Al-Owhali v. Holder, Jr.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff failed to rebut the government’s “coherent explanation” that plaintiff’s “communications or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons”
• concluding that expired restrictions on inmate’s receipt of Arabic-language newspapers were not moot because the restrictions were “capable of repetition yet evad[ing] review” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that the warden’s written justification in the record was “at least a coherent explanation of the government’s policy” why inmate could not correspond with nieces and nephews
• noting that, in support of restrictions on inmate’s correspondence, the warden, in the SAMs, gave “a coherent explanation of the government’s policy”
• accepting that plaintiff's allegation that he had been restricted from receiving a book in prison as true but concluding that this was not enough to plausibly state a claim for relief under the First and Fifth Amendments
• upholding warden’s decision to reject Arabic-language newspapers to prevent ADX inmate’s access to potentially inflammatory information

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).