Prison officials withheld mail addressed to prisoner Dennis Rydbom; such mail being (1) an Edward R. Hamilton book catalog, and (2) a National Academy of Science report on eyewitness identification printed from the internet. Prison officials incorrectly described the internet document as "book(s), newspaper(s), or magazines(s) not received directly from the publisher 'COPIES NOT ALLOWED," received from Steven Saines, and costing $1.89 to mail out. Prison officials and the lower courts refused to explain how withholding Rydbom's mail was reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives.

Is the ban against West Virginia prisoners' receipt of catalogs and of internet documents excessive and overly broad under the First Amendment's free speech clause?

Does the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause require prison officials to give a prisoner a reasonably honest and accurate description of seized mail along with a valid penological reason for withholding a particular catalog or internet document, so the prisoner can knowingly and intelligently decide whether to accept/dispute such seizure?

Must a federal court actually state how withholding a prisoner's mail is "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests" when dismissing a prisoner's civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim?

Is the ban against West Virginia prisoners' receipt of catalogs and of internet documents excessive and overly broad under the First Amendment's free speech clause?