context: The district court determined that Grigsby failed to state a First Amendment claim because he only alleged isolated instances of delay and possible interference with his mail. However, at this early stage of the proceedings, Grigsby's allegations, liberally construed, present a First Amendment claim based on defendants' alleged failure to send a letter and delay in delivering a priority mail package.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 52 F.3d 264, 265
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that prisoners have "a First Amendment right to send and receive mail"
citation_a.sentence: See Witherow v. Paff 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (stating that prisoners have “a First Amendment right to send and receive mail”); cf. Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that temporary delay in delivery of mail did not violate First Amendment where prison officials had come forward with a legitimate penological reason for the delay); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (regarding leave to amend). In addition, we instruct the district court on remand to address Grigsby’s claim based on the alleged confiscation of stamps.
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 170 F.3d 957, 961
citation_b.parenthetical: concluding that temporary delay in delivery of mail did not violate First Amendment where prison officials had come forward with a legitimate penological reason for the delay
citation_b.sentence: See Witherow v. Paff 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (stating that prisoners have “a First Amendment right to send and receive mail”); cf. Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that temporary delay in delivery of mail did not violate First Amendment where prison officials had come forward with a legitimate penological reason for the delay); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (regarding leave to amend). In addition, we instruct the district court on remand to address Grigsby’s claim based on the alleged confiscation of stamps.