context: While the inadvertent, negligent opening of legal mail does not violate the Constitution, the courts have not hesitated to find a violation where the mail has been read or where a policy of opening mail outside inmates' presence has been shown.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: summary judgment not appropriate where fact issue as to whether inmate's legal mail was actually read and whether action was retaliatory
citation_a.sentence: See Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258 (6th Cir.1992) (summary judgment not appropriate where fact issue as to whether inmate’s legal mail was actually read and whether action was retaliatory); Proudfoot v. Williams, 803 F.Supp. 1048 (E.D.Pa.1992) (officer violated inmate’s right of access to the courts when he opened inmate’s legal mail and appeared to read it.)
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: prison's practice of opening legal mail outside presence of inmate where envelopes marked and readily identifiable as legal mail violated inmates' rights
citation_b.sentence: See also, Burt v. Carlson, 752 F.Supp. 346 (C.D.Ca.1990) (prison’s practice of opening legal mail outside presence of inmate where envelopes marked and readily identifiable as legal mail violated inmates’ rights).