Juan Valdez v. Mark A. Rosenbaum Al Terrault Julie Latuska Bill Parker George Gore Debbie Miller Allen Cooper

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “Sandin’s reasoning applied particularly to convicted prisoners, however, whose incarceration ‘serves different aims’ than pre-trial detainees”
• concluding that loss 20 of telephone privileges did not violate the First Amendment, where prisoner still could receive 21 visitors and use the mail
• holding that restrictions on telephone access in a state jail does not violate a pretrial detainee’s constitutional rights if “it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”
• holding that the right 26 to contact parties outside the prison is subject to the reasonableness balancing test provided by 27 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1986)
• holding that there is no First Amendment right to telephone access; instead there is a First Amendment right to communicate with persons outside of prison walls, and “[u]se of a telephone provides a means of exercising this right”
• holding that there is no First Amendment right to telephone access; instead there is a First Amendment right to communicate with persons outside of prison walls, and “[u]se of a telephone provides a means of exercising this right”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).