Bid to Block Move of Convict-Writer Fails

A federal judge here said Thursday that prison authorities at Lompoc Federal Penitentiary took “retaliatory action” against an inmate who writes articles about prison life for the San Francisco Chronicle. But he refused to prevent authorities from moving prisoner Dannie M. Martin for the second time in two weeks.

U.S. District Judge Charles Legge said lawyers for Martin and the Chronicle had made “a substantial showing that there has been retaliatory action against Mr. Martin for the exercise of his constitutional rights.”

A Martin column in the June 19 Chronicle criticized the management of Lompoc’s warden, Richard H. Rison. Three days later, Martin was placed in solitary confinement for about a day--for his own safety, according to prison authorities--before being transferred to a federal prison in San Diego June 30.

Shortly after the judge’s decision Thursday, Martin was moved to the Federal Correctional Institution at Phoenix, Ariz., according to Assistant U.S. Atty. George C. Stoll.

Martin and the Chronicle filed suit Wednesday against federal prison officials to block the move. The suit challenges the constitutionality of a U.S. Bureau of Prisons regulation that prohibits inmates from selling articles to newspapers. Martin, 48, had been at Lompoc since 1980, and has written more than 20 articles for the Chronicle since 1986.

Legge agreed to consider the constitutionality of the regulation but allowed its continued enforcement, citing a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision supporting rules that impinge prisoners’ rights when “reasonably related to legitimate prison interests.”

The judge’s order underlined the differences between the Chronicle’s rights and Martin’s. While the newspaper has full discretion to print any story it receives from Martin, it would do so at the risk of subjecting him to punishment under the regulation.

Martin’s lawyer, Jeffrey A. Leon, said he would advise his client not to submit any columns until after the next hearing on the question July 18. Although Martin is working on a number of stories, it is unlikely that any would be ready in the next several weeks, according to Peter Sussman, his editor at the Chronicle.

Sussman, disappointed at the judge’s refusal to keep Martin in San Diego, said, “It’s harder for the reader to feel an emotional involvement or an interest” as he moves farther from San Francisco.

The Chronicle’s lawyer, Lisa Zinken, argued that transferring Martin out of state violated the paper’s First Amendment rights.

The judge rejected that argument, acknowledging the Chronicle’s “constitutional right to get information” but saying the paper has no right to influence the movement of federal prisoners.

“I don’t think it’s my function to tell the Bureau of Prisons where to put prisoners,” Legge added.

The judge accepted the government attorney’s assertion that the move to San Diego was meant to be temporary and said that once Martin left Lompoc, it was too late for him to prevent a permanent transfer, even for punitive purposes. However, he told Stoll, “it looks like they’re bouncing the guy around, it really does.”

Legge granted Martin daily contact with his lawyers and ordered prison authorities not to retaliate against him for his writings or treat him differently than other prisoners. He also ordered Martin’s personal belongings returned, including notes for future articles and a novel.