United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit _____________________________________

August Term 2020

(Argued: April 12, 2021 Decided: February 3, 2022)

No. 20-1158 _____________________________________

RICHARD REYNOLDS, JOHN VIVO, KENYA BROWN, DWIGHT G. PINK, ANDRES R. SOSA, AKOV ORTIZ, VICTOR S MALLS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

— v. —

ANGEL QUIROS, COMMISSIONER OF THE CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY,

Defendant-Appellee. ∗

_____________________________________ Before: KEARSE, CABRANES, and BIANCO, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs-Appellants are seven inmates in Connecticut state prison facilities who sued Connecticut Department of Correction officials in their official and ∗ Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Correction Angel Quiros is automatically substituted for former Commissioner Rollin Cook, in his official capacity, as Defendant-Appellee.

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully instructed to amend the caption to conform with the above. individual capacities (collectively, “DOC”), alleging that the 2012 revised Administrative Directive 10.7 (“A.D. 10.7”), which limits access by inmates to pictorial sexually explicit materials, violates their First Amendment rights. Plaintiffs also assert that the prison regulation’s exception for material that qualifies as “literary, artistic, educational or scientific in nature” is unconstitutionally vague because it does not provide fair notice as to the scope of the prohibited materials and leads to arbitrary enforcement by DOC officials under a subjective standard.

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Underhill, C.J.) conducted a bench trial over five days, during which the court heard testimony from fifteen witnesses, and then issued its Memorandum of Decision on March 9, 2020, ruling in DOC’s favor on the federal claims. We discern no clear error as to the district court’s factual findings in light of the trial record. We further conclude that the district court, based upon its factual findings, properly held that A.D. 10.7 is reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives—namely, promoting a non-hostile work environment for DOC staff, enhancing the safety and security of DOC facilities, and facilitating the rehabilitation of sex offender inmates—and does not violate the First Amendment. In addition, the district court correctly determined that the regulation, including the exception, is neither unconstitutionally vague on its face, nor unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

JOSEPH K. SCULLY (Elizabeth P. Retersdorf, Rosendo Garza, Jr., Matthew J. Letten, Hartford, CT, Palak Sharma, Parsippany, NJ, on the brief), Day Pitney LLP, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

CLARE KINDALL, Solicitor General (Madeline A. Melchionne, Steven R. Strom, Assistant Attorneys General, on the brief), for William Tong, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut,