TODD LEWIS ASHKER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JAMES GOMEZ; G. BONNIE GARIBAY; S. BONACCORSO; M. JENSEN; S. CAMBRA; S. STEINBERG, M.D.; WINSLOW; DR. ASTORGA; C. GOLLIHAR; S. RICCI, M.T.A.; K. BUTCHER; B. PATTON; M. BILLINGTON; B. GRINSTEAD; JOE MCGRATH, Warden, Defendants-Appellants. No. 02-17077 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT October 7, 2003, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California November 18, 2003, Filed PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. CV 97-1109 CW. Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding. ... OPINION: TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: Defendants-Appellants, the California Department of Corrections and various prison officials (collectively, "CDC"), appeal an order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee, Todd Lewis Ashker, and issuing a permanent injunction against CDC. Ashker, a state prisoner housed in the Security Housing Unit ("SHU") at Pelican Bay State Prison ("PBSP"), challenged a prison policy requiring books and magazines mailed to the prison to have an approved vendor label affixed to [*2] the package. In a published opinion, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ashker because the policy unreasonably burdened Ashker's http://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=1&_butInline=1&_butinfo=U.S.%20CONST.%20AMEND.%201&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=de99423f98b5aa1744cf125b0d22c6adFirst Amendment rights and was not rationally related to a legitimate penological objective. http://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=2&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b224%20F.%20Supp.%202d%201253%2cat%201262%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=5b9b687b8c1b100dc1b695d8569a2ba1Ashker v. Cal. Dep't of Corr.http://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=2&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b224%20F.%20Supp.%202d%201253%2cat%201262%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=5b9b687b8c1b100dc1b695d8569a2ba1, 224 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1262 (N.D. Cal. 2002). The court further held that Ashker was entitled to injunctive relief and issued a permanent injunction enjoining PBSP from enforcing the book label requirement. http://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=3&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b224%20F.%20Supp.%202d%201253%2cat%201263%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=9f5f455207db9b2772aade2a200c3195Id.http://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=3&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b224%20F.%20Supp.%202d%201253%2cat%201263%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=9f5f455207db9b2772aade2a200c3195 at 1263-64. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to http://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=4&_butInline=1&_butinfo=28%20U.S.C.%201291&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=f941391ebedded53bac2138d046ec93328 U.S.C. '' 1291http://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=5&_butInline=1&_butinfo=28%20U.S.C.%201292&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=c3cc63ad063335ed2a971d28c7ed9da4 and 1292(a). n1 We affirm. ... Glen Rodman, a sergeant at PBSP in Receiving and Release ("R&R"), explained that the majority of SHU inmates are involved in gang activity and are therefore likely to receive contraband in the mail, such as books containing drugs or encrypted with gang messages. All items received by PBSP are inspected for contraband and may further be inspected by a fluoroscope machine. Because such machines cannot detect encrypted material, the book label requirement is an additional security measure designed "to help ensure that reading material comes directly from the vendor, as opposed to passing through an unknown third party." According to Rodman, "an additional purpose served by the book label requirement is to reduce the amount of material that is required to be individually screened by" the three R&R staff members who are responsible for tracking the mail, searching it for contraband, and delivering approved materials to inmates. ... We agree with the district court that the evidence submitted by both Ashker and CDC "refutes any common-sense connection between the book label policy and PBSP's legitimate goals of ensuring against contraband and providing prison safety." http://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=39&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b224%20F.%20Supp.%202d%201253%2cat%201260%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=fbf61b398bf29bb01fa874f79dc43c16Ashkerhttp://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=39&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b224%20F.%20Supp.%202d%201253%2cat%201260%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=fbf61b398bf29bb01fa874f79dc43c16, 224 F. Supp. 2d at 1260. When the inmate presents such evidence, the state is required to "'present enough counter-evidence to show that the connection is not so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.'" http://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=40&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b238%20F.3d%201145%2cat%201150%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=71700d10b8dea8d7772e45ac0eac0de9Prison Legal Newshttp://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=40&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b238%20F.3d%201145%2cat%201150%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=71700d10b8dea8d7772e45ac0eac0de9, 238 F.3d at 1150 (quoting http://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=41&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b197%20F.3d%20348%2cat%20357%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=ea87db13e6a4b553082576e69f0ba503Frosthttp://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=41&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b197%20F.3d%20348%2cat%20357%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=ea87db13e6a4b553082576e69f0ba503, 197 F.3d at 357). CDC has failed to do so. First, CDC already [*12] requires that books be sent directly from approved vendors. As the district court reasoned, prison staff can easily determine whether packages have been sent directly by vendors or have been sent to a third party first by checking address labels and invoices. See http://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=42&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b224%20F.%20Supp.%202d%201253%2cat%201261%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=35729e29db57ecd3370dae43472c8630Ashkerhttp://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=42&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b224%20F.%20Supp.%202d%201253%2cat%201261%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=35729e29db57ecd3370dae43472c8630, 224 F. Supp. 2d at 1261. If the package had been sent to a third party, who then sent the package to the prisoner, the vendor's address label and invoice would indicate that fact. Requiring R&R staff to check the address label seems no more burdensome than requiring them to check for the vendor label and the vendor stamp in the appropriate box on the label. CDC has presented no evidence or argument to refute this reasoning. Second, all personal property received by inmates in the mail is searched prior to delivery. CDC contends that these searches are not always effective, pointing out that contraband has been missed due to human error. However, "CDC [has] articulated no scenario in which the book label policy provides a measure of security not afforded by these routine and mandatory searches." http://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=43&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b224%20F.%20Supp.%202d%201253%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=90ffc68b59ab8f8e28f4d807625081f0Id. CDC further argues that the fluoroscope machine does not detect weapons or encrypted messages. [*13] That the lack of a book label can act as a sort of "red flag," alerting prison staff to books sent by non-vendors when their routine search may have missed this fact may be a legitimate concern, but it is a concern that is quite lacking in substantial evidentiary support. The district court pointed out that Sergeant Rodman "provided absolutely no specific facts regarding the alleged incident" in which drugs escaped the detection of the fluoroscope machine, id., and, on appeal, CDC has pointed to no evidence in the record regarding the efficacy of the book label policy. Finally, at least with respect to contraband, there is no rational basis for CDC to impose an approved vendor label requirement on books, but not on tennis shoes, thermal clothing, or appliances. CDC has made no effort to explain why books are more susceptible to being used to deliver contraband than other items. "Common sense would dictate that PBSP's concern would extend to such items." http://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=44&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b224%20F.%20Supp.%202d%201253%2cat%201262%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=1f56c18a11265f9d33f8f1808dfb5974Id.http://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=44&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b224%20F.%20Supp.%202d%201253%2cat%201262%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=1f56c18a11265f9d33f8f1808dfb5974 at 1262. Because the book label policy fails the first Turner factor, we do not address the other factors. n4 http://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=45&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b261%20F.3d%20896%2cat%20901%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=9d2055e9ce7792e2c9e106e7e7d92dd1Morrisonhttp://www.lexis.com/research//research/buttonTFLink?_m=f301d9b0bbfb87b562632ca03cc7bc4f&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2003%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2023445%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=45&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b261%20F.3d%20896%2cat%20901%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAA&_md5=9d2055e9ce7792e2c9e106e7e7d92dd1, 261 F.3d at 901.