the case was terminated on April 24, 1990.

Summary Authors

Eoghan Keenan (7/15/2005)

People


Judge(s)

Celebrezze, Anthony Joseph (Ohio)

Contie, Leroy John Jr. (Ohio)

Jones, Nathaniel Raphael (Ohio)

Peck, John Weld II (Ohio)

Spiegel, S. Arthur (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Dorsey, Edward Schmertz (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Adler, Allen Paul (Ohio)

Judge(s)

Celebrezze, Anthony Joseph (Ohio)

Contie, Leroy John Jr. (Ohio)

Jones, Nathaniel Raphael (Ohio)

Peck, John Weld II (Ohio)

Spiegel, S. Arthur (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Dorsey, Edward Schmertz (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Adler, Allen Paul (Ohio)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:83-cv-01981

Docket (PACER)

Dec. 30, 1981

Dec. 30, 1981

Docket

84-00308

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

746 F.2d 1478

Oct. 2, 1984

Oct. 2, 1984

Order/Opinion

84-03907

Reported Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

803 F.2d 236

Oct. 8, 1986

Oct. 8, 1986

Order/Opinion

86-03049

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

811 F.2d 606

Dec. 11, 1986

Dec. 11, 1986

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated July 19, 2022, 3 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Ohio

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Dec. 30, 1981

Closing Date: 1990

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Inmate bringing civil rights complaint challenging regulation concerning censorship of incoming prisoner mail

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: Unknown

Class Action Outcome: Unknown

Defendants

Ohio Department of Corrections, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Freedom of speech/association

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 1986 - None

Issues

General:

Grievance Procedures

Loss or damage to property

Mail

Search policies

Type of Facility:

Government-run