ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Plaintiff-Appellant Kendall Trent Brown, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from a district court decision dis*680missing, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), his civil rights claim.1 Mr. Brown’s complaint alleges that jail staff is mishandling his legal mail and engaging in postal fraud. He brought his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After reviewing Mr. Brown’s complaint, the district court issued an order directing Mr. Brown to show cause why his complaint should not be summarily dismissed as stating no claim for relief. In response, Mr. Brown submitted a new form complaint, which the district court treated as an amended complaint. On May 23, 2008, the district court dismissed sua sponte Mr. Brown’s complaint, as supplemented and amended, as stating no cognizable constitutional claim. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and reverse the district court’s dismissal. Liberally construed, Mr. Brown’s complaint has alleged facts sufficient to state a cognizable claim.
I. Background
Mr. Brown is incarcerated at the Saline County Detention Center in Salina, Kansas. On March 7, 2007, Mr. Brown filed a complaint against Saline County Jail and Defendants Sheriff Glen F. Kochanowshi and Officer Nalls, whom he described as “the correction[s] mail lady,” broadly alleging that jail staff was mishandling his legal mail and engaging in postal fraud, and seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 Mr. Brown attempted to supplement his complaint with numerous correspondences to the clerk’s office detailing additional incidents allegedly committed by jail staff.3 Mr. Brown also filed a motion for appointment of counsel, a motion to obtain records from the United States Department of Justice, and a motion to obtain records from his attorney, Joseph A. Allen. Additionally, Mr. Brown requested an order that he must be present if the jail opens any of his legal mail.
On November 16, 2007, 2007 WL 4139647, the district court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In the same order, the court ordered Mr. Brown to show cause why his complaint should *681not be summarily dismissed as stating no claim for relief because the jail itself was not a proper defendant, and because Mr. Brown’s allegations against the remaining defendants failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.4 The district court also denied plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel and his requests for court orders.
On March 5, 2008, Mr. Brown submitted a new form complaint, which the district court treated as an amended complaint. The amended complaint no longer named the Saline County Jail as a defendant. The amended complaint alleged that Sheriff Kochanowshi was responsible for new jail regulations, including regulations dated January 2008, which provided for inspection of outgoing mail if jail staff suspects the mail is not legal mail. Mr. Brown alleged that jail staff inspected legal mail that they suspected was non-legal mail, and that the “Saline County Jail is misusing this [authority] to have more control [over the mail] and stop [prisoners from filing] complaints.” (R. doc. 22 at 3.) Mr. Brown also alleged that Officer Nalls “was committing postal fraud by charging us for mail that wasn’t going out and trying to delete it on the county computer.” (Id. at 2.) Finally, Mr. Brown alleged that Saline County Jail officers wrongfully prevented him from taking his legal mail to Larned State Hospital. On May 13, 2008, Mr. Brown filed a supplement to his complaint which alleged that jail officials interfered with two recent requests mailed to the Kansas appellate courts for assistance in filing a disciplinary complaint against his attorney.
On May 23, 2008, the district court dismissed Mr. Brown’s complaint, as supplemented and amended, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Additionally, the district court concluded that Mr. Brown’s prayer in his amended complaint for damages for depression and emotional distress resulting from the jail’s alleged unlawful practices was not supported by any showing of a prior physical injury, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Mr. Brown now timely appeals these decisions.5
II. Standard of Review
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. See Kay v. Bends, 500 F.3d 1214,1217 (10th Cir.2007). As with a motion to dismiss, we accept Mr. Brown’s allegations as true and construe them, and any reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to Mr. Brown. See id. at 1217. Since Mr. Brown is proceeding pro se, his complaint must be construed liberally. See id. at 1218. Pro se prisoner complaints, like the one involved here, “should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10, 101 S.Ct. 173, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980).
*682III. Mr. Brown’s § 1983 claims
Section 1983 provides for a civil cause of action against any person who, under color of state law, deprives the plaintiff of his or her “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. Thus, the issue before us is whether the allegations in the complaint establish a violation of a constitutional right.
Mr. Brown asserts four § 1983 claims challenging the jail’s treatment of his mail: 1) jail officials did not process outgoing mail, 2) jail officials misused their authority under prison regulations to inspect non-legal mail in order to stop prisoners from filing complaints, 3) jail officials prevented him from taking his legal mail to Larned State Hospital, and 4) Officer Nalls charged postage on mail that was not sent out. We will address each claim in turn.6
A. Failure to Process Outgoing Mail
Mr. Brown alleged interference with his outgoing mail, and pointed to two written requests addressed to the Kansas appellate courts for assistance in filing a disciplinary complaint against his attorney, which he alleges were not sent out.7 The district court correctly rejected “the access-to-court aspect of this claim because [Mr. Brown] had not made a showing of prejudice required by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).” Wardell v. Duncan, 470 F.3d 954 (10th Cir.2006). However, the district court erred when it failed to consider whether Mr. Brown’s allegations could state a First Amendment claim for a violation of his freedom of speech. This Court has held that it is clearly established law that “[a] refusal to process any mail from a prisoner impermissibly interferes with the [sender’s] First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights.” Treff v. Galetka, 74 F.3d 191, 195 (10th Cir.1996) (citing Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 408, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974)). Therefore, Mr. Brown’s allegations clearly state a claim of a violation of a constitutional right.
We note the district court’s concern that Mr. Brown’s allegations were “insufficient for reasonable finders of fact to conclude that plaintiffs mail was not in fact sent out of the facility” because Mr. Brown’s only factual allegation supporting his claim is that “he received no response to two recent requests to the Kansas appellate courts for assistance in filing a disciplinary complaint against his attorney.” While Mr. Brown might not be able to prevail on summary judgment on this claim based solely on the fact that he never received a response to his letters, see Treff, 74 F.3d *683at 195-96, his factual allegation that the jail was not processing his mail is sufficient to state a claim for relief.
B. Prison Regulations on Outgoing Mail
Mr. Brown alleges that Sheriff Kochanowshi, with the help of Captain Augestine and Tina Miller, “found a clause in either state or federal guidelines that states ... D.O.C. has the right as a disciplinary action to monitor all outgoing [mail] except legal mail unless they suspect its not legal, then they can inspect it. Saline County Jail is misusing this clause to have more control and stop the numerous complaints. They ... use [this clause] as a cover to keep practicing discrimination with our mail.” (R. doc. 22 at 3.) Liberally construing Mr. Brown’s complaint as we must, Mr. Brown’s complaint claims that jail officials are exercising their authority in a “discriminatory” manner and that outgoing mail is monitored as a “disciplinary action,” i.e., as punishment.8
As with Mr. Brown’s first claim, the district court correctly rejected the access-to-court aspect of this claim because Mr. Brown had not made a showing of prejudice. But, once again, the district court erred when it failed to consider whether Mr. Brown’s allegations could state a First Amendment claim for a violation of his freedom of speech. The district court repeated this error in regard to all of Mr. Brown’s claims, as it never analyzed whether any of Mr. Brown’s allegations implicated a First Amendment right beyond Mr. Brown’s right of access to the courts.
While “[cjorrespondence between a prisoner and an outsider implicates the guarantee of freedom of speech,” Treff v. Galetka, 74 F.3d 191, 194 (10th Cir.1996), the Supreme Court has recognized that the control of mail to and from prisoners is a necessary adjunct to penal administration. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989) (acknowledging that prison officials are better equipped than the judiciary to deal with the security implications of interactions between prisoners and the outside world). Prison regulations which restrict a prisoner’s First Amendment rights are “permissible if they are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and are not an exaggerated response to those concerns.” Wardell, 470 F.3d at 960 (quoting Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528, 126 S.Ct. 2572, 165 L.Ed.2d 697 (2006)). Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) set out four factors for assessing reasonableness in this context:
*684First, is there a valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it? Second, are there alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates? Third, what impact will accommodation of the asserted constitutional right have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally? And, fourth, are ready alternatives for furthering the governmental interest available?
Wardell, 470 F.3d at 960 (quoting Beard, 548 U.S. at 528, 126 S.Ct. 2572). The burden is on the prisoner to disprove the validity of prison regulations. See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132, 123 S.Ct. 2162, 156 L.Ed.2d 162 (2003). This Court has held that corrections officers can inspect all outgoing mail if the inspection is reasonably related to substantial government interests. Beville v. Ednie, 74 F.3d 210, 214 (10th Cir.1996). Substantial government interests include threats to prison order and security. Id.
Mr. Brown’s complaint claims that jail officials are exercising them authority in a manner arguably unrelated to a substantial government interest — that outgoing mail is monitored as punishment rather than for security. We do not imply that discipline can never be a substantial government interest when the discipline is used to maintain order, control and authority. But, at least at the dismissal stage, Mr. Brown has stated a cognizable constitutional claim that his First Amendment rights were violated by the inspection of his outgoing legal mail.
C. Prohibition Against Taking Legal Mail to Lamed State Hospital
Mr. Brown alleges that “Saline County Jail officers won’t allow inmates to take there [sic] legal mail to Larnered [sic] State Hospital.... ” (R. doc. 22 at 4.) The district court correctly rejected the access-to-court aspect of this claim because Mr. Brown had not made a showing of prejudice. However, the district court once again failed to address whether the prison regulations unreasonably limited Mr. Brown’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. See Wardell, 470 F.3d at 959-963 (prisoner’s claim that prison intercepted legal materials addressed to prisoner touched on First Amendment right of access to courts and First Amendment right to receive mail). Prison regulations which restrict a prisoner’s First Amendment rights are only “permissible if they are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and are not an exaggerated response to those concerns.” Wardell, 470 F.3d at 960 (quoting Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528, 126 S.Ct. 2572, 165 L.Ed.2d 697 (2006)). The district court did not consider whether the jail’s prohibition on taking legal mail to the state hospital, during confinement there, was reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives and, therefore, the district court dismissed this claim prematurely-
D. Charging for Mail that was Not Processed
Mr. Brown alleges that Officer Nalls “was committing postal fraud by charging us for mail that wasn’t going out and trying to delete it on the county computer.” (R. doc. 22 at 2.) Although Mr. Brown advances this claim as a due process violation (see Aplt. Br. at 3), it is more appropriately cast as a. state law fraud claim. This claim, however, was not addressed by the district court, and it is appropriate for the district court to consider this claim in the first instance.
E. Damages for Depression and Emotional Distress
Mr. Brown’s prayer for relief in his amended complaint included a request for *685damages for depression and emotional distress resulting from the jail’s alleged unlawful practices. Section 1997(e) of title 42 of the United State Code provides that “[n]o Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.” Mr. Brown failed to assert any physical injury in his amended complaint; therefore, the district court correctly determined that Mr. Brown’s complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to support a request for damages for depression and emotional distress.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.