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 also
citation_a.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_a.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).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: officer violated inmate's right of access to the courts when he opened inmate's legal mail and appeared to read it.
citation_b.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.)