David Delgado v. Latoya Hughes

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 14, 2024 *
Decided August 14, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1407
DAVID DELGADO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LATOYA HUGHES, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 4:24-cv-04008-CSB
Colin S. Bruce,
Judge.
O R D E R
David Delgado, a state prisoner, sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violations of his First Amendment rights based on the officials’ interference with his
mail to and from the Mexican embassy and Mexican consulate. At screening, the district
court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm.
* The appellees were not served with process and are not participating in this
appeal. We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the
appellant’s brief and the record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and
oral argument would not significantly aid the court. See FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-1407 Page 2
Delgado alleged that various officials at Henry Hill Correctional Center in
Galesburg, Illinois, interfered with the mail that he was exchanging with the Mexican
embassy and Mexican consulate. (This is Delgado’s third case asserting essentially the
same claim; the first two ended with settlement agreements, which Delgado clarifies are
not at issue in this appeal.) As Delgado alleged in his complaint, the allegations of
which we take as true, Scott v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Center, 107 F.4th 752, 754 (7th Cir. 2024),
officials opened his incoming mail from the embassy and consulate outside of his
presence, and refused to process his outgoing letters to the embassy or consulate unless
he prepaid the postage. According to Delgado, these actions violated his First
Amendment rights.
The district court reviewed the complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a
claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The court acknowledged that “legal mail” deserved
certain protections (such as not being opened outside a prisoner’s presence) but pointed
out that Delgado had not alleged that any of his correspondence with the embassy or
consulate was with an attorney.
Delgado challenges that ruling on appeal, contending in general terms that the
correspondence was legal mail because it included his “legal communication[s]” with
his “diplomatic representation.” A prisoner has a protected First Amendment interest in
sending and receiving legal mail because interference with that mail may hinder a
prisoner’s access to the courts. Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 782 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996)). A prisoner’s access to the courts may be
compromised, for example, when prison officials read private communications between
the prisoner and his lawyer about the prisoner’s litigation against those officials.
Guajardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801, 802–03, 805 (7th Cir. 2010).
But Delgado does not explain why his mail should be considered “legal.” He
asserts only that his mail included legal communications (the nature of which his
complaint also did not describe). Moreover, to state a claim, Delgado must allege an
actual injury, such as that prison officials’ interference with his legal mail hindered his
pursuit of a legal matter. See In re Maxy, 674 F.3d 658, 660–61 (7th Cir. 2012) (collecting
cases). He has not alleged or argued any such injury here, so the district court properly
dismissed his case.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --