)
)
)

 
 2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 1 of 16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
 DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA 
 CHARLESTON DIVISION 


PRISON LEGAL NEWS, et at.,
Plaintiffs; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervenor;
v.
BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF H. WAYNE DEWITT, et al.,
Defendants.

No.2: 1O-cv-02S94-SB CONSENT INJUNCTION

CONSENT INJUNCTION
I. Introduction
1. Prison Legal News, the Human Rights Defense Center, the United States of America, H. Wayne Dewitt, and the Berkeley County Sheriffs Office (collectively, "the Parties"), enter into this Consent Injunction with the purpose of ensuring that detainees at the Berkeley County Detention Center ("BCDC") receive publications and religious material in accordance with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc ("RLUIPA"). In particular, the provisions of this Consent Injunction are designed to ensure that BCDC detainees receive all the publications and religious materials sent to them, as required by the First Amendment and RLUIPA, unless BCDC has a legally valid reason for denying BCDC detainees access to these publications and religious materials.
2. The Parties recognize that ensuring BCDC detainee access to publications and religious
material serves the important correctional goals of rehabilitating detainees and promoting the safety, security, and good order of BCDC through the provision of activities for detainees. BCDC is an integral part of the public safety system in Berkeley County. Through this Agreement, the Parties seek to ensure that prisoners' and publishers' constitutional rights are protected. By providing for constitutional conditions at BCDC, and protecting the constitutional rights of publishers to communicate with prisoners through the mail, the Sheriff and County will also provide for the safety of staff and promote public safety in the community. The Parties recognize that the conditions at BCDC and the treatment of prisoners confined there have an impact on prisoners'

1 


2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 2 of 16

3. 4.
5.
6. 7. 8. 9, 10. 11.
~ 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

successful re-integration into the community upon release, the re-offense rates of released prisoners, and public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Defendants in this action are SheriffH. Wayne Dewitt and the Berkeley County Sheriffs Office ("BCSO").
This Consent Injunction resolves the United States' suit against Sheriff DeWitt and BCSO pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 ("§ 14141"), the First Amendment, and RLUIPA. This Consent Injunction further resolves the injunctive relief sought by Prison Legal News and the Human Rights Defense Center under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This Consent Injunction does not resolve Plaintiffs' claims for damages and attorneys' fees.
It is understood and agreed that the Defendants are entering into this agreement, in part, to resolve the unknown and potentially expensive nature of this lawsuit. While certain violations necessarily had to be admitted in order to resolve the case, it is understood and agreed that Defendants' admissions go no further than those made in Paragraph 50 of this document.
II. Definitions
"Effective Date" shall mean the date that this Consent Injunction is entered as an order of the Court.
"Sheriff' shall refer to the Berkeley County Sheriff, induding all successors in office.
"Defendants" shall refer to SheriffH. Wayne Dewitt (induding all successors in office), and the Berkeley County Sheriffs Office ("BCSO").
"Berkeley County Detention Center" or "BCDC" shall refer to the facility in Berkeley County used by the Sheriff for the purposes of detaining persons, or any successor or additional facilities used by the Sheriff for this purpose.
"Director" shall refer to the highest ranking official at BCDC, who currently is Captain Clifford L. McElvogue.
"Inmate" or "detainee" shall mean any person who is held in custody by the Sheriff in BCDC.
"Religious exercise" shall be defined by reference to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7),
"Religious material" shall refer to any and all material used for sincere religious exercise. Such material may include publications, clothing, beads, and other accessories.
"Publications" shall refer to all reading material mailed to BCDC for receipt by inmates, including books, newspapers, magazines, catalogs, brochures, and religious pamphlets.
"Publisher" shall refer to any publisher, retailer, distributor, or book club that sells or distributes publications.
"Bulk mail" shall refer to publications sent to BCDC that are addressed only to BCDC and are not addressed to any individual detainee in BCDC. Bulk mail does not include any publication or group of publications addressed to a specific detainee or detainees.

2 


2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 3 of 16
17. "Substantial compliance" shall mean that Defendants have achieved compliance with most or all of the components of the relevant provision of the Consent Injunction for a period of one year. To achieve substantial compliance, any failures to comply with the Consent Injunction provisions must be occasional at most, and must not indicate any systemic problems.
18. "Including" shall mean "including, but not limited to." 19. "Plaintiffs" shall refer to Plaintiffs Prison Legal News and the Human Rights Defense
Center. 20. "The United States" shall refer to Intervenor the United States of America.
III. Substantive Provisions 21. In order to ensure that BCDC detainees are able to exercise the rights guaranteed to them
by the First Amendment and RLUIPA, the Parties agree that BCDC will implement: a. An "incoming publications policy" governing BCDC detainee access to
publications and publishers' right to send publications to BCDC detainees and detailed in Section lILA of this Consent Injunction; b. A "staples policy" governing BCDC detainee access to publications containing staples and detailed in Section IILB of this Consent Injunction; c. A "religious materials policy" governing BCDC detainee access to religious
materials and detailed in Section m.c of this Consent Injunction;
d. Training for BCDC personnel on the religious materials policy, the publications policy, and the staples policy (collectively, the "Consent policies"), as described in Section III.D of this Consent Injunction; and
e. Accountability and oversight measures permitting the Parties to assess Defendants' compliance with the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and RLUIPA, as described in Section III.E of this Consent Injunction.
22. The Consent policies shall not impair reasonable limitations set by BCDC on the amount of material a BCDC detainee may keep in the detainee's cell. If delivery of an item covered by the Consent policies to a detainee would exceed such reasonable limitation, BCDC shall provide the detainee with the opportunity to reduce the items in the detainee's cell so that the detainee may receive the item covered by the Consent policies.
A. Incoming Publications
23. The Consent Injunction provisions related to BCDC detainee access to mailed publications shall have the following outcomes: a. BCDC detainees shall be permitted to receive and retain any and all publications which do not threaten BCDC safety or security. Permissible publications include Prison Legal News, soft cover books, news magazines, sports and entertainment magazines, other general interest publications, and newspapers of general circulation.
3 


2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 4 of 16

b. The Defendants will only limit BCDC detainees' ability to receive and retain publications after a Formal Determination that a given publication constitutes a genuine threat to BCDC security or safety.

24. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, Defendants shall permit inmates to receive and retain publications in accordance with the First Amendment. To comply with this provision, Defendants shall implement a policy (the "incoming publications policy") that provides, at a minimum, the fol1owing:

a. BCDC detainees shall be permitted to receive all publications sent from a publisher, retailer, distributor, or book club, subject to the conditions set forth below in Paragraph 24.b. The Director may make an exception to allow publications from additional sources if the requesting detainee provides written documentation that the publication in question is not available from a publisher, retailer, distributor, or book club.

b. Defendants shall reject a publication only after a Formal Determination by the Director that the publication is a genuine threat to the safety or security of BCDC.

1. Formal Determinations must be made according to the procedures described in Section IILE.

ii. No publication shall be rejected solely because it contains religious, philosophical, political, or social content.

1 Publications containing sexually explicit material shall be rejected only after a Formal Determination by the Director that the material, by its nature, poses a threat to the safety or security of BCDC.

2 Publications containing sexually explicit material shall be rejected only after a Formal Determination by the Director that the material, by its nature, poses a threat to the safety or security of BCDC.

a

"Actual nudity" is defined as depictions of the male or

female genitalia or the fully exposed female breast.

b

Explicit material does not include suggestive pictures or

advertisements in magazines that do not regularly feature

actual nUdity, such as sports magazine swimsuit issues, or

occasional depictions of nudity that appear in publications

such as National Geographic.

HI. No publication shall be rejected solely because its content is unpopular or repugnant.

IV. A publisher may appeal a rejection of any publication within 15 days of receiving notice of the rejection.

c. After any rejection of a publication, Defendants shall provide the sender of the publication with written notice, which shall include l) the specific item rejected; 2) the date of rejection; 3) the name of the inmate to whom the publication was

4 


2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 5 of 16
mailed; 4) a reasonable description of the reason for rejection; and 5) a copy of the Formal Determination regarding the rejection. Defendants shall provide the sender a right of appeal of the Formal Determination to the Sheriff, and shall notify the sender of this right. Defendants shall retain all rejected publications until expiration of the publisher's appeals period or, in the event that a publisher files an appeal, until disposition of the appeal.
d. After any rejection of a publication, Defendants will provide written notice to the detainee to whom the publication was sent, which shall include 1) the specific item rejected; 2) the date of rejection; 3) a reasonable description of the reason for rejection; and 4) a copy of the Formal Determination regarding the rejection.
e. Defendants shall retain all rejected publications until the Director issues a Formal Determination. If the rejection is upheld by a Formal Determination, BCDC shall provide the inmate with the following options of disposing of the rejected pUblication: (1) return to sender; or (2) at the inmate's expense, send to person or entity designated by the inmate to receive rejected publications.
B. Incoming Stapled Publications
25. The Consent Injunction provisions related to access to stapled publications in this section shall have the following outcomes:
a. BCDC detainees shall be permitted to receive publications that contain staples or, alternatively, BCDC personnel shall remove the staples from publications sent to BCDC detainees and deliver the publications according to policy.
26. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, Defendants shall permit inmates to receive publications containing staples or require BCDC mailroom staff to remove staples from publications. To comply with this provision, Defendants shall implement within 30 days from the Effective Date a policy (the "staples policy") that provides, at a minimum, the following:
a. Any publication sent to a BCDC detainee that contains staples and otherwise comports with BCDC policies shall be delivered to the BCDC detainee to whom it is addressed. No publication mailed to a BCDC detainee shall be rejected solely because it contains staples.
b. The sole alternative to delivery of stapled publications to BCDC detainees shall be BCDC removing staples from the publications prior to delivery.
BCDC shall not be required to deliver bulk mail to detainees and shall not be required to remove staples from bulk mail.
Access to Religious Materials
28. The Consent Injunction provisions related to access to religious material in this section shall have the following outcomes:
a. BCDC detainees shall be permitted to receive and retain any and all religious material, within the lawful parameters established by RLUIPA.
b. The Defendants shall limit the right of BCDC detainees to receive and retain religious material only after a Formal Determination that a specific article of
5 


2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 6 of 16

religious material poses a genuine threat to safety or security, and further determines that there are no less restrictive alternatives that address those safety or security interests.

29. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, the Defendants shall permit inmates to receive and retain any religious material in accordance with RLUIPA. To comply with this provision, Defendants shall implement a policy (the "religious materials policy") that provides, at a minimum, the following:

a. BCDC detainees shall ordinarily be permitted to receive and retain religious material subject to the conditions set forth below in Paragraph 29.b. Permissible religious materials include: a primary religious text, such as the Christian Bible, the Torah, or Koran; devotionals, pamphlets, or other religious publications; religious clothing, such as kufis or other headwear; prayer rugs; and prayer beads.

b. Should the Director determine that a given article of religious material threatens BCDC safety or security, the Director shall prohibit possession or use of the religious material only after a Formal Determination that there is no other less restrictive means for the detainee to possess or use the material.

I.

Formal Determinations must be made according to the procedures

described in Section III.E.

11. Examples of less restrictive means include: restricting the time or place where religious material may be worn or used; determining whether alternative religious material is available; and evaluating BCDC operations to assess whether accommodation of the use or possession of the religious material is permissible through alteration ofBCDC policies and procedures.

111. If a less restrictive alternative is available, a BCDC staff member must present the alternative to the requesting detainee. BCDC shall document any alternatives presented to detainees and the detainees' responses to those alternatives.

IV. If a Formal Determination made under this section does not reflect Defendants' analysis ofless restrictive means, it shall be deemed an invalid basis for rejecting religious material.

Training

30. Within 60 days of the Effective Date, Defendants shall provide formal training for BCDC personnel for implementation of the Consent Policies. The training provided by Defendants shall be required for all BCDC personnel and must be completed within 90 days of the Effective Date.

31. The formal training shall include: providing copies of the Consent policies to all current BCDC personnel; a live training that explains the Consent policies, and a signed verification that every BCDC employee participated in the live training and received the consent policies.

6 


2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 7 of 16

32. The training material developed by Defendants for implementation of this section, and all revisions thereto, shall be promptly submitted to the United States and Plaintiffs.

E. Approval Process, Accountability, and Oversight

Procedures for Detainee Requests and Approval

33. Within 30 calendar days of the Effective Date, the Defendants shall implement a system of detainee requests for publications or religious material that provides, at a minimum:

a. BCDC must provide all inmates with a standard form for requesting permission to receive religious materials and publications. The form must be designed to include: 1) the date of the request; 2) name of the requesting detainee; and 3) description of item being requested. Upon receipt, the receiving BCDC staff member must record his or her name on the form as the recipient.

b. BCDC personnel must respond to oral requests by providing the requesting detainee with the standard form. If the detainee cannot write the request, BCDC personnel must make a reasonable effort to fill out the form on the detainee's behalf.

c. The Defendants must designate a BCDC staff person to render decisions on requests for religious materials and publications. Any decision to deny such a request must be recorded by the designated staff person on the request form and must include the reason for the decision, the date, and a citation to the specific policy justifying the rejection. Any such denial must be affirmed by a Formal Determination of the Director.

d. Request forms that are accepted or rejected must be promptly returned to the requesting detainee.

e. BCDC shall supply detainees with a reasonable number of copies of the request form.

34. BCDC may use its electronic kiosk system to comply with the reporting requirements of Paragraph 33, provided that:

a. Inmates are afforded regular access to the electronic kiosk system to the same extent that inmates are able to file requests and grievances in paper form.

b. The electronic kiosk system retains all records of inmate requests, including all the specific information listed in Paragraph 33. Defendants shall provide those records to the Plaintiffs and the United States upon request.

c.

Detainees are provided with records confirming receipt of detainees' requests

and documenting the acceptance or rejection of such requests.

d. In the event that the kiosk system becomes unavailable or non-operational for any period of time, Defendants must provide written request forms during that period.

Formal Determinations and External Review

35. To make a Formal Determination under the religious materials and incoming publications policies, the Director shall generate a written memorandum that includes:

7 


2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 8 of 16
a. A summary of the reasons offered by the detainee to support the detainee's belief that he or she should be permitted to receive the religious material or publication in question. The Director shall offer the detainee a meaningful opportunity to provide written or oral reasons to support the detainee's belief that he or she should be permitted to receive the religious material or publication in question prior to making the Formal Determination. Any written statement by the detainee shall be attached to the Formal Determination. The summary shall include the date the Director offered the detainee an opportunity to respond. If a detainee declines to provide reasons, the Formal Determination shall so state.
b. The specific and detailed reason for limiting access. For example, citation of "safety" shall be accompanied by the specific threat to safety an item poses, such as its potential to be used as a weapon, or to disable security devices.
c. Detailed descriptions of all incidents in BCDC that led to or support the Determination, if any.
d. All the evidence, if any, used to support the Formal Determination, including publications, outside consultants, or the practices of other facilities.
e. All contrary evidence consulted, if any, including publications, outside consultations, or the practices of other facilities.
36. The Director shall complete all Formal Determinations within 15 days of the religious material or publication under consideration arriving at BCDC.
37. Defendants shall submit on a monthly basis: a. All forms generated pursuant to Paragraph 33.a to Plaintiffs and the United States in electronic format. b. A summary document that lists for the month in question the number of rejections of religious material to the United States. c. A summary document that lists for the month in question the number of rejections of publications to Plaintiffs and the United States. d. All Formal Determinations regarding publications to the United States and Plaintiffs. e. All Formal Determinations regarding requests for religious material to the United States.
Promulgation and Alterations o/Consent Policies 38. Before promulgation, the Defendants shall submit all Consent Policies, including the
request form described in Paragraph 33.a, to the United States for review and approval. Defendants shall likewise submit all publication policies to Plaintiffs for review and approval. Approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 39. Within 60 days of the Effective Date, the Defendants will amend other BCDC policies and relevant inmate rules to conform to the requirements of the Consent Policies.
8 


2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 9 of 16
40. Within 30 days of the promulgation of Consent policies, the Defendants will make all BCDC personnel and inmates aware of the Consent Policies and any related changes in BCDC policies and inmate rules.
Oversight
41. Defendants shall provide for a process to internally review all rejections of publications and religious items governed by the Consent Policies. This process of internal review shall be formalized in a policy that provides, at a minimum:
a. Creation and maintenance of a register memorializing all rejections of publications and religious items, including rejections of detainee requests. For each item rejected, this register will document 1) the name and description of the item rejected; 2) the date the item was rejected; 3) the inmate requesting the item or to whom the item was sent; 4) the reason for rejection.
b. Documented review on a monthly basis of all rejections occurring during a continuous one week period within the month of review. For the chosen week of rejections, BCDC must document its review of each rejection, including 1) the name of the rejected item; 2) the date of the rejection; 3) the inmate requesting the item or to whom each item was sent; 4) the Formal Determination enabling the rejection; 5) a certification that the rejection complied with the Consent Policies, including the provisions governing notice and appeals; and 6) if the rejection did not comply with the Consent Policies, the remedial action taken by BCDC to correct the deviation. BCDC shall designate a member of the command staff above the level of sergeant to conduct this review process.
c. Documentation of the monthly reviews of rejections shall be sent promptly to the Plaintiffs and the United States upon the completion of the review.
d. Regular, documented performance reviews by supervisors and by the chain of command of BCDC personnel implementing the Consent Policies, including evaluations based on consistency in following the Consent Policies and supervisory use of remedial measures to correct any deviations from the Consent Policies.
The Defendants shall, until the termination of this Consent Injunction, retain and provide the Plaintiffs and the United States with reasonable access to such documents (including appeals and requests from detainees and publishers, responses thereto, and Formal Determinations), personnel, inmates, and facilities as pertinent to the Plaintiffs' and the United States' assessment of the Defendants' compliance with this Consent Injunction.
IV. Construction
43. This Consent Injunction is binding on Defendants and their agencies, departments, successors, or independent contractors including agents and/or assigns that may have responsibility for implementation of the requirements of this Consent Injunction, either currently or in the future. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Consent Injunction.
44. No person or entity is intended to be a third-party beneficiary of the provisions of this Consent Injunction for purposes of any civil, criminal, or administrative action, and
9 


2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 10 of 16
accordingly, no person or entity may assert any claim or right as a beneficiary or protected class under this Consent Injunction. This Consent Injunction is not intended to impair or expand the right of any person or organization to seek relief against Defendants; accordingly, it does not alter legal standards governing any such claims, including those under South Carolina law. Nothing in this Consent Injunction shall be interpreted to limit the enforcement of rights under BCDC policies, or under § 14141, RLUIPA, the United States Constitution, or other laws, by any person.
45. This Consent Injunction does not authorize, and may not be used by, any publisher or former, current, or future detainee at BCDC to bring suit against Defendants for claims arising under the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or RLUIPA. By entering into this Consent Injunction, Defendants make no admissions as to claims that have been, are, or will be at issue in other lawsuits by publishers or former, current, or future detainees at BCDC, and this Consent Injunction may not be used as proof of liability in any such lawsuit. This paragraph does not limit Plaintiffs' or United States' ability to enforce the terms of this Consent Injunction.
46. This Consent Injunction resolves only the United States' claims, and Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief, set forth in their respective Complaints filed in this case. Accordingly, this Consent Injunction shall not preclude the United States or Plaintiffs from filing any action for claims outside the scope of United States' and Plaintiffs' respective Complaints or from filing an action under any other provision of law.
47. If the United States believes that Defendants have failed to fulfill any obligation under this Consent Injunction, the United States shall, prior to initiating any court proceeding to remedy such failure, give written notice of the failure to Defendants. Defendants shall have 10 days from the date of such notice to cure the failure, and provide the United States with sufficient proof of its cure. During this period, the United States and the Defendants shall coordinate and discuss areas of disagreement and attempt to resolve outstanding differences. At the end of the 10-day period, in the event that the United States determines that Defendants have not cured the failure, the United States may, without further notice, initiate a court proceeding to remedy the failure.
48. Likewise, if Plaintiffs believe that Defendants have failed to fulfill any obligation under the policies regarding publications set forth in the Consent Injunction, Plaintiffs shall, prior to initiating any court proceeding to remedy such failure, give written notice of the failure to Defendants. Defendants shall have 10 days from the date of such notice to cure the failure, and provide Plaintiffs with sufficient proof of its cure. During this period, Plaintiffs and Defendants shall coordinate and discuss areas of disagreement and attempt to resolve outstanding differences. At the end of the 10-day period, in the event that Plaintiffs determine that Defendants have not cured the failure, Plaintiffs may, without further notice, initiate a court proceeding to remedy the failure.
49. Failure by any party to enforce this entire Consent Injunction, or any provision thereof, with respect to any deadline or any other provision herein shall not be construed as a waiver of its right to enforce other deadlines and provisions of this Consent Injunction.
50. For the purposes of this lawsuit only, and in order to settle this matter, Defendants stipulate and agree that their policies and practices limiting detainee access to
10 


2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 11 of 16
publications and religious material have resulted in violations of the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and RLUIPA. This stipulation and agreement is limited to the instant lawsuit and does not apply to any other lawsuit brought by a publisher or a past, current, or future detainee at BCDC, including any inmate named in the pleadings or interviewed or identified as a witnesses, as specified in Paragraph 45.
51. Accordingly, to avoid the costs of future litigation, the parties stipulate and agree that all of the prospective relief provided by this Consent Injunction is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct violations of the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and RLUIPA, and is the least intrusive means of doing so.
52. The parties to this Consent Injunction stipulate and agree that this Consent Injunction complies in all respects with the provisions of 18 U.S.c. § 3626(a), and may serve as the factual and legal basis for a Court order issued pursuant to those provisions.
53. The Court finds, without a full hearing on the merits, on the basis of the United States' and Plaintiffs' Complaints and the above stipulations, that the prospective relief provided by this Consent Injunction is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violations of the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and RLUIPA, and is the least intrusive means of doing so. The Court hereby adopts this Consent Injunction as the order of the Court.
54. This Consent Injunction shall constitute the entire integrated agreement of the Parties. No prior contemporaneous communications, oral or written, or prior drafts shall be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein this litigation or in any other proceeding.
55. All parties agree that, as of the date of entry of this Consent Injunction, litigation is not "reasonably foreseeable" concerning the matters described in this Consent Injunction. To the extent that either party previously implemented a litigation hold to preserve documents, electronically stored information, or things related to the matters described in this Consent Injunction, the party is no longer required to maintain such a litigation hold. This provision does not relieve Plaintiffs or Defendants from maintaining litigation holds related to any claim not resolved by this Consent Judgment, including Plaintiffs' damages claims. Nothing in this paragraph relieves any party of any other obligations imposed by this Consent Injunction, including the document creation and retention requirements described above.
V. Termination
56. Defendants shall provide written notice to the Plaintiffs and the United States 30 days before filing any motion seeking to modify or terminate this Consent Injunction. Defendants shall not provide such notice or file such motion until they have achieved a minimum of one year of substantial compliance with the provisions of this Consent Injunction. If Plaintiffs and the United States determine that Defendants have achieved one year of substantial compliance with the provisions of this Consent Injunction, Plaintiffs and the United States will not oppose a motion filed by Defendants seeking to modify or terminate this Consent Injunction.
11 


2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 12 of 16 IT IS SO ORDERED, 

January/I, 2012 

Charleston, South Carolina
12

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 13 of 16 2:10-cv-02594-SB -BM Date Filed 01/11/12, Entry Number 198-1 Page 13 of 16

FOR PRISON LEGAL NEWS AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER:

::' 

SUSAN DUNN
Staff Attorney
..............J""' ofS th C:aroIt'filll 


:AVID M. SHAPIRO 
 DAVID C. FATHI* 
 '.A..NCOLrUiidNiiialtttieocnfa[lii1PJriCso,;n"j:Pmroicjetlccte
Ttiiiiteato......
federal courts
~LJkl)cf

", H'""

" ' " • "'. ,,,,.,.,

LANCE WEBER 
 Human Rights Defense Center 


/D AGREED TO bytbe above, this

day of~a"'I1!lI"), 2012.

13

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 14 of 16 2: 10-cv-02594-SB -BM Date Filed 01/11/12 Entry Number 198-1 Page 14 of 16-----·-·
FOR THE UNITED STATES:

United States Attomey .. District of South Carolina
~1k.~
BARBARA M. BOWENS Civil Chief District of South Carolina

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights DiVi\
~~.\C=S 
 ROY L. AUS~ ./ Deputy AssistantAftOI y General Civil R' 1t

TIMOTHY . YGATT Special Litigation Counsel 
 Special Litigation Section 


..
AGREED TO by the above this lotlh. day of ~ ,2012.
14

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 15 of 16
2:10-cv-02594-SB -BM Date Filed 01/11/12 Entry Number 198-1 Page 15 of 16
FOR THE BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE:
~
Sheriff Berkeley County Sheriffs Office
NICOLE S. EWING County Attorney , ., """ ._..... ".."............... ' ."....."'_.....!!er!~e~ C~!!!!!¥...,.."...._......"....................".... :........... ,......,"." ...................... . 

("0,---- / " 

{SANDRAJ. SENN\ ROBIN L. JACKSON Senn Legal LLC Counsel for Berkeley County Sheriffs Office
GEDNEY M. HOWE, ill Counsel SheriffH. Wayne Dewitt

AGREED

TO

by

the

above

this.k~ L da. y Of~,

.
2012.

15

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 01/13/12 Entry Number 201 Page 16 of 16

2: 10-cv-02594-SB -BM

Date Filed 01/11/12 Entry Number 198-1 Page 16 of 16
BBLl 'oN ~dLO:~ llOl 'O( 'u'er aW!l pH!aH.~

FOR THE BERKELEY COUNfY SHERIFF'S OFFICE:

H. WAYNE DEWITT
Shmff
. Berkeley CoWlty Sherlfrs om~e

SANDRA J. SENN ROBIN L, JACKSON Sam Legal LLC . Counsel for Be:rkeley County Sherifrs Office

AGREED TO by the above this _ day of

.2012.

l 'd

 
 Part Description 1 17 pages 2 Exhibit A-B

Multiple Documents

© 2013 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6LEPJPUO2?documentName=1.xml

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS and

)

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, )

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF

)

H. WAYNE DEWITT, individually and )

in his official capacity; CAPTAIN

)

CLIFF McELVOGUE, individually and in )

his official capacity; LIEUTENANT

)

TONY RILEY, individually and in his

)

official capacity; JOHN DOE 1,

)

Berkeley County Detention Center

)

employee, individually and in his/her

)

official capacity; JOHN DOE 2,

)

Berkeley County Detention Center

)

employee, individually and in his/her

)

official capacity; JOHN DOE 3,

)

Berkeley County Detention Center

)

employee, individually and in his/her

)

official capacity; JOHN DOE 4,

)

Berkeley County Detention Center

)

employee, individually and in his/her

)

official capacity,

)

Defendants.

)

)

Case No.:
COMPLAINT (JURY TRIAL REQUESTED)

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This suit, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is a First and Fourteenth Amendment

challenge to censorship policies of the Berkeley County Detention Center (the “Detention

Center”). Such policies prevent every newspaper, magazine, and book – except the Bible – from

entering the Detention Center. Without any notice to senders, the Detention Center routinely

refuses to deliver these expressive works to detainees.

1

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 2 of 17
2. Plaintiff Prison Legal News is the publisher of a monthly journal on prison law distributed across the nation to prisoners, attorneys, judges, law libraries, and other subscribers. Prison Legal News is also a book distributor, specializing in books and materials regarding prisoners’ rights and issues related to the criminal justice and corrections systems. 3. The Detention Center has routinely violated the rights of Prison Legal News under the Speech, Establishment, and Due Process Clauses of the First and Fourteenth Amendments by censoring and failing to deliver multiple copies of journals and books sent to detainees by Prison Legal News. Defendants have also unlawfully refused to deliver letters sent by Prison Legal News to detainees.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 5. The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). 6. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as the events complained of occurred within this district.
PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Prison Legal News is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, a Washington State, non-profit, tax exempt (IRS section 501(c)(3)) corporation. The headquarters, business office, and editorial office of the Human Rights Defense Center and Prison Legal News are located in West Brattleboro, Vermont. 8. Prison Legal News and the Human Rights Defense Center publish and distribute a monthly 56-page legal information journal entitled Prison Legal News, which deals with the rights of incarcerated persons. The publication provides information about legal issues such as
2

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 3 of 17
access to courts, disciplinary hearings, prison conditions, excessive force, mail censorship, prison and jail litigation, visitation, telephones, religious freedom, prison rape, and the death penalty. Prison Legal News has been published continuously since 1990. Prison Legal News has approximately 7,000 subscribers nationwide, including subscribers in all 50 states. 9. Plaintiffs also distribute approximately 45 legal and self-help books, some published by Plaintiffs and some by other publishers, regarding the criminal justice system. These books are designed to foster a better understanding of criminal justice policies and to allow prisoners to educate themselves about related issues, such as legal research, how to write a business letter, health care issues, and similar topics. 10. Prisoners and detainees account for approximately 65% of subscribers to Prison Legal News. Prison Legal News is funded primarily by subscription and advertising revenue, book sales, and individual donations. 11. Prison Legal News relies upon its ability to send books, magazines, and letters to prisoners and detainees in order to create and maintain business relationships with subscribers and advertisers. 12. Defendant H. Wayne DeWitt is, and has been at all times relevant to this litigation, the Sheriff of Berkeley County, South Carolina. Defendant DeWitt establishes, maintains, and enforces policies and procedures for the Detention Center and has responsibility for all Detention Center employees, agents, and operations. He is the final policymaker for the Berkeley County Detention Center and the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office. 13. Captain Cliff McElvogue serves as Director of the Detention Center. After Defendant McElvogue, Lieutenant Tony Riley is second in command of the Detention Center. Defendants
3

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 4 of 17
McElvogue and Riley establish, maintain, and enforce Detention Center policies and procedures and have responsibility for Detention Center operations, agents, and employees. 14. Defendants DeWitt, McElvogue, and Riley established, maintained, and enforced the policies at issue in this action. 15. John Doe Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 handle incoming mail sent to detainees at the Detention Center and are charged with processing mail and determining whether to deliver, return, or destroy such mail. 16. The Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office, which is headed by Defendant DeWitt, is a political subdivision of the State of South Carolina. The Berkeley County Detention Center is a component of the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office. At all relevant times mentioned herein, all Defendants were employees or administrators of the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office and/or the Berkeley County Detention Center. All actions by Defendants alleged herein occurred under color of State law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17. All Defendants are sued individually and in their official capacities. 18. On information and belief, all Defendants are residents of the District of South Carolina.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Censorship of Books and Magazines
1. The Detention Center’s Censorship Policy 19. The Detention Center’s written policy on inmate mail bans all publications sent by mail to detainees. A true and correct copy of the written policy is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The policy provides:
The only mail allowed to be received by inmates are letters only. No packages are accepted at the Detention Center. The only exception to this is pictures. Inmates may receive three (3) pictures but they cannot be Polaroid.
4

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 5 of 17
20. The Detention Center has a policy and practice of allowing detainees to order from a publisher, and receive by mail, a soft-cover Bible – but no other books, magazines, or newspapers. On July 12, 2010, First Sergeant K. Habersham, Berkeley County Detention Center, sent the following email to Paul Wright, Editor, Prison Legal News:
Our inmates are only allowed to receive soft back bibles in the mail directly from the publisher. They are not allowed to have magazines, newspapers, or any other type of books. 21. A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 22. These policies, including the written ban on all publications sent by mail and the effective ban on all books and publications except the Bible, were established, maintained, and enforced by Defendants DeWitt, McElvogue, and Riley. 2. Rejection of Books and Magazines 23. Defendants have refused to deliver every book and every magazine that Plaintiffs have sent to detainees at the Detention Center. Since 2008, Plaintiffs have sent copies of Prison Legal News to at least nine detainees and books to at least three detainees. The publications often have been returned to sender, and Plaintiffs have never received any confirmation that a publication was delivered. 24. Among the books sent by Plaintiffs but rejected by the Detention Center was Protecting Your Health & Safety. Prison Legal News distributes Protecting Your Health & Safety under a contract with the Southern Poverty Law Center, which publishes the book. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s website describes Protecting Your Health and Safety as follows: “Designed to help inmates who are not represented by an attorney, Protecting Your Health & Safety explains the legal rights inmates have regarding health and safety – including the right to medical care and to be free from inhumane treatment.”
5

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 6 of 17
25. Acting pursuant to policies established, maintained, and enforced by Defendants DeWitt, McElvogue, and Riley, John Doe Defendants 1-4 refused to deliver issues of books and magazines sent by Plaintiffs, returning or discarding such materials. 26. The ban on publications also prevents Plaintiffs from sending to detainees the Prisoners’ Self-Help Litigation Manual, a book published by Oxford University Press and distributed by Plaintiffs. Widely used by prisoners and attorneys who represent prisoners, the book is described by Oxford University Press as an “indispensable guide for prisoners and prisoner advocates seeking to understand the rights guaranteed to prisoners by law and how to protect those rights. Clear, comprehensive, practical advice provides prisoners with everything they need to know on conditions of confinement, civil liberties in prison, procedural due process, the legal system, how to litigate, conducting effective legal research, and writing legal documents.” 27. Prison Legal News, and the books distributed by Plaintiffs that the Detention Center prohibits, constitute core protected speech, which is not objectionable on security or any other grounds. All of the books sent by Plaintiffs to detainees at the Detention Center had soft covers. All of the copies of Prison Legal News sent to detainees at the Detention Center had soft coverpages and no covers.
3. Effects of the Publication Ban 28. The Detention Center does not have a library to provide detainees access to reading materials. 29. The combination of the ban on incoming publications and the lack of a library means that detainees have no access to any sort of magazine, newspaper, or book, other than the Bible, while at the Detention Center.
6

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 7 of 17
30. Many detainees are held at the Detention Center – and thus deprived of all access to magazines, newspapers, and books, other than the Bible – for months or years on end. 31. For example, on July 22, 2010, a date picked at random, at least 182 current detainees had been held at the Detention Center for 60 days or more; at least 128 current detainees had been held at the Detention Center for 120 days or more; at least 57 current detainees had been held at the Detention Center for over one year; and at least 18 current detainees had been held at the Detention Center for over two years. 32. Several of these long-term detainees have requested books and issues of Prison Legal News from Plaintiffs. For example, at least one detainee who requested such expressive materials from Plaintiffs has been held at the Detention Center for over one year and two months, and remains at the Detention Center to this day. Another detainee who requested expressive materials from Plaintiffs remained at the Detention Center for over one year and three months. Yet another detainee who requested such materials from Plaintiffs was held at the Detention Center for over seven months. 33. Numerous detainees to whom Plaintiffs sent books and issues of Prison Legal News had specifically requested that Plaintiffs send them such expressive works. 34. Detainees at the Detention Center have filed grievances regarding the publications ban. Detention Center officials have rejected such grievances. B. Censorship of Letters 35. John Doe Defendants 1-4 refused to deliver letters sent by Plaintiffs to Detention Center detainees, returning or destroying such letters. 36. Since 2008, Defendants have returned to sender at least six letters that Plaintiffs sent to Detention Center detainees.
7

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 8 of 17
37. Plaintiffs sent all of these rejected letters via First Class mail. 38. Notations written by John Doe Defendants 1-4 on returned letters include “Magazines Not Allowed.” Such notations indicate that the Detention Center’s publication ban, established, maintained, and enforced by Defendants DeWitt, McElvogue, and Riley, extends in practice to letters sent by magazine publishers. John Doe Defendants 1-4 were acting pursuant to that policy when they refused to deliver letters sent by Plaintiffs. C. Denial of Notice and Review 39. The Detention Center’s written policies, established, maintained, and enforced by Defendants DeWitt, McElvogue, and Riley, permit Detention Center staff to reject books, magazines, and letters sent to detainees without providing the publisher or the detainee with adequate notice of the rejection or any opportunity to challenge the rejection. Such policies do not contain any reference to notice or an opportunity to be heard, or even a requirement that Detention Center staff return censored items to the sender. See Ex. A. 40. In most cases, Defendants have refused to deliver materials from Plaintiffs without even returning the materials to sender. In such cases, Plaintiffs have received from Defendants absolutely no notice of rejection. 41. In other cases, the Detention Center has returned to Plaintiffs books, magazines, and letters, but Defendants in so doing consistently fail both to specify a meaningful basis for rejection and to provide an opportunity to challenge the rejection. This lack of notice and an opportunity to be heard results from the failure of Defendants DeWitt, McElvogue, and Riley to include any notice requirements in the Detention Center’s written policies. John Doe Defendants 1-4 have written vague and conclusory reasons for rejection – such as “Can not have,” “Info not
8

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 9 of 17
allowed,” “Not allowed,” “Book Not Allowed,” and “Magazines Not Allowed” – on returned copies of Prison Legal News, letters, and packages containing books. 42. Defendants reject letters and publications without any notice or without adequate notice and without an opportunity to be heard when Plaintiffs send materials both via First Class Mail and via Standard Mail. 43. Plaintiffs have never received any notice from Defendants of procedures available to a sender to challenge the rejection of a book, magazine, or letter. Such lack of review procedures applies to items sent via both Standard and First Class Mail.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Censorship of Books and Magazines Freedom of Speech (First Amendment)
Injunctive and Declaratory Relief 44. Plaintiffs have a First Amendment right to communicate with detainees at the Detention Center, including the right to send detainees books and magazines. 45. Detention Center policies, established, maintained, and enforced by Defendants DeWitt, McElvogue, and Riley, prevent detainees from receiving all books, newspapers, and magazines sent by mail, with the exception of the Bible. Such policies were carried out by John Doe Defendants 1-4, who refused to deliver books and magazines sent by Plaintiffs to detainees. 46. Such policies, both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs, violate the free speech and expression rights of Plaintiffs, guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 47. In establishing such policies and refusing to deliver books and magazines sent by Plaintiffs, Defendants acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
9

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 10 of 17
48. A valid, rational connection does not exist between Defendants’ policy and practice of banning books and magazines and any legitimate governmental or penological interest. 49. Defendants’ policy and practice of banning books and magazines does not leave alternative means of communication open to detainees or publishers. 50. Accommodating Plaintiffs’ right to send books and magazines to detainees will not have a significant impact on guards, other detainees, or the allocation of resources. 51. There is no absence of ready alternatives to the Detention Center’s policy of banning books and magazines sent by mail. The Detention Center’s publications ban is an exaggerated response in light of obvious alternatives, including, for example, a “publishers only” rule, individualized determinations of whether publications will create security concerns, limiting the volume of written material detainees may receive by mail, and taking disciplinary action against detainees who abuse their access to publications. 52. Defendants’ conduct set forth herein constitutes an ongoing violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, subjecting them to irreparable harm and entitling them to injunctive relief.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Censorship of Letters
Freedom of Speech (First Amendment) Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Compensatory and Punitive Damages 53. Plaintiffs have a First Amendment right to communicate with detainees, including the right to send detainees letters. 54. Detention Center policies, established, maintained, and enforced by Defendants DeWitt, McElvogue, and Riley, prevent Plaintiffs from sending letters to detainees. Such policies were
10

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 11 of 17
carried out by John Doe Defendants 1-4, who refused to deliver letters sent by Plaintiffs to detainees. 55. Such policies, both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs, violate the free speech and expression rights of Plaintiffs, guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 56. In refusing to deliver letters sent by Plaintiffs, Defendants acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 57. A valid, rational connection does not exist between the refusal to deliver Plaintiffs’ letters and any legitimate governmental or penological interest. None of the letters sent by Plaintiffs and censored by Defendants could rationally be perceived as a threat to security or Detention Center administration. 58. Defendants’ refusal to deliver Plaintiffs’ letters does not leave alternative means of communication open to detainees or Plaintiffs. 59. Accommodating Plaintiffs’ right to send letters to detainees will not have a significant impact on guards, other detainees, or the allocation of resources. 60. There is no absence of ready alternatives to the Detention Center’s refusal to deliver Plaintiffs’ letters. The Detention Center’s rejection of Plaintiffs’ letters is an exaggerated response in light of obvious alternatives, including, for example, only refusing to deliver those letters that pose a risk to security, limiting the volume of correspondence that detainees may receive, and taking disciplinary action against detainees who abuse their access to mail. 61. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because their refusal to deliver Plaintiffs’ letters violates clearly established constitutional law.
11

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 12 of 17
62. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of the Detention Center’s rejection of letters, including violation of constitutional rights; loss of potential subscribers and customers; loss of subscription, sales, and advertising revenue; loss of reputation; costs of printing, handling and mailing materials; costs of staff time; and other damages to be shown at trial. 63. Punitive damages are warranted as to this claim because each Defendant’s conduct was motivated by evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiffs, intentionally violated federal law, or involved ill will, a desire to injure, and malice. Defendants’ conduct is of the sort that calls for deterrence and punishment over and above that provided by compensatory awards. 64. Defendants’ conduct set forth herein constitutes an ongoing violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, subjecting them to irreparable harm and entitling them to injunctive relief.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Discriminatory Censorship of Books, Magazines, and Letters on the Basis of Religion
Establishment Clause (First Amendment) Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Compensatory and Punitive Damages 65. Defendants have a policy of prohibiting detainees from receiving in the mail any publications or books other than the Bible. Such policy was established, maintained, and enforced by Defendants DeWitt, McElvogue, and Riley, and carried out by John Doe Defendants 1-4, who refused to deliver books, magazines, and letters sent by Plaintiffs to detainees. 66. Such policy discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of religion and violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The books, magazines, and letters that Plaintiffs send to incarcerated persons are secular in nature and pose no threat to Detention Center security. 67. There is no rational, non-discriminatory reason to differentiate between the Bible and the
12

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 13 of 17
books and magazines sent by Plaintiffs. There is likewise no rational, non-discriminatory reason to differentiate between the Bible and letters sent by Plaintiffs. 68. Defendants’ policy of banning all publications other than the Bible, and refusing to deliver Plaintiffs’ letters, violates the Establishment Clause, both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs. 69. In banning all publications other than the Bible, and refusing to deliver Plaintiffs’ letters, Defendants acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 70. In banning all publications other than the Bible, and refusing to deliver Plaintiffs’ letters, Defendants violated clearly established constitutional law and therefore are not entitled to qualified immunity. 71. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of the Detention Center’s policy of banning all publications other than the Bible, including violation of constitutional rights; loss of potential subscribers and customers; loss of subscription, sales, and advertising revenue; loss of reputation; costs of printing, handling and mailing materials; costs of staff time; and other damages to be shown at trial. 72. Punitive damages are warranted as to this claim because each Defendant’s conduct was motivated by evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiffs, intentionally violated federal law, or involved ill will, a desire to injure, and malice. Defendants’ conduct is of the sort that calls for deterrence and punishment over and above that provided by compensatory awards. 73. Defendants’ conduct set forth herein constitutes an ongoing violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, subjecting them to irreparable harm and entitling them to injunctive relief.
13

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 14 of 17
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Rejection of Books, Magazines, and Letters without Notice to Plaintiffs Due Process and Freedom of Speech (First and Fourteenth Amendments) Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Compensatory and Punitive Damages 74. Plaintiffs have a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in sending expressive materials, including books, magazines, and letters, to detainees at the Detention Center. Plaintiffs have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when Defendants prevent Plaintiffs’ expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients. 75. Defendants have a policy of failing to provide adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard when books, letters, and magazines sent to detainees are returned or rejected. Such policy was established, maintained, and enforced by Defendants DeWitt, McElvogue, and Riley, and carried out by John Doe Defendants 1-4, who failed to provide notice or an opportunity to be heard when they refused to deliver books, magazines, and letters sent by Plaintiffs. 76. In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to Plaintiffs under such policy and practice, Defendants acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 77. Defendants’ policy and practice violates Plaintiffs’ right to notice and an opportunity to be heard under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 78. In refusing to provide notice to Plaintiffs, Defendants violated clearly established constitutional law and therefore are not entitled to qualified immunity. 79. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of the Detention Center’s policy and practice of denying notice and an opportunity to be heard, including violation of constitutional rights; loss of potential subscribers and customers; loss of subscription, sales, and advertising revenue; loss
14

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 15 of 17 of reputation; costs of printing, handling and mailing materials; costs of staff time; and other damages to be shown at trial. 80. Punitive damages are warranted as to this claim because each Defendant’s conduct was motivated by evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiffs, intentionally violated federal law, or involved ill will, a desire to injure, and malice. Defendants’ conduct is of the sort that calls for deterrence and punishment over and above that provided by compensatory awards. 81. Defendants’ conduct set forth herein constitutes an ongoing violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, subjecting them to irreparable harm and entitling them to injunctive relief.
15

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 16 of 17
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court: 1. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ policies of banning all publications and books other than the Bible, refusing to deliver letters from Plaintiffs to Detention Center detainees, and failing to provide Plaintiffs with notice and an opportunity to be heard violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; 2. Issue a permanent injunction barring enforcement of such policies; 3. Award compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants in their individual capacities on the Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action set forth herein; 4. Grant Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and court costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable law; and 5. Grant all other appropriate relief.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable in this matter.
Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(B), undersigned counsel hereby endorses and certifies that this action is properly assigned to the Charleston Division.
16

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 17 of 17
Respectfully submitted, ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
s/Susan Dunn Susan Dunn Federal Bar No. 647 Staff Attorney South Carolina National Office of the ACLU P.O. Box 20998 Charleston, SC 29413-0998 (843) 720-1425 Fax: (843) 720-1428 sdunn@aclu.org David M. Shapiro, admission pro hac vice pending dshapiro@npp-aclu.org David C. Fathi,* admission pro hac vice pending dfathi@npp-aclu.org ACLU National Prison Project 915 15th St., N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 (202) 715-0838 Fax: (202) 393-4931 *Not admitted in DC; practice limited to federal courts Lance Weber, admission pro hac vice pending Human Rights Defense Center P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 579-1309 Fax: (866) 735-7136 lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
17

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1-1 Page 1 of 6

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1-1 Page 2 of 6

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1-1 Page 3 of 6

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1-1 Page 4 of 6

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1-1 Page 5 of 6

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1-1 Page 6 of 6

Prison Legal News et al v. DeWitt et al, Docket No. 2:10-cv-02594 (D.S.C. Oct 06, 2010), Court Docket
General Information

Case Name Docket Number Court Nature of Suit

Prison Legal News et al v. DeWitt et al 2:10-cv-02594 United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Civil Rights: Other

© 2013 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6LEPJPUO2?documentName=1.xml

 
 2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 12/15/11 Entry Number 181 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA 


Prison Legal News, et aI., Plaintiff,
United States of America, Plaintiff Intervenor
v.
Berkeley County Sheriff Wayne DeWitt, et al.
Defendants.

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-2S94-SB-BM ) )

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER

)

)

)

)

)

This action has been filed by the Plaintiffs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging alleged censorship policies at the Berkeley County Detention Center. The Defendant Wayne DeWitt, the Berkeley County Sheriff, is currently scheduled for a deposition on December 16, 2011. Before the Court is a motion to quash the deposition, which is opposed by Plaintiffs as well as the Intervenor Plaintiff. Given the nature ofthe motion and the time frame involved, the Court is issuing its ruling on an expedited basis.
A review of the filings in this case shows that the Defendants have been represented by the Senn Law Firm since the filing of Defendants' Answer on November 1,2010. A Scheduling Order was entered by the Court on December 7, 2010, providing, in part, for discovery to be completed by June 6, 2011. The Scheduling Order has been amended numerous times since then, with the current discovery deadline being February 21, 2012. See Court Docket No. 147. The filings before the Court further reflect several attempts by the Plaintiffs to obtain DeWitt's deposition, with the aforementioned deposition date of December 16, 2011 eventually being established.

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 12/15/11 Entry Number 181 Page 2 of 3
Recently, Attorney Gedney Howe has been retained by DeWitt as his personal counseLl In the Motion to Quash, which was filed by Mr. Howe, Defendant DeWitt requests that
Plaintiffs not be allowed to take his deposition at this time due to the fact that he has only recently
retained Mr. Howe as his personal counsel, and Mr. Howe asks for sixty (60) days in which to become familiar with this case. While Plaintiffs acknowledge that a new counsel's request for additional time would normally be accommodated, they object to the Motion to Quash in this instance, citing to the fact that Sheriff DeWitt is a key witness in this case, that there has been considerable delay in obtaining DeWitt's deposition, the fact that if the requested time period is granted the deposition will take place only shortly before the expiration of the discovery period (possibly necessitating the need for a further extension ofthe discovery deadlines), and that DeWitt continues to also be represented by the Senn Law Firm who are capable of preparing him for his deposition. Plaintiffs further complain that the Defendant waited until shortly before the deposition was scheduled to take place before filing his Motion to Quash, although it is also apparent in the filings before the Court that Mr. Howe had communicated his request for a delay to Plaintiffs at least as far back as December 8, 2011.
After careful review and consideration ofthis matter, the Court orders that the Motion to Quash be granted, in part, and denied in part. First, the Court notes that Sheriff DeWitt is being sued both individually and in his official capacity, and that Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, both compensatory and punitive damages against him in his individual capacity. While Plaintiffs are
lAlthough Mr. Howe participated in status conferences before the Court on November 29, 2011 and December 8, 2011, and has participated in recent discussions with case counsel, he did not file a formal notice of appearance as counsel in this case until December 13,2011. See Court Docket No. 175.
2

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 12/15/11 Entry Number 181 Page 3 of 3

correct that the Senn Law Firm has been and continues to represent Sheriff DeWitt, Sheriff DeWitt

has now obtained personal counsel to represent him in this case as well. That is his right, and the

Court finds that if new counsel is going to represent DeWitt at his deposition, he should be afforded

more time to prepare. However, given the current discovery deadlines as well as the fact that the

Defendants have made several attempts to secure Sheriff DeWitt's deposition prior to this time, the

Court does not find that a sixty (60) day extension is justified. The Court is further concerned about

any further delays in the scheduling of Sheriff DeWitt's deposition.

Therefore, the Court will impose a deposition deadline for Sheriff DeWitt of no later

than Tuesday, January 17,2012, unless a later deadline is requested by the Plaintiffs. In other words,

the Defendants are to make Sheriff DeWitt available for a deposition by no later than January 17,

2012. This deadline is five (5) weeks prior to the expiration of the discovery deadlines in this case,

which should provide ample time for the parties to engage in whatever followup may be needed after

the completion ofthis deposition. Case counsel should confer immediately upon receipt ofthis Order

to begin the process of scheduling this deposition. Further, if Sheriff DeWitt takes the position that

he is unavailable for a deposition between now and Tuesday, January 17,2012, then given the delays

! ;I' that have already been occasioned in this case, his deposition will proceed as scheduled on December
16,2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

i

,.

/

i

I

I i

I

,

/

December 15, 2011 Charleston, South Carolina
3

 
 2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 05/03/11 Entry Number 46 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, et. al.,
Plaintiffs; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Applicant for Intervention v.
BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE and SHERIFF H. WAYNE DeWITT,
Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 2:10-02594-MBS

)

)

)

)

)

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

) PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 14141 AND

)

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. (CIVIL RIGHTS)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its undersigned attorneys, hereby files this

Complaint in Intervention and alleges upon information and belief:

INTRODUCTION

1. The Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff H. Wayne DeWitt (collectively,

“Defendants”) prohibit receipt and possession of virtually all mail and other expressive materials

by persons incarcerated at the Berkeley County Detention Center (“BCDC”). Prisoners at BCDC

may not receive books, magazines, newspapers or other expressive materials sent through the

mail, regardless of whether the materials are routed directly from publishers or sent by friends,

family members or community organizations. In the past two years, Defendants have denied

numerous prisoner requests for expressive material, including educational materials required by a

correspondence education course, other books, magazines and legal newsletters. Defendants

compound these restrictions by failing to provide a library or any other avenue through which

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 05/03/11 Entry Number 46 Page 2 of 15
prisoners can access expressive material. These practices violate prisoners’ rights secured by the Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution
2. Defendants also prohibit a wide range of religious materials to BCDC prisoners of various faiths. Prisoners may not possess any religious publications other than the single foundational text for their religions, and Defendants make no accommodation for prisoners whose religious exercise requires access to multiple religious materials. As one example, Defendants denied access to pamphlets, newsletters and other Christian publications sought by an inmate incarcerated at BCDC for much of the past two years. Further, non-Christian inmates often cannot access even the single foundational text BCDC’s policy purports to allow. Defendants informed Bryan Adkins, a Jewish prisoner seeking a Torah, that the prison only provides inmates with copies of the King James Bible. To access a Torah, Defendants informed Mr. Adkins that he must locate a family member to personally deliver the book t o BCDC. Defendants have erected similar barriers to Muslim prisoners seeking copies of the Koran, informing prisoners Marvin Henderson and JaMichael Howard that they could possess a Koran only if family members personally delivered the holy book to the prison. And even if a prisoner is able to arrange for personal delivery of a religious text, Defendants may not allow the prisoner to receive it. Defendants recently refused to provide a copy of the Koran to Mr. Howard after he arranged for his girlfriend to personally deliver it to the facility.
3. Indeed, the only book, magazine, newspaper or religious publication that Defendants consistently permit prisoners to possess is the Bible. Defendants distribute copies of the King James Bible to prisoners at no cost and allow prisoners to purchase other versions of the Bible from BCDC’s on-site Commissary.
2

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 05/03/11 Entry Number 46 Page 3 of 15
4. These practices discriminate against non-Christian prisoners in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. M oreover, they substantially burden the religious exercise of all prisoners – Christians, Jews, Muslims or those of other faiths – who require materials other than the Bible to practice their religion. In the past year, Defendants denied Jewish prisoner Bryan Adkins access to a Torah and prohibited Muslim inmate JaMichael Howard from receiving a copy of the Koran. Because Defendants cannot show that imposing a substantial burden on t hese and other prisoners is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest, Defendants’ policies and practices contravene RLUIPA.
5. The conduct of the defendants constitutes a pattern or practice of denial of a federal right – specifically the Speech and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution - by a law enforcement agency in violation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U .S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”). In addition, the defendants violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (“RLUIPA”) by unlawfully impeding the religious exercise of BCDC prisoners whose religious exercise requires access to materials other than the Bible. JURISDICTION, STANDING, AND VENUE
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U .S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345.
7. The United States is authorized to initiate this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §4141(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(f).
8. Declaratory and injunctive relief is sought as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 14141(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(f).
3

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 05/03/11 Entry Number 46 Page 4 of 15
9. Venue is proper in the District of South Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Defendants reside in South Carolina, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in South Carolina. DEFENDANTS
10. Defendant Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office (“BCSO”) is the principal law enforcement agency in Berkeley County, South Carolina. BCSO maintains and operates the Berkeley County Detention Center. T he Detention Center is staffed by deputies, corporals, sergeants, and lieutenants from the BCSO. The Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office receives federal funding.
11. Defendant H. Wayne DeWitt is, and was at all times relevant to this action, the Sheriff of Berkeley County, South Carolina. He is sued in his official capacity.
12. In his role as Sheriff, Defendant DeWitt exercises ultimate authority over the Berkeley County Detention Center. Defendant DeWitt is responsible for establishing, maintaining, and enforcing BCDC’s policies and procedures and has ultimate responsibility for all BCDC employees, agents, and operations.
13. Sheriff DeWitt and the officers at BCSO who carry out its policies are “law enforcement officers” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 14141. FACTS Berkeley County Detention Center
14. The Berkeley County Detention Center, also known as the Hill-Finklea Detention Center, is a corrections facility in Moncks Corner, South Carolina that currently incarcerates at least 190 individuals. BCDC is a component of the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office.
4

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 05/03/11 Entry Number 46 Page 5 of 15
15. Prisoners detained at BCDC are housed primarily in either of two units: the general population, known as “B-Pod;” or a heightened security unit, known as “A-Pod.”
16. BCDC is an “institution” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). BCDC’s Restrictions on Prisoners’ Receipt and Possession of Mail (1) B-Pod
17. BCDC engages in a p attern or practice of unlawfully prohibiting all prisoners from receiving newspapers, books, magazines, newsletters and most other items through the mail.
18. Guidelines posted on B CDC’s website state that “[t]he only mail allowed to be received by prisoners are letters only. [sic] No packages are accepted at the Detention Center. The only exception to this is pictures.”
19. Similarly, BCDC’s Inmate Handbook establishes that BCDC will reject all mail containing “clippings from newspapers, magazines or books of any kind, internet pictures of any kind,” “more than 3 p hotos,” “glued, taped or stapled items of any kind,” or “bulk mail materials.”
20. BCDC’s Inmate Rules further prohibit delivery of any mail sent in envelopes larger than 9” x 8”.
21. The Defendants have consistently enforced these rules to deny virtually all reading material to individuals housed at BCDC.
22. Examples of BCDC’s unlawful pattern or practice of denying mail to prisoners include, but are not limited to:
5

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 05/03/11 Entry Number 46 Page 6 of 15
a. denying prisoner Willie Williams’ request for materials used in a correspondence education course, despite the course’s offer to make “allowances for special mail restrictions, such as no staples.” In response to this request, BCDC explained simply that Mr. Williams could not possess the materials “while in B-Pod;”
b. rejecting a grievance from prisoner Richard Harris seeking an issue of Prison Legal News (“PLN”) by explaining that “you cannot get any type of newspaper here in jail. That’s why you have not got it” [sic];
c. returning a copy of PLN sent to prisoner Scott Caouette with the notation “no magazines;”
d. rejecting a PLN mailing sent to prisoner Angel Perez with the notation “no magazines allowed;”
e. writing “book not allowed” in response to PLN’s attempt to send two issues of its newsletter to BCDC prisoners;
f. returning a PLN issue sent to prisoner Willie Williams on January 19, 2010 with the notation “can not have” [sic];
g. refusing to deliver PLN issues sent to prisoners Jon Howe and Richard Harris by explaining that “Info Not Allowed;”
h. denying additional PLN issues sent to Richard Harris with the simple notation that the mailings were “not allowed.”
23. In addition to the specific denials of educational materials and legal magazines cited above, at least eleven BCDC prisoners have filed grievances within the past year asserting
6

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 05/03/11 Entry Number 46 Page 7 of 15
that the facility prohibits prisoners from possessing any reading material except for a single religious text.
24. Further, Defendants have taken no s teps to mitigate the effect of BCDC’s restrictions on prisoners’ access to reading or educational materials. The facility does not operate a library or offer any other option for prisoners who wish to obtain books, magazines, newspapers, or other educational materials.
25. In short, Defendants effectively prohibit BCDC prisoners from reading anything except, under certain circumstances, a religious book or a personal letter. (2) A-Pod
26. Prisoners housed in BCDC’s A-Pod unit must comply with the general restrictions on prisoners’ receipt and possession of mail and other reading materials. Like their counterparts in B-Pod, persons incarcerated in A-Pod have no access to a library or other source of reading materials.
27. In addition to these restrictions, A-Pod detainees are not allowed to receive any publications from outside the facility, regardless of their source.
28. BCDC Sergeant Rosemary Sanders affirmed this policy in a prior court proceeding, in which she swore in an affidavit that “prisoners in A-Pod are not allowed to receive publications from outside of the detention center . . . .”
29. Defendants’ absolute proscription on A -Pod detainees’ receipt of outside publications, combined with their refusal to make any reading materials available at the prison site, effectively precludes individuals housed at A-Pod from accessing any educational, religious, legal, or other materials.
7

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 05/03/11 Entry Number 46 Page 8 of 15
BCDC’s Restrictions on Prisoners’ Possession of Religious Materials 30. Defendants’ restrictions on possessing religious material substantially burden the
religious exercise of all prisoners who require more than a single text to practice their religions. Defendants have admitted in prior court proceedings that a prisoner is allowed to possess only his or her “primary religious book,” not pamphlets, newsletters or multiple religious texts. Further, the “primary religious book” must be hand-delivered; prisoners cannot order religious materials through the mail.
31. Adherents of numerous religions rely upon documents contained in multiple books, pamphlets or other publications to aid in the exercise of their faith. Defendants’ practice of denying all materials beyond a single religious text makes no exception for these individuals.
32. And even the meager accommodation of purportedly allowing prisoners to receive a single, personally-delivered religious text is unavailable to prisoners housed in BCDC’s A-Pod unit. In an affidavit submitted in prior litigation, BCDC Sergeant Rosemary Sanders attested that while all prisoners “are allowed to possess a copy of the Holy Bible . . . pr isoners in A-Pod are not allowed to receive publications from outside of the detention center, including religious publications.”
33. Indeed, BCDC officials have previously admitted that prisoners housed in their facility may only possess a Bible. Sergeant Kendra Habersham stated in an email to PLN that “prisoners are only allowed to receive soft back bibles in the mail directly from the publisher. They are not allowed to have magazines, newspapers, or any other type of books.” S ergeant Habersham’s email is corroborated by an Associated Press story stating that BCDC “confirmed …that it doesn’t have a library and that the only reading material its roughly 450 prisoners are
8

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 05/03/11 Entry Number 46 Page 9 of 15
allowed to have are paperback Bibles.” S imilarly, a recent editorial published in the Aiken Standard opined that “If you get locked up i n Moncks Corner . . . you’d better be a devoted reader of the good book because the Bible is the only book you’ll be able to possess.”
34. Through these policies and practices, Defendants have imposed, and continue to impose, substantial burdens on the religious exercise of BCDC prisoners. Defendants’ practices deprive prisoners of texts and other written materials central to their religious exercise. Specifically, Defendants impose a substantial burden on the religious practice of current BCDC prisoner JaMichael Howard by forbidding him from possessing the Koran. Defendants refused to deliver a copy of the Koran to Mr. Howard even after his girlfriend provided the book t o BCDC.
35. Defendants have no compelling government interest in burdening the religious exercise of Mr. Howard and other prisoners who wish to possess religious texts other than the Bible.
36. Similarly, Defendants’ policy and practice of denying such materials is not the least restrictive means of furthering a c ompelling government interest. I ndeed, Defendants’ restrictions prohibit many items permitted by other penal institutions with similar compelling interests, such as the Federal Bureau of Prisons and South Carolina Department of Corrections.
37. The substantial burdens imposed on t he religious exercise of Mr. Howard and other BCDC prisoners affects, or removal of those substantial burdens would affect commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes. I ndeed, the substantial burden on t hese prisoners’ religious exercise stems directly from Defendants’ prohibition on
9

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 05/03/11 Entry Number 46 Page 10 of 15
materials shipped through the mail, often from out of state vendors – a core instrumentality of interstate commerce.
38. Not only do D efendants burden prisoners of various faiths by forbidding possession of most religious materials, Defendants engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that unlawfully favors Christian prisoners over non-Christian ones.
39. Specifically, Defendants’ policies and practices make King James Bibles freely available to all prisoners while erecting significant barriers to accessing other religious texts.
40. Defendants maintain copies of the King James Bible at the detention center and provide a copy of the Bible at no cost to any prisoner who requests it.
41. In addition to this cost-free access to King James Bibles that BCDC maintains on site, Christian prisoners have the option to purchase other versions of the Bible from BCDC’s commissary.
42. Defendants make no comparable accommodations for prisoners who seek religious texts other than the Bible, such as the Torah or Koran. BCDC does not provide prisoners of non-Christian faiths copies of their religious texts on site, nor do Defendants make non-Christian religious materials available for purchase in BCDC’s commissary.
43. BCDC prisoner Bryan Adkins recently submitted an affidavit in other litigation attesting that Sergeant Sanders responded to his request for a Torah by stating that she “only gives out King James versions of the Christian Bible.” Similarly, Marvin Henderson attested that he “requested a copy of the Koran,” but Sergeant Sanders “informed me she does not give Korans.”
10

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 05/03/11 Entry Number 46 Page 11 of 15
44. Defendants compound the effects of this discriminatory practice by prohibiting prisoners from ordering religious materials directly from the publishers of the desired items. Moreover, BCDC’s general restrictions on prisoners’ receipt of mail preclude friends or family members from sending religious materials through the mail.
45. Thus, while BCDC provides Christian prisoners multiple avenues for obtaining copies of the Bible, Defendants do not stock non-Christian religious materials at the detention center and prohibit non-Christian prisoners from receiving such materials from other sources.
46. The only circumstance in which Defendants allow a prisoner to access a religious book other than the Bible is when the book i s personally delivered to the detention facility. BCDC’s confusing responses to two recent prisoner grievances suggest the outlines of this policy:
a. In May 2010, BCDC responded to Mr. Adkins’ request for a Torah by suggesting “have your family bring a Koran in and we will give it to you.”
b. BCDC issued a similarly confounding response to Mr. Henderson’s request for a Koran, suggesting to him to “have your family bring in a Koran Bible and we will give it to you.”
47. This policy forces BCDC prisoners—who may not live in the local area—to rely upon family members or community organizations to personally deliver needed religious material. These practices preclude religious exercise by prisoners who cannot arrange for religious materials to be personally delivered to BCDC.
11

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 05/03/11 Entry Number 46 Page 12 of 15
48. Nor do Defendants adhere to even these discriminatory practices. When current BCDC prisoner JaMichael Howard arranged for his girlfriend to personally deliver a copy of the Koran, Defendants refused to deliver it. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DEFENDANTS’ DENIAL OF ACCESS TO READING MATERIAL VIOLATES SECTION 14141 AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
49. The United States incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 48 as if fully set forth herein.
50. Defendants deny detainees and prisoners in their custody access to virtually all outside reading material except letters and the Christian Bible.
51. Defendants’ denial of access to outside reading material constitutes a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives prisoners in their custody of rights secured by the Speech Clause of the First Amendment, in violation of Section 14141 and the Constitution of the United States. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DEFENDANTS’ DENIAL OF ACCESS TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS TEXTS VIOLATES SECTION 14141 AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
52. The United States incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 48 as if fully set forth herein.
53. Defendants deny detainees and prisoners in their custody access to non-Christian religious texts but permit access to Christian religious texts.
54. Defendants’ privileging of access to Christian religious texts constitutes a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives detainees and prisoners in their custody of rights secured by
12

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 05/03/11 Entry Number 46 Page 13 of 15
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, in violation of Section 14141 a nd the Constitution of the United States. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: DEFENDANTS’ DENIAL OF ACCESS TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS TEXTS VIOLATES RLUIPA
55. The United States incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 48 as if fully set forth herein.
56. Defendants deny detainees and prisoners in their custody access to non-Christian religious texts but permit access to Christian religious texts.
57. Defendants’ denial of access to non-Christian religious texts constitutes a substantial burden on t he religious exercise of detainees and prisoners in their custody. Such denial is not the least restrictive means to serve a compelling government interests. Defendants denial of access accordingly violates RLUIPA.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 58. The United States is authorized, pursuant to Section 14141 and RLUIPA, to seek injunctive and declaratory relief for Defendants’ privileging of Christian religious texts, denial of access to outside reading material, and denial of access to non-Christian religious texts. WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court:
a. Declare that the Defendants have violated the Section 14141 a nd the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by denying detainees and prisoners in their custody access to non-Christian religious texts while permitting Christian religious texts, thereby privileging a single religion over others;
13

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 05/03/11 Entry Number 46 Page 14 of 15
b. Declare that the Defendants have violated the Section 14141 a nd the Speech Clause of the First Amendment by denying detainees and prisoners in their custody access to outside reading materials;
c. Declare that the Defendants have violated RLUIPA by denying detainees and prisoners in their custody access to virtually all non-Christian religious texts;
d. Direct Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, subordinates, successors in office, and all those acting in concert or participation with them to permit detainees and prisoners in their custody to have access to outside reading material, including religious texts and to provide access to religious texts that does not privilege a single religion; and
e. Order such other relief as the interests of justice may require. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM N. NETTLES UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By: s/Barbara M. Bowens BARBARA M. BOWENS (I.D. 4004) Assisted United States Attorney THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division SAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief Special Litigation Section 14

2:10-cv-02594-SB-BM Date Filed 05/03/11 Entry Number 46 Page 15 of 15

May 3, 2011

TIMOTHY D. MYGATT Special Counsel Special Litigation Section
Michael J. Songer MICHAEL J. SONGER AMIN AMINFAR Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-6255 michael.songer@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the United States of America

15

 
 2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 1 of 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA


___________________________________

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, et. al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs;

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff;

)

)

v.

)

)

BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF’S

)

OFFICE and SHERIFF H.

)

WAYNE DeWITT,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

___________________________________ )

No. 2:10-cv-02594-MBS
UNITED STATES’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF PRISON LEGAL NEWS’ AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

INTRODUCTION Berkeley County Detention Center (“BCDC”) restricts detainees’ access to a breathtaking array of books, publications, and religious and educational materials, including the Washington Post, USA Today, Our Daily Bread – a widely-used Christian devotional, and depictions of the Venus de Milo. These restrictions facially violate the First Amendment. BCDC’s policies ban a significant amount of core First Amendment speech and are not reasonably connected to any legitimate penological interest. Indeed, the majority of correctional institutions in the United States, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons and South Carolina Department of Corrections, do not place such restrictions on access to expressive materials, demonstrating the lack of any legitimate penological interest underlying these restrictions. The United States urges the Court to

2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 2 of 26
grant Plaintiffs Prison Legal News’ and Human Rights Defense Center’s (collectively “PLN”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction and enjoin these unconstitutional restrictions.1
BACKGROUND I. BCDC’s Denial of Expressive Material to Detainees
A. Prior to This Lawsuit, Defendants Rejected Virtually All Expressive Material Sent to BCDC Detainees
Until recently, Defendants rejected virtually all expressive material sent to persons incarcerated at BCDC, including books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, and educational materials. Guidelines posted on BCDC’s website through early 2011 stated that “[t]he only mail allowed to be received by inmates are letters only. No packages are accepted at the Detention Center. The only exception to this is pictures. Inmates may receive three (3) pictures but they cannot be Polaroid.”2 Relevant provisions in the HFDC Inmate Rules (“Inmate Rules”) and HFDC Inmate Hand Guide (“Hand Guide”) that were in effect before this litigation likewise precluded virtually all expressive materials. The Inmate Rules banned delivery of any packages to inmates3 and forbid all mail sent in envelopes larger than 9” x 8”.4 Similarly, the Hand Guide established that BCDC would reject any mail containing “glued, taped or stapled items of any kind,” or “bulk mail materials.”5
1 While some of the claims raised by the United States’ recent Complaint in Intervention merit further development, the existing factual record demonstrates that BCDC’s mail policies prohibit a large swath of expressive material, including many books, magazines, and newspapers. The United States asks this Court to grant PLN’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to prevent the continuing violation of detainees’ First Amendment right to receive these materials. 2 See Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, Exhibit A, at 2 (Oct. 6, 2010). 3 See Declaration of David Shapiro in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Shapiro Decl.”), Dkt. No. 47, Exhibit B (Inmate Rules), Rule 15(i) (“Packages will not be accepted”). 4 Shapiro Decl. Ex. B (Inmate Rules), Rule 15(h). 5 Shapiro Decl. Ex. C (Hill-Finklea Detention Center Inmate Hand Guide), §12(A)(1-16).
2 


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 3 of 26
Indeed, BCDC’s Mail Log demonstrates that Defendants categorically rejected books,
magazines, newspapers and other expressive materials from 2005-2010. The Mail Log provides
the following explanations for Defendants’ denial of mail sent to detainees during this period:
 “Books not allowed” or “book not allowed;”6
 no “novals” (sic);7
 “no magazines;”8
 “no newspapers;”9
 “no media / printed material;”10
 “Info not allowed;”11
 “no jokes;”12
 “maps not allowed;”13
 “no bookmarks;”14
 “no calendar”15
 “no puzzles”16
 No “sonogram”17
 “map not allowed”18
6 Declaration of Michael J. Songer (“Songer Decl.”), Ex. A, attaching excerpts from BCDC Mail 
 Log (“Mail Log”) at April 8, 2008; Sept. 3, 2009; Feb. 11, 2010; Sept. 6, 2010; Aug. 4, 2010. 
 7 Mail Log Oct. 8, 2010.
 8 Mail Log Dec. 27, 2007.
 9 Mail Log Jan 3, 2008; June 24, 2009; April 6, 2010. 
 10 Mail Log July 12, 2010.
 11 Mail Log Sept 15, 2009.
 12 Mail Log July 26, 2010.
 13 Mail Log Sept. 13, 2010.
 14 Mail Log Feb. 8, 2010.
 15 Mail Log Dec. 2, 2009.
 16 Mail Log Oct. 5, 2010.
 17 Mail Log Sept. 24, 2009.

3 


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 4 of 26
Defendants’ responses to detainee grievances during this period further illustrate the categorical nature of the prohibition on most types of expressive material. In September 2008, Defendants informed detainee Richard Harris that “you cannot get any type of Newspaper here in jail.” In a 2009 grievance submitted in prior litigation against Defendants, detainee Willie Williams attested that “I am being denied access to all forms of media. No books, magazines, television or radio.”19 In March 2010, Defendants rejected detainee Edwin Harris’ third request to receive Prison Legal News by explaining “I have told you many times you cannot get newspaper or magazine.”20 Moreover, because BCDC does not maintain a library or other repository of books, magazines or newspapers, its mail restrictions effectively precluded inmates from accessing any reading material during their incarceration.
Katie Shuler, BCDC’s administrative specialist in charge of mail processing, conceded that detainees were not permitted to receive any non-religious material prior to 201121 – an admission underscored by three mail log entries within the past year that color BCDC’s exclusion of non-religious materials. On June 1, 2010, BCDC rejected an item with the stated explanation of “only a Bible.” The Mail Log records similar justifications for denials on August 20, 2010 – “religious material only” – and February 14, 2011 – “not religious.” Indeed, evidence suggests that prior to this litigation the only reading materials Defendants consistently permitted detainees to possess were copies of the Bible. BCSO Sergeant Kendra Habersham explained in a July 12, 2010 email to Prison Legal News editor Paul Wright that “inmates are only allowed to receive soft back bibles in the mail directly from the publisher. They are not allowed to have
18 Mail Log Sept. 13, 2010.
 19 Williams v. Sanders, Case No. 9:09-cv-03014 (D.S.C.), Dkt. No. 11 (Dec. 7, 2009).
 20 Declaration of Paul Wright in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction 
 (“Wright Decl.”) Dkt. No. 47, at Fig. 2. 
 21 Deposition of Katie Shuler (“Shuler Dep.”), Apr. 13, 2011, at 94 (“Q: Did that policy change 
 occur in 2011? A: Yes”). 

4

2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 5 of 26
magazines, newspapers, or any other type of books.”22 Finally, BCDC Sergeant Rosemary
Sanders explained in an affidavit in other recent litigation that, while detainees “are allowed to
possess a copy of the Holy Bible,” “prisoners in A-Pod are not allowed to receive publications from outside of the detention center, including religious publications.”23
B. BCDC Revised Its Policies in Response to This Litigation, but Continues to Prohibit Most Magazines and Newspapers
Sometime in 201124 – several months after Prison Legal News filed this lawsuit –
Defendants revised their mail policies to purportedly allow greater access to expressive material.
The new guidelines posted on BCDC’s website permit detainees to receive books that are “shipped directly from the publisher or bookstore” and are “in a soft cover format.”25 Similarly,
“[m]agazines and newspapers must be shipped directly from a publisher by a mail subscription only.”26 In her deposition, Ms. Shuler explained that the new policy is not written in any formal
policy document and “has not been signed off on,” but is currently enforced by BCDC officials who process mail.27 Under the new policy, books, magazines and newspapers sent from
publishers remain subject to the Inmate Correspondence Policy enumerated in HFDC 706, which
provides that “[a]ll incoming mail will be inspected,” and “will be returned to sender” if it
contains objectionable material. Two types of “objectionable” material are most relevant to PLN’s motion: (1) “stapled items of any kind;”28 and (2) “[a]ny photo that is considered inappropriate (i.e., pornographic, lack of clothing, drugs, weapons, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.).”29
22 Wright Decl. Ex. L. (emphasis added). 
 23 Williams v. Sanders, Case No. 9:09-cv-03014 (D.S.C.) Affidavit of Rosemary Sanders 
 (“Sanders Aff.”) (Dkt. No. 26-2) (April 29, 2010). 
 24 Shuler Dep. at 94 (“Q: Did that policy change occur in 2011? A: Yes”). 
 25 http://www.berkeleycountysc.gov/dept/sheriff/suspects/finklea.asp (last visited May 23, 2011). 
 26 Id. 27 Shuler Dep. at 97.
 28 HFDC 706(A)(11), attached to Shapiro Decl., Ex. A.
 29 HFDC 706(A)(7), attached to Shapiro Decl., Ex. A.

5 


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 6 of 26
These exclusions from Defendants’ new mail policy continue to proscribe many forms of expressive material.
1. Staples Defendants currently enforce an absolute ban on mail containing staples. While Defendants’ justifications for this new policy have varied, see Pls’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 5-7, the categorical nature of its scope has not. HFDC 706 states clearly that Defendants will reject incoming mail containing “stapled items of any kind.” Ms. Shuler confirmed that, although BCDC formerly removed staples to allow delivery of legal and religious materials, its current policy is to reject all mail containing staples.30 Indeed, the mail log evidences BCDC’s strict invocation of the no staple rule to reject mail under its new policy. While the log indicates that BCDC rejected stapled items less than 50 times per year from 2007-2010, there were 36 such rejections from February 23-April 4, 2011 – the most recent period for which Defendants have provided the log records.31 The no–staples policy precludes detainees from receiving countless magazines and periodicals covering an array of topics. Examples of publications bound by staples include Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, The Economist, People, and Sports Illustrated, among many others. The no staples rule similarly denies access to many religious publications and educational materials such as Our Daily Bread, a widely-used Christian devotional publication.
2. Inappropriate Photographs BCDC’s Inmate Correspondence Policy sets forth broad rules banning materials that contain certain types of photographs. HFDC 706 states that Defendants will reject any mail
30 Shuler Dept. at 27-32.
 31 At this rate, BCDC will reject 320 stapled items per year. [(36 denials / 41 days) x 365 = 
 320.49 denials in a 365-day year].
6 


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 7 of 26
containing a “photo that is considered inappropriate (i.e., pornographic, lack of clothing, drugs, weapons, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.)”32 or “[m]aterial that would encourage deviant sexual behavior.”33 Defendants apply these undefined provisions broadly. In deposition testimony,
Ms. Shuler explained that the ban on “pornographic” material encompasses “anything that’s related to anything sexual . . . .34” Likewise, Ms. Shuler construed the term “lack of clothing” to include any picture in which either a man or woman is not wearing both a shirt and pants,35 and
explained that the “encourag[ing] deviant sexual behavior” rule applies to any material that references sex.36
If any page of a publication contains a photograph that runs afoul of these expansive
regulations, Defendants exclude the entire publication. For example, Ms. Shuler testified that
she would refuse to deliver an entire issue of the Washington Post that contained an advertisement for the Bloomingdale’s department store showing a woman wearing underwear,37
an issue of USA Today containing a vacation advertisement showing a bikini-clad woman on a beach,38 and a publication depicting the Venus de Milo.39 Nor are the exclusions limited to
“sexual” material. BCDC’s policy prohibits delivery of any publication containing an advertisement for an item classified as contraband, such as alcohol or cigarettes.40 As with
“sexual” material, Ms. Shuler stated that she would reject an entire issue of USA Today that
32 HFDC 706(A)(7), attached to Shapiro Decl., Ex. A. 33 HFDC 706(A)(17), attached to Shapiro Decl., Ex. A. 34 Shuler Dep. at 68-69. 35 Shuler Dep. at 69-70. 36 Shuler Dep. at 71. 37 Shuler Dep. at 73 (“Q: If a copy of the Washington Post arrived at the detention center and contained the [Bloomingdale’s advertisement], you would refuse to deliver the entire issue of the Washington Post; is that correct? A: Yes. I would send it back.”). 38 Shuler Dep. at 87. 39 Shuler Dep. at 89-90. 40 Shuler Dep. at 74. (“Q: If a publication contained an advertisement for something that is contraband at the detention center, would you in every case refuse to deliver the publication? A: Yes.”).
7 


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 8 of 26
contained an advertisement for alcohol.41 The breadth of this regulation is dramatic; it is difficult to conceive of a mainstream newspaper or magazine beyond its reach.
Analysis of the Detention Center’s mail log reveals that Defendants repeatedly cite the inappropriate photograph rationale to reject incoming mail. From January 2007 – April 2011, BCDC denied 1,250 items by citing to a variant of the rationales “inappropriate photo,” “not fully clothed” or “contraband in photo.” The frequency of these exclusions has increased since BCDC adopted its new policies that purportedly allow detainees to receive publications directly from book stores and publishers. After rejecting an average of 283 items per year under the “inappropriate photo” rationale from 2007-2010, BCDC is on track to invoke this justification 442 times in 2011.42 II. Other Penal Institutions, Including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Provide Far
Greater Access to Expressive Material The Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) operates approximately 115 facilities that house over 215,000 inmates, including some of the most dangerous criminals in the United States. BOP operates six Federal Detention Centers and a dozen satellite detention facilities. Despite the paramount security concerns related to incarcerating such a large and diverse prison population, BOP permits inmates in all facilities to receive publications – including ones containing staples and “inappropriate” pictures – directly from publishers and book stores. BOP regulations for medium security facilities, for example, establish that inmates may receive soft cover publications, including paperback books, newspaper clippings, and magazines, from a publisher, book club or bookstore, 28 C.F.R. § 540.71(6)(a)(2), while prisoners in low security
41 Shuler Dep. at 75. See also Mail Log Feb. 6, 2008 rejecting an item because it contained a photograph of a cigarette. 42 The mail log shows that BCDC cited “inappropriate photo” 114 times from Jan. 1, 2011 to April 4, 2011, the latest period for which BCDC has made mail log data available. 114 rejections in 94 days equates to 442 in 365 days.
8 


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 9 of 26
facilities may receive soft cover publications from any source. 28 C.F.R. § 540.71(6)(a)(3). These policies are not tempered by a rule against staples or broad restrictions on “inappropriate” pictures.
A. Staples BOP does not reject publications because of staples. Indeed, BOP’s mail processing policies affirmatively instruct BOP employees to staple mail before delivering it to inmates.43 Even the highest security BOP facilities allow prisoners to receive stapled reading material.44 In his attached declaration, former BOP Assistant Director John Clark details his service as Warden of the United States Penitentiary, Marion, Illinois (“USP Marion”), a “supermax” facility built to replace Alcatraz in 1968. During Mr. Clark’s tenure as Warden, USP Marion was the highest security federal prison facility in the United States – and it allowed inmates to receive publications with staples.45 B. Inappropriate Photographs BOP’s proscription on inappropriate photographs is drawn narrowly. While BOP regulations prohibit material that “is sexually explicit or features nudity,” these terms apply only to depictions of actual nudity or sexual acts. BOP regulations define “nudity” as “a pictorial depiction where genitalia or female breasts are exposed;” “sexually explicit” as “a pictorial depiction of actual or simulated sexual acts;” and “features” applies only to publications that contain “depictions of nudity or sexually explicit conduct on a routine or regular basis . . . .” 28 C.F.R. § 540.72(b). Further, BOP regulations exempt any publication in which nudity is 43 BOP’s Mail Management Manual instructs as follows: “[a]fter all inspections are completed, 
 re-close each letter (staple, tape, etc.), finish sorting, and prepare for delivery as directed by local 
 procedures. Caution will be taken when re-closing letters with a stapler to ensure contents are 
 not stapled.” BOP Program Statement No. 5800.16 at § 3.7 (April 5, 2011) (emphasis added) 
 attached as Exhibit C.
 44 Clark Decl. at ¶¶ 13-14, 23-27, 32-33 attached as Exhibit D. 
 45 Clark Decl. at ¶¶ at 23-27.

9 


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 10 of 26
“illustrative of medical, educational, or anthropological content.” 28 CFR § 540.72(b). Thus, federal prisoners may receive non-explicit pictures of individuals in various states of undress. Indeed, BOP’s Program Statement identifies the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue and the Victoria’s Secret Catalog as examples of acceptable publications. See P.S. 5266.10, at 7 attached as Exhibit B.
ARGUMENT It is well established that incarcerated persons retain constitutional rights that are consistent with their “status as [] prisoner[s]” and “with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.” Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 129 (1977)). These rights include the First Amendment right to receive expressive material through the mail. Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528 (2006) (“imprisonment does not automatically deprive a prisoner of certain important constitutional protections, including those of the First Amendment”); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 93 (1987); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417 (1974); Guerra v. Vetter, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116038 at *3 (D.S.C. 2010) (“Prisoners enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive mail.”). “The constitutional interest here is an important one.” Banks, 548 U.S. at 536. As Justice Thurgood Marshall has explained, “[w]hen the prison gates slam behind an inmate, he does not lose his human quality; his mind does not become closed to ideas . . . It is the role of the First Amendment [] to protect those precious personal rights by which we satisfy such basic yearnings of the human spirit.” Procunier, 416 U.S. at 428 (Marshall, J., concurring). Defendants’ policies banning all material containing staples or “inappropriate” photographs infringe upon detainees’ First Amendment rights by proscribing an array of expressive materials. This infringement extends far beyond policies employed by other penal
10


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 11 of 26
institutions and the dictates of institutional security and order. For that reason and those set forth below, the United States urges this Court to grant PLN’s Motion and enjoin BCDC’s policies banning staples and inappropriate photographs.
Four factors structure the analysis of preliminary injunction motions: “(1) the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if the preliminary injunction is denied: (2) the likelihood of harm to the defendant if the requested relief is granted; (3) the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.” Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Medical Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 812 (4th Cir. 1991). While each of these factors supports enjoining BCDC’s policies banning staples and inappropriate photographs, the “likelihood of success” prong is often decisive in cases alleging violations of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee. See WV Ass’n of Club Owners & Fraternal Servs., Inc. v. Musgrave, 553, F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir. 2009) (“a plaintiff’s claimed harm is inseparably linked to the likelihood of success on the merits of plaintiff’s First Amendment claim”); Jones v. Caruso, 569 F.3d 258, 265 (6th Cir. 2009) (“when a party seeks a preliminary injunction on the basis for a potential violation of the First Amendment, the likelihood of success on the merits often will be the determinative factor.”). I. PLN Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Its First Amendment Claim
BCDC’s absolute proscriptions on publications containing staples or “inappropriate” photographs facially violate the First Amendment. Facial challenges to prison regulations are judged by the standards the Supreme Court articulated in Turner v. Safely.46 There, the Supreme
46 We believe Turner sets forth the proper mode of analysis. See, e.g., Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413 (1989) (applying Turner to First Amendment facial challenge of BOP mail policies). However, a handful of lower courts have applied a traditional over breadth analysis to facial challenges of prison regulations under the First Amendment. Under that doctrine, a policy is overbroad – and constitutionally infirm – if it impinges upon a “significant” amount of Constitutionally protected speech in relation to the policy’s “plainly legitimate sweep.”
11


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 12 of 26
Court identified four factors “relevant in determining the reasonableness of the [prison]
regulation at issue”: (1) the existence of a “valid, rational connection between the prison
regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forth to justify it;” (2) whether there are
“alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates;” (3) the impact of
“accommodation of the asserted constitutional right” on “guards and other inmates, and on the
allocation of prison resources generally;” and (4) the availability of “ready alternatives” for
furthering the governmental interest. Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90: The Turner inquiry “is not
toothless.” Abbott, 490 U.S. at 414. Indeed, Turner requires prison authorities to show more
than a formalistic logical connection between a regulation and a penological objective.” Banks,
548 U.S. at 535.
A. BCDC’s Policies Banning Staples and Inappropriate Photographs Are Not Reasonably Related to a Legitimate Penological Interest
The first Turner factor is “multifold”: a court must assess whether the governmental
objective at issue is “legitimate and neutral” and test whether the challenged regulations are
“rationally related to that objective.” Abbott, 490 U.S. at 414. While prison security is a
legitimate and neutral objective generally, here Defendants arguably have not demonstrated that
their policies are animated by legitimate security concerns. See Pl’s Mot. Prelim. Inj. At 3-7.
Even assuming that Defendants’ invocation of security concerns in this case is “legitimate,”
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 (2008). There is little doubt that such analysis would yield a finding of unconstitutionality here. The universe of protected material excluded by BCDC’s regulations dwarfs the number of legitimately proscribable items. See United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1592 (2010) (finding statute criminalizing depictions of animal cruelty overbroad because application to legitimately proscribable crush videos was “dwarfed” by other applications, such as hunting and fishing magazines). This approach is disfavored in prison litigation, however, “where the right of free speech is limited.” Koutnik v. Brown, 456 F.3d 777, (7th Cir. 2006); Waterman v. Farmer, 183 F.3d 208, 213 (3d Cir. 1999) (substantial overlap between Turner standard and over breadth “suggests that the Supreme Court did not intend for [overbreadth] to apply with independent force in the prison litigation context”).
12


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 13 of 26
however, there is no rational link between security and Defendants’ policies banning all stapled and “inappropriate” publications.
While PLN retains the ultimate burden of proving that the challenged policies violate the First Amendment, Hause v. Vaught, 993 F.2d 1079, 1082 (4th Cir. 1993), the first Turner factor allocates to Defendants the burden of presenting evidence of a rational connection between its policies and a legitimate penological objective. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the First Amendment “requires prison authorities to show more than a formalistic logical connection between a regulation and a penological objective.” Banks, 548 U.S. at 535 (emphasis added). Rather, they must show “a reasonable relation.” Id. at 533. See also King v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 415 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir. 2005) (“the government must present some evidence to show that the restriction is justified”). BCDC’s inability to make such a showing here compels a finding that PLN is likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim. See Jones, 569 F.3d at 267 (“Failure to satisfy the first [Turner] factor renders the regulation unconstitutional without regard to the remaining three factors.”); Amatel v. Reno, 156 F.3d 192, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“the first factor looms especially large”).
1. BCDC’s No-Staples Policy Is Not Rationally Related to a Legitimate Penological Objective
BCDC has no rational interest in denying access to stapled publications like Time, Newsweek, and Our Daily Bread. Indeed, most correctional institutions in the United States, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons and South Carolina Department of Corrections,47 allow inmates to receive stapled publications. The United States’ expert John Clark, who has served as Assistant Director of the nation’s largest prison system – BOP – and as warden of the Federal 47 Although South Carolina Department of Corrections (“DOC”) does not make its mail policies publicly available, a spokesperson for the DOC informed the Associated Press that, except for death row inmates, “magazines are allowed in with staples”). Ron Barnett, USA Today, “S.C. county jail bans stapled publications,” Oct. 25, 2010.
13


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 14 of 26
Detention Center in Miami, Florida, attests that “detainees’ access to stapled publications is not a legitimate concern for corrections professionals.”48 Indeed, every institution with which Mr. Clark has associated during his 35–year career allowed inmates to receive stapled publications. Ensuring detainees’ access to publications, many of which are stapled, is an important component of corrections management. As Mr. Clark explains, Defendants’ ban on stapled publications “inhibits security and order by denying prisoners and detainees access to numerous religious publications and reading materials. Prisoners and detainees who cannot access their desired reading material or exercise their religious beliefs become idle, which leads to boredom, frustration, and disruptive behavior.”
Moreover, Defendants have produced no evidence of specific security threats posed by staples at BCDC. As set forth more fully in PLN’s Motion, see Pls’ Mot for Prelim. Inj. at 16-20, records produced by Defendants are almost entirely bereft of any evidence that staples have damaged locks, toilets or other fixtures at BCDC, or otherwise threatened security. The vague declarations filed by Defendants in response to PLN’s motion reinforce the lack of evidence that staples cause meaningful damage at BCDC. See Decl. of David Taschner (“Taschner Decl.”) at ¶ 3 (Building management “often” called to repair fixtures “which have been broken by inmates utilizing metal objects such as staples, paper clips and the like”); Decl. of Patrick Garrett at ¶ 5 (“Though the invoices don’t necessarily specify staples as the culprit, my recollection and my wife’s recollection, is that staples in the locks were the cause of a number of these repairs.”). After reviewing the maintenance records and incident reports produced by Defendants that purportedly demonstrate the need for a restriction on staples, the United States’
48 Clark Decl. at ¶ 32.
14


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 15 of 26
expert concluded that banning stapled publications is not a rational response to any of the concerns invoked by Defendants.49
Absent any general or specific basis for banning stapled publications, Defendants’ categorical exclusion epitomizes the type of unconstitutional “shortcut” that produces “needless exclusions” of expressive material. In Abbott, the Supreme Court upheld a narrowly circumscribed BOP regulation that allowed a warden to reject a publication only if he or she found the publication detrimental to order, discipline or security. The Court explained that it was “comforted by the individualized nature of the determinations,” emphasizing that a publication falling within one of the categories “may be rejected, but only if it is determined to meet that standard under the conditions prevailing at the institution at the time.” Abbott, 490 U.S. at 416-17. Importantly, the BOP regulations “expressly reject[ed] certain shortcuts that would lead to needless exclusions.” Id. at 417. Applying Abbott, the Second Circuit suggested that a New York prison regulation banning publications from sources that had not been previously authorized was “not sufficiently related to any legitimate and neutral penological objective.” Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 116 (2d Cir. 2004) (finding that inmate stated a claim that denial of New Afrikan literature violated the First Amendment). Unlike the individualized review in Abbott, the “unauthorized publications” shortcut at issue in Shakur “greatly circumscribe[d] the universe of reading materials accessible to inmates” without providing “any standard against which [prison] officials will conduct an individualized review of the publication in question.” 391 F.3d at 115-16.
Here, Defendants’ “no staples” shortcut excludes even more publications than the “unauthorized source” rule in Shakur, with even less particularized justification. While the Shakur regulation forbade publications from sources that had not yet been “authorized,” BCDC 49 Clark Decl. at ¶¶ 33-43.
15


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 16 of 26
permanently bans all stapled publications, regardless of their merit or potential to foment disruption. Indeed, there is no process by which BCDC could ever admit delivery of any stapled publication to a detainee.
2. BCDC’s Ban on “Inappropriate” Photographs Is Not Rationally Related to a Penological Objective
Defendants’ broad prohibition on any publication containing an image deemed “inappropriate (i.e., pornographic, lack of clothing, drugs, weapons, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.,”50 including “anything that’s related to anything sexual,”51 is not rationally related to legitimate penological interests. While correctional facilities have an interest in limiting access to certain types of sexually explicit material, Defendant’s expansive regulations preclude delivery of most mainstream newspapers and magazines, as well as many educational materials and religious texts. As Mr. Clark attests, there is no “legitimate penological interest furthered by banning publications that contain sexually suggestive (but non-explicit) pictures or advertisements for contraband items like cigarettes and alcohol.”52
As with its ban on stapled publications, Defendants’ sweeping prohibition on inappropriate photographs proscribes a wide swath of expressive material without providing any particularized basis for doing so. Indeed, Ms. Shuler testified that “in every case” she would ban an entire publication if it contained a single inappropriate photograph.53 This approach is precisely the type of “shortcut[] that would lead to needless exclusions” described by the Supreme Court in Abbott. 490 U.S. at 417. As in Shakur, BCDC’s restriction on inappropriate content “greatly circumscribes the universe of reading materials accessible to inmates” without providing “any standard against which [prison] officials will conduct an individualized review of 50 HFDC 706(A)(7), attached to Shapiro Decl., Ex. A. 51 Shuler Dep. at 68-69. 52 Clark Decl. at ¶ 45. 53 Shuler Dep. at 74.
16


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 17 of 26
the publication in question.” 391 F.3d at 115-16. The Eleventh Circuit applied similar analysis in Owen v. Willie, 117 F.3d 1235, 1237 (11th Cir. 1997), explaining that while counsel for the local detention center conceded “that a blanket ban on nude photographs would be unconstitutional,” a particular denial of nude material was permissible in light of the facility’s policy that each incoming publication “was subjected to three tiers of review before being prohibited.” Defendants’ categorical exclusions here lack any comparable mechanism.
Moreover, BCDC does not consider the context of purportedly “inappropriate” content when deciding whether to allow prisoners to receive a publication. In her deposition, Ms. Shuler explained that she would “refuse to deliver the entire issue of the Washington Post” if it contained a single advertisement for underwear.54 This disregard for context is incompatible with the reasonableness Turner prescribes. As a federal district court in this circuit emphasized, “the prohibition also applies regardless of the context of the depiction or the context of the work as a whole. Therefore, literary classics . . . technically violate this regulation. It is difficult to understand how denying inmates access to such books promotes [penological interests].” Cline v. Fox, 319 F. Supp. 2d 685, 692 (N.D.W.Va. 2004) (prison’s ban on “obscene material” facially violates the First Amendment). See also Strope v. Collins, 492 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1296 (D. Kan. 2007) (Court could find “no precedent upholding the constitutionality” of a policy of banning “entire publications because they contain what appears to be a few photographs of women’s partially bare buttocks.”). As in Cline, Defendants’ policy here prevents detainees from receiving important expressive material – in this case leading newspapers like the Washington Post and topical magazines such as Time and Newsweek – if the publications contain an advertisement for alcohol or cigarettes or a photograph of any individual not fully clothed. “It is
54 Shuler Dep. at 73.
17


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 18 of 26
difficult to understand” how rejecting these publications furthers any penological interest. Cline, 319 F. Supp. 2d at 692.
B. BCDC’s Mail Policies Do Not Provide Detainees Alternative Means of Exercising Their First Amendment Rights
Defendant’s restrictions on publications containing staples or inappropriate content fail the second prong of the Turner analysis because BCDC provides no alternative means for detainees to access expressive material. In combination, the no-staples and inappropriate photograph policies ban a large percentage of mainstream newspapers and magazines. Nor do Defendants provide a library or other source from which detainees can access expressive material. Indeed, detainees’ only avenue for receiving expressive material is through BCDC’s mail room.
This lack of alternatives weighs heavily against Defendants in the Turner analysis. It is well-established that the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to receive “information and ideas” of their choosing. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762 (1972); Rossignal v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 522 (4th Cir. 2003) (“The First Amendment . . . protects both a speaker's right to communicate information and ideas to a broad audience and the intended recipients’ right to receive that information and those ideas.”). As the Fifth Circuit explained, absent a legitimate penological interest, correctional institutions may not substitute their judgment of what constitutes appropriate expressive material for a detainee’s desire to receive specific publications. See Mann v. Smith, 796 F.2d 79 (5th Cir. 1986). There, a county jail in Texas urged that its denial of newspapers and magazines did not violate the First Amendment in part because detainees had access to news from television. The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument, explaining that “[w]hatever the intrinsic merits of television in comparison with newspapers and magazines, the contents of television are different from what
18


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 19 of 26
one finds in the printed media. It is not up to the Midland County Sheriff or this court to decide that television can adequately serve the First Amendment right to receive protected materials.” Mann, 796 F.2d at 83 (emphasis added). See also Abbott, 490 U.S. at 418 (second Turner factor satisfied where regulations “permit a broad range of publications to be sent, received, and read”); Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 1999) (upholding a ban on sexually explicit material that “does not ban sexually explicit letters between inmates and others, nor does it ban sexually explicit articles . . . ”); Jackson v. Elrod, 881 F.2d 441, 445 (7th Cir. 1989) (denying qualified immunity to prison officials that banned all hardcover books where there were no alternatives for inmates to obtain expressive material).
The same principle applies here. While Defendants permit detainees to watch television and access some soft cover books, the content and presentation of this media is different from daily newspapers, topical magazines about news and popular culture, or periodicals about religion or education. The First Amendment guarantees the right to select the type of information one receives. While authorities may limit this right in the corrections context pursuant to a legitimate penological interest, Defendants have failed to identify any such interest for banning publications with staples or non-explicit photographs.
Finally, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Hause v. Vaught does not control the second prong of the Turner analysis. The Hause court upheld a total ban on an inmate’s receipt of mail at a short-term detention center. See Hause, 993 F.2d at 1084. Upon close inspection, however, the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning in Hause militates against the constitutionality of categorical publication bans in virtually all correctional settings, including BCDC. First, the court expressly cabined its opinion to “the facts before us,” which involved: (1) “a short-term detainee seeking damages” for denial of reading material during a prior “short-term confinement”; and (2) no
19


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 20 of 26
claim for injunctive relief. Id. at 1084 (emphasis added); see also Lindell v. Frank, 377 F.3d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 2004) (noting that Hause “stated that its holding was limited to the facts before it, including the fact that the plaintiff was seeking damages for limitations placed on his rights during limited periods of short-term confinement”). Hause was incarcerated three times, for periods of 16 days, 54 days and 45 days, respectively. The brevity of Hause’s detentions precluded alternative methods for accommodating his right to receive publications, including Hause’s suggestion to implement a “publisher’s only” rule. As the court explained, “most publications sent from publishers . . . will arrive after a detainee has been transferred to another facility or released.” Hause, 993 F.2d at 1083.
Moreover, Hause had access to newspapers and magazines at an on-site library. Id. at 1081. The court concluded that Hause’s objections to the adequacy of the library did not rise to constitutional violations because the library’s deficiencies resulted from its difficulty in obtaining materials in the aftermath of a damaging hurricane. As the Fourth Circuit explained, “limitations on an inmate’s access to information cannot by themselves pose a constitutional problem when they are the result of natural disasters afflicting an entire community . . . .” Id. at 1084.
None of the factors underpinning the Hause decision are present here. Whereas Hause was incarcerated for less than 60 days, over 100 BCDC detainees have been held at the facility for more than 60 days and 43 have been incarcerated for longer than a year. See Pls’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 26. As a result, inmates confined at BCDC – unlike those in Hause – have ample time to receive publications. Moreover, BCDC offers no library or other avenue for inmates to access reading material – a restriction borne of choice, not natural disaster.
20


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 21 of 26
C. Accommodating Detainees’ First Amendment Rights Will Not Impose a Significant Burden on BCDC Officials
The third Turner factor also militates against the constitutionality of Defendants’ policies because allowing detainees to receive newspapers and stapled magazines will not significantly burden BCDC officials. Indeed, using narrower restrictions on allowed publications will lessen the burden on Defendants’ mail staff. As PLN explains, removing staples from a magazine consumes less time than it takes for Defendants to document the basis for rejection in BCDC’s mail log. See Pls’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 20-21. Further, removing Defendants’ broad, highly discretionary limits on inappropriate content is likely to save time because mail room staff will no longer have to carefully review incoming publications for potentially inappropriate content.55 Mail room staff could more quickly apply an appropriately tailored rule, such as BOP’s proscription on actual nudity and sexually explicit pictures. See Jones, 569 F.3d at 272 (finding a prison could not satisfy the third Turner factor where “reasonable alternatives to [the regulation] exist at what appears to be a minimal cost”).
D. Defendants’ “No-Staples” and “Inappropriate Content” Policies Are an Exaggerated Response to Prison Concerns
In Turner, the Supreme Court explained that “[t]he existence of obvious, easy alternatives may be evidence that [a prison regulation] is not reasonable, but is an exaggerated response to prison concerns.” 482 U.S. at 90-91. Here, Defendants clearly possess easy alternative to their mail policies. Instead of rejecting and cataloging all stapled publications, BCDC’s mail staff could remove staples from publications or – like most other correctional facilities – deliver the publications with staples. Instead of combing through publications in search of “inappropriate” photographs such as “anything related to anything sexual,” Defendants could craft a narrowly­
55 See Clark Decl. at ¶ 45.
21


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 22 of 26
defined regulation against sexually explicit material that would consume fewer resources to enforce.
In addition, the exaggerated nature of Defendants’ focus on stapled publications is demonstrated by BCDC’s failure to prohibit other types of objects used to damage the facility. Although Defendants now claim that staples present a security risk justifying the denial of most magazines, detainees were permitted to order stapled material from BCDC’s commissary until very recently. See Declaration of Toni Bair (“Bair Decl”) at 29-32. Moreover, “any damage that detainees inflict with staples may be caused by material available from sources other than stapled publications, including many sources that are permitted under BCDC’s policies, such as kitchen items, tooth brushes, paper, playing cards and metal from fixtures in detainees’ cells.”56 Indeed, Defendants’ own witness admits as much. See Taschner Decl. at ¶ 3 (fixtures “broken by inmates utilizing metal objects such as staples, paperclips and the like”). Staples from publications add little to the universe of objects available to detainees – at the high cost of restricting First Amendment rights. As the Fifth Circuit found in Mann, a county jail policy allowing some forms of paper while banning newspapers and magazines was constitutionally infirm because of its “patently underinclusive nature.” 796 F.2d at 82; see also Couch v. Jabe, 737 F. Supp. 2d 561, 567 (W.D.Va. 2010) (regulation banning “descriptions of sexual acts” facially unconstitutional under Turner because it “encompasses much of the world’s finest literature, but does not extend to ‘soft core’ pornography such as Playboy magazine”). II. A Preliminary Injunction is Necessary to Prevent a Continuing Constitutional
Injury Detainees confined to BCDC will continue to suffer irreparable injury if an injunction does not issue. Absent a preliminary injunction, Defendants’ prohibitions on stapled
56 Clark Decl. at ¶ 42.
22


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 23 of 26
publications and “inappropriate content” will continue to infringe upon detainees’ First Amendment right to receive information. “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable harm.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). See also Newsom v. Albermarle County School Bd., 354 F.3d 249, 261 (4th Cir. 2003) (same). III. A Preliminary Injunction Will Not Harm Defendants
Enjoining Defendants’ restrictions on stapled publications and inappropriate content will not harm Defendants. Indeed, an injunction is likely to lessen the administrative burden on Defendants’ mail staff by limiting their onerous review and documentation of incoming publications.
Moreover, allowing detainees greater access to publications will improve order and security at BCDC. As Mr. Clark explains, “providing mental stimulation is an important tool of good corrections management. The greater an individual’s access to reading materials, the less apt he or she is to grow angry or frustrated with the idle existence of life inside prisons and detention centers.”57 The harms asserted by Defendants – fears about the potential use of staples in locks, tattoo kits, and toilets and a vague concern about “inappropriate” content – are not borne out by Defendants own maintenance records and incident reports, and not proven to be problems at the many correctional facilities around the country that do not restrict detainees access to expressive materials like BCDC. IV. The Public Interest Favors a Preliminary Injunction to Secure Detainees’
Constitutional Rights “There is the highest public interest in the due observance of all the constitutional guarantees.” United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 27 (1960). The public interest here is
57 Clark Decl. at ¶ 8; see also Clark Decl. at ¶ 45.
23


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 24 of 26
particularly acute because Defendants’ regulations infringe upon the freedom of speech. See, e.g., Banks, 548 U.S. at 536 (Explaining in the context of prisoners’ access to expressive material that “[t]he constitutional interest here is an important one.”); Edmisten v. Werholtz, 287 F. App’x 728, 735 (10th Cir. 2008) (It is well-settled that “the public has an interest in protecting the civil rights of all persons.”). When a person is denied the First Amendment right to receive information, he or she is “shut . . . out of the marketplace of ideas and opinions that it is the purpose of the free-speech clause to protect.” King, 415 F.3d at 638.
Here, Defendants’ infringement upon detainees’ right to receive information implicates the core of the First Amendment – political speech and religious exercise. See R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 422 (1992) (Stevens, J., concurring) ("Core political speech occupies the highest, most protected position" in the First Amendment hierarchy). BCDC’s policies effectively ban detainees from receiving most mainstream magazines, such as Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report, stapled flyers or other political pamphlets, and leading newspapers like the Washington Post. The public has a powerful interest in ensuring that all segments of the population can choose to access such materials. Indeed, “speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75 (1964).
BCDC’s restrictions on staples and “inappropriate” content also limit access to publications commonly used in religious exercise, such as Our Daily Bread. Congress’ serial efforts to protect the religious exercise of incarcerated persons underscore the strong public interest in providing access to the religious publications that BCDC prohibits. For example, the Supreme Court recently explained that passage of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (2000), was “the latest of long-running
24


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 25 of 26
congressional efforts to accord religious exercise heightened protection from governmentimposed burdens.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 713 (2005). RLUIPA passed both houses of Congress unanimously and was supported by more than seventy religious and civil rights groups representing a diversity of religious and ideological viewpoints. See 146 Cong. Rec. S7777-78.
Further, a preliminary injunction is necessary to advance the strong public interest in rehabilitation. Depriving incarcerated persons of expressive material is inimical to rehabilitative goals. See, e.g., Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822-25 (1974); Martinez, 416 U.S. at 412 (“the weight of professional opinion seems to be that inmate freedom to correspond with outsiders advances rather than retards the goal of rehabilitation”). “The simple opportunity to read a book or write a letter, whether it expresses political views or absent affections, supplies a vital link between the inmate and the outside world, and nourishes the prisoner’s mind despite the blankness and bleakness of his environment.” Wolfish v. Levi, 573 F.2d 118, 129 (2d Cir. 1978), rev’d sum. nom. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). Defendants’ sweeping mail restrictions deny this opportunity.
25


2:10-cv-02594-MBS Date Filed 05/23/11 Entry Number 59 Page 26 of 26
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully asks this Court to grant PLN’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction against Defendants’ policies that ban publications containing staples and “inappropriate” content.
Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM N. NETTLES United States Attorney District of South Carolina s/Barbara Bowens BARBARA BOWENS (4004) Chief, Civil Unit District of South Carolina
DATED: May 23, 2011

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
SAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
JONATHAN M. SMITH Chief Special Litigation Section
TIMOTHY D. MYGATT Special Counsel Special Litigation Section
MICHAEL J. SONGER AMIN AMINFAR Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-6255 michael.songer@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the United States of America
26


 
 Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 1 of 23

CLOSED,JURY
U.S. District Court District of South Carolina (Charleston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10−cv−02594−SB−BM

Prison Legal News et al v. DeWitt et al Assigned to: Honorable Sol Blatt, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/06/2010 Date Terminated: 01/17/2012 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Prison Legal News

represented by Susan King Dunn ACLU SC National Office PO Box 20998 Charleston, SC 29403 843−720−1425 Fax: 843−720−1428 Email: sdunn@aclusouthcarolina.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carl Takei ACLU National Prison Project 915 15th St NW Washington, DC 20005 202−393−4930 Fax: 202−393−4931 Email: ctakei@npp−aclu.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Cyrus Fathi National Prison Project of the ACLU 915 15th Street NW Seventh Floor Washington, DC 20005 202−393−4930 Email: dfathi@npp−aclu.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Michael Shapiro National Prison Project of the ACLU 915 15th Street NW Seventh Floor Washington, DC 20005 202−715−0838 Email: dshapiro@npp−aclu.org TERMINATED: 10/02/2012 PRO HAC VICE

Lance Theodore Weber Human Rights Defense Center PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 802−257−1342 Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center

represented by

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 2 of 23

V. Intervenor Plaintiff United States of America

Susan King Dunn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carl Takei (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Cyrus Fathi (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Michael Shapiro (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2012 PRO HAC VICE
Lance Theodore Weber (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barbara Murcier Bowens US Attorneys Office 1441 Main Street Suite 500 Columbia, SC 29201 803−929−3000 Fax: 803−252−2759 Email: barbara.bowens@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Norman Nettles Bill Nettles Law 2008 Lincoln Street Columbia, SC 29201 803−814−2826 Fax: 888−745−1381 Email: bill.nettles@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amin Aminfar US Department of Justice (Civil Rights−Educational) 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 202−307−0652 Email: amin.aminfar@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 02/28/2012 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Johnson Songer US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Room 4132

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 3 of 23

V. Defendant Berkeley Cty Sheriff H Wayne DeWitt individually and in his official capacity
Defendant Captain Cliff McElvogue individually and in his official capacity

Washington, DC 20530 202−305−1762 Email: michael.songer@usdoj.gov PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy D Mygatt US Department of Justice (Civil Rights−Educational) 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−3334 Email: timothy.mygatt@usdoj.gov PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gedney M Howe , III PO Box 1034 Charleston, SC 29402 843−722−8048 Fax: 843−722−2140 Email: ghowe@gedneyhowe.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Lilley Jackson Senn Legal PO Box 12279 Charleston, SC 29422 843−556−4045 Fax: 843−556−4046 Email: Robin@sennlegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra Jane Senn Senn Legal PO Box 12279 Charleston, SC 29422 843−556−4045 Fax: 843−556−4046 Email: Sandy@sennlegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie P McDonald Senn McDonald and Leinbach PO Box 12279 Charleston, SC 29422 843−556−4045 Fax: 843−556−4046 Email: Stephanie@SMLlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robin Lilley Jackson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 4 of 23

Defendant John Doe 1 Berkeley County Detention Center employee individually and in his her official capacity
Defendant John Doe 2 Berkeley County Detention Center employee individually and in his her official capacity
Defendant John Doe 3 Berkeley County Detention Center employee individually and in his her official capacity
Defendant John Doe 4 Berkeley County Detention Center

Sandra Jane Senn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie P McDonald (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robin Lilley Jackson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra Jane Senn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie P McDonald (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robin Lilley Jackson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra Jane Senn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie P McDonald (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robin Lilley Jackson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra Jane Senn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie P McDonald (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robin Lilley Jackson (See above for address)

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 5 of 23

employee individually and in his her official capacity
Defendant Lieutenant Tony Riley individually and in his official capacity

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra Jane Senn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie P McDonald (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robin Lilley Jackson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra Jane Senn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie P McDonald (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/06/2010 10/06/2010 10/06/2010 10/08/2010
10/08/2010
10/08/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0420−2982018.), filed by Prison Legal News, Human Rights Defense Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B)(asni, ) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
2 Summons Issued as to H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue and Tony Riley. (asni, ) Modified to edit text on 10/6/2010 (asni, ). (Entered: 10/06/2010)
3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News.(asni, ) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
5 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Lance T Weber ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0420−2987581) by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 10/25/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Application/Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
6 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by David Michael Shapiro ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0420−2987612) by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 10/25/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Application/Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Attachment 1 replaced on 11/3/2010) (asni, ). affidavit was replaced at the request of chambers since the notary was not the original signature on 11/4/2010 (asni, ). (Entered: 10/08/2010)
7 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by David C. Fahti ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0420−2987626) by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 10/25/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Application/Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) additional attachment entry 15 added on 11/3/2010 (asni, ). (Attachment 1 replaced on 11/3/2010) (asni, ). affidavit was replaced at the request of chambers since the notary was not the original signature on

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 6 of 23

10/14/2010 11/01/2010 11/02/2010
11/03/2010 11/03/2010 12/06/2010 12/07/2010
01/14/2011 01/18/2011
03/03/2011

11/4/2010 (asni, ). (Entered: 10/08/2010)
10 TEXT ORDER granting 5 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 10/14/2010.(asni, ) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
12 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
14 CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 11/22/2010, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 12/6/2010, Rule 26 Report due by 12/6/2010, Amended Pleadings due by 1/4/2011, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 1/31/2011, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 3/1/2011, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 3/1/2011, Discovery due by 5/2/2011, Motion in Limine due by 8/11/2011, Motions due by 5/16/2011, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 7/29/2011, Pretrial Briefs due by 8/27/2011, Jury Selection Deadline 9/1/2011, ADR Statement due by 6/14/2011, Mediation Due by 7/14/2011,. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 11/2/2010. (asni, ) (Entered: 11/02/2010)
15 Additional Attachments to Main Document 7 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by David C. Fahti ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0420−2987626) MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by David C. Fahti ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0420−2987626) Certificate of Good Standing. (Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 11/03/2010)
16 TEXT ORDER granting 6 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 11/3/2010.(asni, ) (Entered: 11/04/2010)
17 Joint Rule 26(f) Report by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Human Rights Defense Center, Cliff McElvogue, Prison Legal News, Tony Riley. (Attachments: # 1 LR 26.03 Answers)(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
19 CONSENT AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER Amended Pleadings due by 2/4/2011, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 3/4/2011, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 4/4/2011, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 4/4/2011, Discovery due by 6/6/2011, Motion in Limine due by 9/9/2011, Motions due by 6/20/2011, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 8/29/2011, Pretrial Briefs due by 9/28/2011, Jury Selection Deadline 10/3/2011, ADR Statement due by 7/15/2011, Mediation Due by 8/15/2011,. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 12/7/2010. (asni, ) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
20 Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct 19 Scheduling Order,, by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Human Rights Defense Center, Cliff McElvogue, Prison Legal News, Tony Riley. Response to Motion due by 1/31/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Consent Amended Scheduling Order)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
21 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER( Amended Pleadings due by 3/7/2011, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 4/4/2011, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 5/4/2011, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 5/4/2011, Discovery due by 7/6/2011, Motion in Limine due by 10/11/2011, Motions due by 7/20/2011, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 9/28/2011, Pretrial Briefs due by 10/28/2011, Jury Selection Deadline 11/2/2011, ADR Statement due by 8/14/2011, Mediation Due by 9/14/2011, Service of Complaint due by 4/4/2011) Motions terminated: granting 20 Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct 19 Scheduling Order, filed by Tony Riley, John Doe 2, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, H Wayne DeWitt, Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News, John Doe 1, John Doe 3.. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 1/18/2011. (asni, ) (Entered: 01/19/2011)
23 MOTION to Compel by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 3/21/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Shapiro, # 3 Certificate of Service, # 4 Exhibit A− Pls 1st Set of RTA, # 5 Exhibit B− Pls 1st Set of RTP, # 6 Exhibit C− Pls 1st Set of ROGs, # 7 Exhibit D− Def's Resp to 1st Set of RTA, # 8 Exhibit E− Def's Resp to 1st Set of ROGs, # 9 Exhibit F− Def's Resp to 1st Set of RTP, # 10 Exhibit G− Ltr from Shapiro to Senn, #

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 7 of 23

03/09/2011 03/14/2011 03/15/2011 03/21/2011 03/21/2011 03/21/2011
03/29/2011
04/08/2011 04/08/2011 04/11/2011 04/12/2011 04/12/2011

11 Exhibit H− Email from Shapiro to Senn, # 12 Exhibit I− Email from Senn to Shapiro, # 13 Exhibit J− Email from Shapiro to Senn, # 14 Exhibit K− Email from Senn to Shapiro, # 15 Exhibit L− Detainee Grievance, # 16 Exhibit M− News Articles, # 17 Exhibit N− Website Printout, # 18 Exhibit O− Email from Senn to Shapiro, # 19 Exhibit Unpublished Cases)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 03/03/2011)
24 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
25 NOTICE of Request for Protection from Court Appearance by Sandra Jane Senn for March 28, 2011 − April 5, 2011 and April 18 − 22, 2011 (Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
26 REPLY by Prison Legal News to 25 Notice of Request for Protection from Court Appearance. (Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
27 MOTION to Amend/Correct 21 Scheduling Order,by Prison Legal News, Human Rights Defense Center. Response to Motion due by 4/7/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Current Scheduling Order)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) Modified to add filer listed on document on 3/21/2011 (asni, ). (Entered: 03/21/2011)
28 RESPONSE in Opposition re 23 MOTION to Compel Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.Reply to Response to Motion due by 3/31/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Table of Contents, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8Exhibit F)(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 03/21/2011)
29 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER( Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 6/3/2011, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 7/5/2011, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 7/5/2011, Discovery due by 9/6/2011, Motion in Limine due by 12/12/2011, Motions due by 9/19/2011, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 11/28/2011, Pretrial Briefs due by 12/29/2011, Jury Selection Deadline 1/3/2012, ADR Statement due by 10/14/2011, Mediation Due by 11/14/2011,) Motions terminated: granting 27 Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct 21 Scheduling Order. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 3/21/2011. (asni, ) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
30 REPLY to Response to Motion re 23 MOTION to Compel Response filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Shapiro Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A−−Incident Reports, # 3 Exhibit B−−Commissary Forms, # 4 Exhibit C−−HFDC 701, # 5 Exhibit D−−Affidavit, # 6 Exhibit E−−Letter, # 7 Exhibit F−−Bates stamped documents, # 8 Affidavit Bair Declaration, # 9 Exhibit A−−Curriculum Vitae, # 10 Addendum Unpublished Cases)(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
31 MOTION for Extension of deadline for Motion To Compel by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 4/25/2011 Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
32 TEXT ORDER granting 31 Motion for Extension of Time; Plaintiffs deadline for moving to compel as to Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for Production and Third Set of Interrogatories is hereby extended to May 12, 2011. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 4/8/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
33 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 23 MOTION to Compel : Motion Hearing set for 4/26/2011 03:00 PM before Honorable Margaret B Seymour. This hearing will be conducted via telephone. Plaintiff shall initiate the call and have all parties on the line prior to contacting the Court at 803−253−3421.(asni, ) (Entered: 04/11/2011)
34 NOTICE of Appearance by Barbara Murcier Bowens on behalf of United States of America (Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
35 MOTION to Intervene by United States of America. Response to Motion due by 4/29/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Complaint in Intervention)No

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 8 of 23

04/13/2011 04/14/2011 04/14/2011 04/19/2011 04/21/2011 04/21/2011 04/25/2011 04/26/2011 05/02/2011 05/02/2011 05/03/2011 05/04/2011
05/05/2011

proposed order(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
36 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Michael J. Songer by United States of America. Response to Motion due by 5/2/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Application/Affidavit for Pro Hac Admission, # 2 Addendum Certificate of Good Standing)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
37 NOTICE of Appearance by William Norman Nettles on behalf of United States of America (Nettles, William) (Entered: 04/14/2011)
38 TEXT ORDER granting 36 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 4/14/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 04/14/2011)
39 NOTICE of Appearance by Robin Lilley Jackson on behalf of H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley (Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 04/19/2011)
40 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time of deadline for Motion to Compel by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 5/9/2011 Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
41 TEXT ORDER granting 40 Motion for Extension of deadline for Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 4/21/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
42 RESPONSE to Motion re 35 MOTION to Intervene Response filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News.Reply to Response to Motion due by 5/5/2011 (Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
43 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Honorable Margaret B Seymour: granting 23 Motion to Compel; Motion Hearing held on 4/26/2011 re 23 MOTION to Compel filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Court Reporter Kathleen Richardson. (mdea ) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
44 RESPONSE in Support re 35 MOTION to Intervene Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
45 TEXT ORDER granting 35 Motion to Intervene Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 5/2/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 05/03/2011)
46 Intervenor COMPLAINT Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 14141 and 42 U.S.C. 2000cc. (Civil Rights), filed by United States of America. (Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 05/03/2011)
47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 5/23/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Affidavit (Declaration of Paul Wright), # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Affidavit (Declaration of Toni Bair), # 16 Exhibit A, # 17 Exhibit B, # 18 Exhibit C, # 19 Exhibit D, # 20 Affidavit (Declaration of Aglaia Ovtchinnikova), # 21 Exhibit A, # 22 Exhibit B, # 23 Affidavit (Declaration of David Shapiro), # 24 Exhibit A, # 25 Exhibit B, # 26 Exhibit C, # 27 Exhibit D, # 28 Exhibit E, # 29 Exhibit F, # 30 Exhibit G, # 31 Exhibit H, # 32 Exhibit I, # 33 Exhibit J, # 34 Exhibit K, # 35 Exhibit L, # 36 Exhibit M, # 37 Exhibit N, # 38 Exhibit O, # 39 Exhibit P, # 40 Exhibit Q, # 41 Exhibit R, # 42 Exhibit S, # 43 Exhibit T, # 44 Exhibit U, # 45 Exhibit V, # 46 Exhibit W, # 47 Affidavit (Declaration of Emery), # 48 Affidavit (Declaration of Glidden), # 49 Affidavit (Declaration of Howard), # 50 Affidavit (Declaration of Jackson), # 51 Affidavit (Declaration of Kerce), # 52 Affidavit (Declaration of Mack), # 53 Affidavit (Declaration of McBeth), # 54 Affidavit (Declaration of Singleton), # 55 Affidavit (Declaration of Webster), # 56 Addendum (Unpublished Cases))Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
48 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Amin Aminfar by United States of America. Response to Motion due by 5/23/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Application/Affidavit for Pro Hac Vice Admission)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 9 of 23

05/05/2011 05/05/2011 05/05/2011 05/05/2011 05/05/2011 05/06/2011
05/06/2011 05/06/2011 05/09/2011
05/11/2011

opposing counsel(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
49 TEXT ORDER granting 48 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 5/5/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
50 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Affidavit of Sandra J. Senn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Returned mail exhibit)(Jackson, Robin) (Main Document 50 replaced on 5/10/2011) (asni, ). (Entered: 05/05/2011)
51 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Affidavit of Patrick Garrett. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Invoices)(Jackson, Robin) (Main Document 51 replaced on 5/6/2011) (asni, ). (Entered: 05/05/2011)
52 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Affidavit of Kris Jacumin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tattoo instrument photos)(Jackson, Robin) (Main Document 52 replaced on 5/6/2011) (asni, ). (Entered: 05/05/2011)
53 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Affidavit of David Taschner. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2010 work orders, # 2 Exhibit 2011 work orders)(Jackson, Robin) (Main Document 53 replaced on 5/6/2011) (asni, ). (Entered: 05/05/2011)
54 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of teleconference hearing held on April 26, 2011, before Judge Margaret B. Seymour. Court Reporter/Transcriber Kathleen Richardson, Telephone number/E−mail (803)779−6709 or Kathleen_Richardson@scd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 7 calendar days from the filing of the transcript to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction.. Redaction Request due 5/27/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/6/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/4/2011. (kari, ) (Entered: 05/06/2011)
55 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Affidavit of Garrett Harvey. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Meridian)(Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 05/06/2011)
56 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : Motion Hearing set for 5/16/2011 02:00 PM in Columbia # 5, Matthew J. Perry, Court House, 901 Richland St, Columbia before Honorable Margaret B Seymour. (asni, ) (Entered: 05/06/2011)
57 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING Motion Hearing set for 5/16/2011 02:00 PM in Columbia # 5, Matthew J. Perry, Court House, 901 Richland St, Columbia before Honorable Margaret B Seymour. cancelled and rescheduled to: Motion Hearing set for 6/14/2011 10:30 AM in Columbia # 5, Matthew J. Perry, Court House, 901 Richland St, Columbia before Honorable Margaret B Seymour. (asni, ) (Entered: 05/09/2011)
58 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 5/31/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Affidavit (Declaration of David Shapiro), # 3 Exhibit A (Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production), # 4 Exhibit B (Plaintiffs' Third Set of Interrogatories), # 5 Exhibit C (Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production), # 6 Exhibit D (Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Interrogatories), # 7 Exhibit E (March 29, 2011 Letter), # 8 Exhibit F (April 5, 2011 Email), # 9 Exhibit G (Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production), # 10 Exhibit H (Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Interrogatories), # 11 Exhibit I (Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Admission), # 12 Exhibit J (Plainitffs' Third Set of Requests for Production), # 13 Exhibit K (Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Admission), # 14 Exhibit L (Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production), # 15 Exhibit M (April 18, 2011 Letter), # 16 Exhibit N (April 21, 2011 Email), # 17 Exhibit O (Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production), # 18 Exhibit P (April 7, 2011 Email Correspondence), # 19 Exhibit Q (Excerpts from April 26, 2011 Hearing), # 20 Exhibit R (Maintenance Records Involving Locks), # 21 Exhibit S (Maintenance Records

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 10 of 23

05/23/2011
05/23/2011
05/24/2011 05/24/2011 05/27/2011 05/27/2011
05/27/2011
05/27/2011 05/27/2011 05/27/2011 05/27/2011
05/27/2011 05/27/2011 05/27/2011

Involving Intercoms), # 22 Addendum (Unpublished Case Cited in Memorandum))Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 05/11/2011)
59 RESPONSE in Support re 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Response filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Declaration of Michael Songer, # 2 Exhibit B, Program Statement 5266.10, # 3 Exhibit C, Program Statement 5800.16, # 4 Exhibit D, Declaration of John Clark)(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 05/23/2011)
60 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. Response to Motion due by 6/9/2011 Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 05/23/2011)
61 TEXT ORDER granting 60 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Response to Motion due by 5/27/2011 Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 5/24/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
62 ANSWER to 46 Intervenor Complaint by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
63 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time for Expert Report by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 6/13/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Current Scheduling Order)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
64 RESPONSE in Opposition re 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.Reply to Response to Motion due by 6/6/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Senn, Sandra) additional attachments entries 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 on 5/31/2011 (asni, ). (Entered: 05/27/2011)
65 Additional Attachments to Main Document 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, Exhibit C. (Senn, Sandra) (Main Document 65 replaced on 5/31/2011) (asni, ). Modified at the request of the attorney to replace main document with correct exhibit C on 5/31/2011 (asni, ). (Main Document 65 replaced on 6/1/2011) (asni, ). (Entered: 05/27/2011)
66 Additional Attachments to Main Document 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, Exhibit D. (Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
67 Additional Attachments to Main Document 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, Exhibit E. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F)(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
68 Additional Attachments to Main Document 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, Exhibit G. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit H, # 2 Exhibit I)(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
69 Additional Attachments to Main Document 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, Exhibit J. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit K, # 2 Exhibit L)(Senn, Sandra) (Attachment 2 replaced on 5/31/2011) (asni, ). Modified at the request of the attorney to replace attachment 2 with correct exhibit L on 5/31/2011 (asni, ). (Attachment 2 replaced on 6/1/2011) (asni, ). (Entered: 05/27/2011)
70 Additional Attachments to Main Document 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, Exhibit M. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit N, # 2 Exhibit O, # 3 Exhibit P)(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
71 Additional Attachments to Main Document 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, Exhibit Q. (Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
72 Additional Attachments to Main Document 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, Unpublished Case 1. (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Case 2, # 2 Unpublished Case 3, # 3 Unpublished Case 4, # 4 Unpublished Case 5, # 5 Unpublished Case 6)(Senn,

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 11 of 23

05/31/2011 06/01/2011 06/01/2011 06/02/2011 06/02/2011
06/02/2011 06/06/2011 06/07/2011 06/07/2011 06/07/2011

Sandra) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
76 RESPONSE in Opposition re 58 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.Reply to Response to Motion due by 6/13/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Jackson, Robin) Modified to correct filing date on 6/1/2011 (asni, ). (Entered: 06/01/2011)
74 TEXT ORDER granting 63 Consent MOTION for Extension of deadline for report by expert witness ( Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 6/9/2011,),. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 6/1/2011. (asni, ) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
75 DELETION OF DOCKET ENTRY NUMBER 73 Reason: response to request for production is part of discovery and only served on opposing counsel not filed with the court. Attorney was notified by email he can file a response in opposition to a motion to compel but the document must reflect this event type. (asni, ) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
78 CONTESTED MOTION to Amend/Correct 29 Amend Scheduling Order by United States of America. Response to Motion due by 6/20/2011 Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 06/02/2011)
79 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 58 Second MOTION to Compel 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : Motion Hearing set for 6/14/2011 10:30 AM in Columbia # 5, Matthew J. Perry, Court House, 901 Richland St, Columbia before Honorable Margaret B Seymour. "Should any party desire to present witnesses at the preliminary injunction hearing, the party should disclose such witnesses to opposing counsel no later than 5:00 PM on Tuesday, June 7, 2011."(asni, ) (Entered: 06/02/2011)
80 MOTION for Extension of Time for Response to Discovery Requests by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 6/20/2011 Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 06/02/2011)
81 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction) by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 6/23/2011 Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
82 DELETION OF DOCKET ENTRY NUMBER 82 Reason: Judge must rule on motion to file excess pages before the document can be filed in ECF. (asni, ) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
83 TEXT ORDER granting 81 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 6/7/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
84 REPLY to Response to Motion re 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Response filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit (Supplemental Declaration of Toni Bair), # 2 Exhibit 1 to Supplemental Bair Declaration, # 3 Affidavit (Supplemental Declaration of Paul Wright), # 4 Affidavit (Supplemental Declaration of David Shapiro), # 5 Exhibit A to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 6 Exhibit B to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 7 Exhibit C to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 8 Exhibit D to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 9 Exhibit E to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 10 Exhibit F to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 11 Exhibit G to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 12 Exhibit H to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 13 Exhibit I to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 14 Exhibit J to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 15 Exhibit K to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 16 Exhibit L to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 17 Exhibit M to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 18 Exhibit N to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 19 Exhibit O to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 20 Affidavit (Declaration of Joanna Wright))(Dunn, Susan) (Attachment 17 replaced on 6/9/2011) (mdea, ). (Entered: 06/07/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 12 of 23

06/08/2011 06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011 06/10/2011 06/13/2011 06/14/2011
06/15/2011 06/15/2011 06/17/2011 06/20/2011 06/20/2011 06/23/2011

85 MOTION for Protective Order by United States of America. Response to Motion due by 6/27/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment #1, Declaration of Michael J. Songer, # 2 Exhibit A, June 7, 2011 Letter)No proposed order(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 06/08/2011)
86 TEXT ORDER: With respect to the motion for preliminary injunction set for a hearing on Tuesday, June 14, 2011, the parties are directed to be prepared to address their arguments within the framework of Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008). See Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated in part on other grounds, 130 S. Ct. 2371 (2010). Directed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 06/10/2011. (bshr, ) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
87 REPLY to Response to Motion re 58 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery Response filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit (Supplemental Declaration of David Shapiro), # 2 Exhibit A to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C to Supplemental Shapiro Declaration)(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
88 RESPONSE in Opposition re 80 MOTION for Extension of Time for Response to Discovery Requests Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.Reply to Response to Motion due by 6/20/2011 (Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
89 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Timothy D. Mygatt by United States of America. Response to Motion due by 6/27/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Application/Affidavit for Pro Hac Vice Admission)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
90 TEXT ORDER granting 89 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 6/13/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
91 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Honorable Margaret B Seymour: granting 58 Motion to Compel as to remaining unresolved issues; finding as moot 80 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 85 Motion for Protective Order; Motion Hearing held on 6/14/2011 re 58 Second MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News, 85 MOTION for Protective Order filed by United States of America, 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News, 80 MOTION for Extension of Time for Responses to Discovery Requests filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Court takes 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction under advisement, written order forthcoming. Court Reporter Dan Mayo. (mdea ) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
92 NOTICE of Request for Protection from Court Appearance by Sandra Jane Senn for July 20 − 28, 2011 (Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
93 NOTICE of Request for Protection from Court Appearance by Robin Lilley Jackson for July 25 − August 1, 2011 (Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
95 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Paul Wright by Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 7/5/2011 No proposed order(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
96 DELETION OF DOCKET ENTRY NUMBER 94 Reason: 95 Corrected Filing Document Number 95 Modified filing date to that of original filing: 6/17/2011 Response due date modified to that of original filing: 7/5/2011 (asni, ) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
98 RESPONSE in Opposition re 78 MOTION to Amend/Correct United States' Contested Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.Reply to Response to Motion due by 6/30/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 06/20/2011)
99 REPLY to Response to Motion re 78 MOTION to Amend/Correct the Scheduling Order Response filed by United States of America. (Bowens, Barbara) (Entered:

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 13 of 23

06/24/2011 06/27/2011 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 06/30/2011 06/30/2011
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 07/08/2011 07/11/2011
07/13/2011 07/13/2011

06/23/2011)
100 MOTION for Protective Order regarding deposition of Toni V Bair by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 7/11/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Deposition Transcript Excerpts)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
101 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Deposition of Paul Wright by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 7/14/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Excerpt from Draft Transcript of Deposition of Toni Bair), # 2 Addendum −− Unpublished cases)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
102 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time for Motions To Compel by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 7/18/2011 Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
103 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time for Motion to Compel by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. Response to Motion due by 7/18/2011 Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
104 RESPONSE in Opposition re 101 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Deposition of Paul Wright Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.Reply to Response to Motion due by 7/11/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− News Article)(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 06/30/2011)
105 TEXT ORDER granting 78 Motion to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 6/30/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
106 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 9/2/2011, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 10/5/2011, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 10/5/2011, Discovery due by 12/6/2011, Motion in Limine due by 3/12/2012, Motions due by 12/19/2011, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 2/28/2012, Pretrial Briefs due by 4/4/2012, Jury Selection Deadline 4/9/2012, ADR Statement due by 1/14/2012, Mediation Due by 2/14/2012,. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 6/30/2011. (asni, ) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
107 TEXT ORDER granting 102 Motion for Extension of Deadlines for plaintiff's motions to compel ; granting 103 Motion for Extension of Deadlines for defendant's motions to compel. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 6/30/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
108 REPLY to Response to Motion re 101 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Deposition of Paul Wright Response filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. (Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
109 RESPONSE in Opposition re 95 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Paul Wright Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.Reply to Response to Motion due by 7/18/2011 (Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
110 RESPONSE in Opposition re 100 MOTION for Protective Order Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.Reply to Response to Motion due by 7/21/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K)(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
111 REPLY to Response to Motion re 95 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Paul Wright Response filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. (Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
112 SURREPLY to Response to Motion re 95 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Paul Wright Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 14 of 23

07/18/2011
07/19/2011 07/21/2011 08/04/2011
08/09/2011 08/10/2011 08/10/2011 08/10/2011

Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
113 MOTION for Enforcement of the Court's Order of April 26, 2011 re 43 Minute Entry granting 23 Motion to Compel by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 8/4/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Affidavit −−Declaration of David Shapiro, # 3 Exhibit A−−Excerpts from Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production, # 4 Exhibit B−−Exerpts from Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production, # 5 Exhibit C−−Excerpts from Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production, # 6 Exhibit D−−Excerpts of April 26, 2011 Hearing, # 7 Exhibit E−−May 9, 2011 Letter, # 8 Exhibit F−−Affidavit of Defendant DeWitt, # 9 Exhibit G−−Email correspondence)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 07/18/2011)
114 MOTION to Compel by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. Response to Motion due by 8/5/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support)No proposed order(Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
115 REPLY to Response to Motion re 100 MOTION for Protective Order Response filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit −−Declaration of David Shapiro, # 2 Exhibit A −− Full Deposition Transcript, # 3 Exhibit B−−Third Supplemental Response to First Set of Interrogatories, # 4 Exhibit C −− Second Supplemental Response to First Set of Interrogatories, # 5 Exhibit D −−June 29 email from Plaintiffs' counsel, # 6 Exhibit E −− June 8 email from Ms. Morgan, # 7 Exhibit F −− June 8 Email from Plaintiffs' counsel, # 8 Exhibit G −− June 8 email from Defendants' counsel, # 9 Addendum −− Unpublished Cases)(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
116 RESPONSE in Opposition re 114 MOTION to Compel Discovery Response filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News.Reply to Response to Motion due by 8/15/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit −− Declaration of David M. Shapiro, # 2 Exhibit A −− Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants Third Set of RFPs, # 3 Exhibit B −− June 30, 2011 email, # 4 Exhibit C −− July 12, 2011 email, # 5 Exhibit D −− Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants First Set of Interrogatories, # 6 Exhibit E −− Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Fourth Set of RFPs, # 7 Exhibit F −− June 15, 2011 Email correspondence, # 8 Exhibit G −− Plaintiffs' Supplemental Response to Defendants' Second Set of RFPs, # 9 Affidavit −− Declaration of Lance T. Weber, # 10 Addendum −− Unpublished Case)(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
117 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on June 14, 2011, before Judge Margaret B. Seymour. Court Reporter/Transcriber Dan Mayo, Telephone number/E−mail 803−799−9325. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 7 calendar days from the filing of the transcript to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction.. Redaction Request due 8/30/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/9/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/7/2011. (dmayo, ) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
118 TEXT ORDER granting 101 Motion for Protective Order. This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order regarding the deposition of Paul Wright. Plaintiffs' motion is granted to the extent Defendants intend to question Wright regarding familial relationships beyond standard queries as to whether he is married, has children, their ages, and so forth. How and when the children were conceived is irrelevant to the issues in the case and will not be allowed. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 8/10/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
119 TEXT ORDER granting 95 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration of Paul Wright Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 8/10/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
120 TEXT ORDER granting 113 Motion for Enforcement of the Court's Order of April 26, 2011. Defendants shall comply no later than August 19, 2011. Plaintiffs shall provide the court with supporting documentation regarding attorneys' fees

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 15 of 23

08/10/2011 08/10/2011 08/11/2011
08/12/2011
08/18/2011 08/19/2011 08/24/2011 08/29/2011

no later than August 19, 2011. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 8/10/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
122 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 100 MOTION for Protective Order, 114 MOTION to Compel : Motion Hearing set for 8/29/2011 03:00 PM before Honorable Margaret B Seymour. This hearing will be conducted via telephone. Plaintiff shall initiate the call and have all parties on the line prior to contacting the Court at 803−253−3421.(asni, ) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
123 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News re 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. (Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
124 MOTION to Compel by United States of America. Response to Motion due by 8/29/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, First RFP, # 2 Exhibit B, Defs' Resp. to First RFP, # 3 Exhibit C, Email from Michael Songer to Robin Jackson, June 30, 2011, # 4 Exhibit D, Defendants Supplemental Response, July 20, 2011, # 5 Exhibit E, Email from Michael Songer to Robin Jackson, July 28, 2011, # 6 Exhibit F, Ltr. from Amin Aminfar to Robin Jackson, August 3, 2011, # 7 Exhibit G, Email from Robin Jackson to Amin Aminfar, August 3, 2011, # 8 Exhibit H, Notice of Entry to Inspect BCDC, July 19, 2011, # 9 Exhibit I, Email from Sandy Senn to Michael Songer, July 20, 2011, # 10 Exhibit J, Ltr. from Michael Songer to Robin Jackson, Aug. 9, 2011, # 11 Exhibit K, Ltr. from Robin Jackson to Michael Songer, Aug. 10, 2011)No proposed order(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 08/11/2011)
125 MOTION to Amend/Correct 106 Scheduling Order,, by United States of America. Response to Motion due by 8/29/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, First Request for Production, # 2 Exhibit B, Request for Entry upon Land, # 3 Exhibit C, Second Request for Production, # 4 Exhibit D, noticing two Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices, # 5 Exhibit E, First set of Interrogatories, # 6 Exhibit F, Email from Sandy Senn to Michael Songer, July 20, 2011, # 7 Exhibit G, Email from Michael Songer to Robin Jackson, July 20, 2011, # 8 Exhibit H, Ltr. from Michael Songer to Robin Jackson, Aug. 9, 2011, # 9 Exhibit I, Ltr. from Robin Jackson to Michael Songer, Aug. 10, 2011, # 10 Exhibit J, Ltr. from Michael Songer to Robin Jackson, Aug. 11, 2011, # 11 Exhibit K, Defs Resp. to First RFP, # 12 Exhibit L, Email from Michael Songer to Robin Jackson, June 30, 2011, # 13 Exhibit M, Defendants Supplemental Response, July 20, 2011, # 14 Exhibit N, Email from Michael Songer to Robin Jackson, July 28, 2011, # 15 Exhibit O, Ltr. from Amin Aminfar to Robin Jackson, August 3, 2011)No proposed order(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 08/12/2011)
126 DECLARATIONbyHuman Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal Newsre 120 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, (Declaration Regarding Supporting Documentation for Attorneys' Fees). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Curriculum Vitae, # 2 Exhibit B −− National Prison Project Time Record, # 3 Exhibit C −− Lance Weber Time Record, # 4 Exhibit D −− Laffey Matrix)(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
127 MOTION for Reconsideration re 120 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. Response to Motion due by 9/6/2011 No proposed order(Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 08/19/2011)
128 RESPONSE in Opposition re 127 MOTION for Reconsideration re 120 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Response filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News.Reply to Response to Motion due by 9/6/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit −−Declaration of David Shapiro, # 2 Exhibit A −− Affidavit of Sheriff DeWitt, # 3 Exhibit B −− August 17, 2011 Email from Defendants' Counsel to Plaintiffs' Counsel)(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 08/24/2011)
129 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING Motion Hearing set for 8/29/2011 03:00 PM before Honorable Margaret B. Seymour cancelled and rescheduled to: Motions Hearing set for 9/20/2011 02:00 PM before Honorable Margaret B Seymour. ***PLEASE NOTE THIS HEARING WILL INCLUDE ALL PENDING MOTIONS*** This hearing will be conducted via telephone. Plaintiff shall initiate the call and have all parties on the line prior to contacting the Court at 803−253−3421(asni, ) Modified to edit text on 8/29/2011 (asni, ). Modified to edit text on 8/31/2011 (asni, ). (Entered: 08/29/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 16 of 23

09/02/2011 09/02/2011 09/02/2011 09/02/2011 09/02/2011 09/02/2011
09/02/2011 09/02/2011 09/12/2011 09/12/2011 09/19/2011 09/19/2011

131 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 124 MOTION to Compel by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. Response to Motion due by 9/19/2011 Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
132 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 125 MOTION to Amend/Correct 106 Scheduling Order by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. Response to Motion due by 9/19/2011 Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
133 RESPONSE in Opposition re 124 MOTION to Compel Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Human Rights Defense Center, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.Reply to Response to Motion due by 9/12/2011 (Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
134 RESPONSE in Opposition re 125 MOTION to Amend/Correct 106 Scheduling Order Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.Reply to Response to Motion due by 9/12/2011 (Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
135 TEXT ORDER granting 131 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 124 MOTION to Compel ; granting 132 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to as to 125 MOTION to Amend/Correct 106 Scheduling Order Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 9/2/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
136 Third MOTION to Compel discovery by Prison Legal News, Human Rights Defense Center. Response to Motion due by 9/19/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Affidavit Fathi Declaration In Support of Memo, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' 4th Set of Requests for Production to Defendants, # 4 Exhibit Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' 4th Fourth of Requests to Produce, # 5 Exhibit Letter from Shapiro to Jackson, # 6 Exhibit Email from Shapiro to Jackson, # 7 Exhibit Email from Jackson to Shapiro, # 8 Exhibit Defendants' Amended Responses to Plaintiffs' 4th Set of Requests to Produce, # 9 Exhibit Plaintiffs' 4th Set of Interrogatories to Defendants, # 10 Exhibit Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Fourth Set of Interrogatories, # 11 Exhibit Defendants' Amended Responses to Plaintiffs' 4th Set of Interrogatories, # 12 Exhibit Email from Shapiro to Jackson, # 13 Exhibit Email from Jackson to Shapiro, # 14 Exhibit Email from Shapiro to Jackson, # 15 Exhibit Defendants' 2nd Amended Responses to Plaintiffs' 4th Set of Requests to Produce, # 16 Unpublished Cases)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
137 INTERVENOR PLAINTIFF'S ID OF EXPERT WITNESSES by United States of America.(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
130 PLAINTIFF'S ID OF EXPERT WITNESSES by Prison Legal News, Human Rights Defense Center. refiled by the clerk to correct event type.(asni, ) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
138 REPLY to Response to Motion re 124 MOTION to Compel Response filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, USA's Request for Entry Upon Land, # 2 Exhibit B, August 30, 2011 Email, # 3 Exhibit C, September 2, 2011 Letter, # 4 Exhibit D, July 12, 2010 Email, # 5 Exhibit E, June 30, 2011 Letter, # 6 Exhibit F, September 6, 2011 Letter)(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
139 REPLY to Response to Motion re 125 MOTION to Amend/Correct 106 Scheduling Order Response filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, August 26, 2011 Email, # 2 Exhibit B, Plaintiff−Intervenor's Notices of Deposition, # 3 Exhibit C, Plaintiff's Notice of Deposition)(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
141 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE in Opposition re 124 MOTION to Compel Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.Reply to Response to Motion due by 9/29/2011 (Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 09/19/2011)
143 MOTION to Strike 137 Plaintiff's ID of Expert Witnesses by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. Response

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 17 of 23

09/19/2011 09/20/2011
09/26/2011 09/29/2011 09/30/2011 10/04/2011 10/04/2011

to Motion due by 10/6/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support)No proposed order(Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 09/19/2011)
144 RESPONSE in Opposition re 136 Third MOTION to Compel Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.Reply to Response to Motion due by 9/29/2011. refiled by the clerk to correct event type. (asni, ) (Main Document 144 replaced on 9/20/2011) (asni, ). Modified to replace document at the request of the clerk's office to include pages previously omitted on 9/20/2011 (asni, ). (Entered: 09/20/2011)
145 Minute Entry. Proceedings held via telephone before Honorable Margaret B Seymour: granting 100 Motion for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part 114 Motion to Compel; granting 124 Motion to Compel; granting 125 Motion to Amend/Correct Scheduling order; denying 127 Motion for Reconsideration ; Motion Hearing held on 9/20/2011 re 100 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News, 125 MOTION to Amend/Correct 106 Scheduling Order filed by United States of America, 127 MOTION for Reconsideration re 120 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by H Wayne DeWitt, Tony Riley, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, John Doe 3, 114 MOTION to Compel filed by H Wayne DeWitt, Tony Riley, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, John Doe 3, 124 MOTION to Compel filed by United States of America. Defendants request permission to take additional deposition of Toni Bair − granted as to new information in final report only. Court will review in camera 8 letters discussed in relation to defendants' request for production 17A, plaintiff to provide. Parties to submit proposed amended scheduling order by Friday, 9/23/2011. Attorney fees of $1,795.50 to be awarded to plaintiff pursuant to order 120 . Court Reporter Jenny Williams. (mdea ) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
147 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 11/21/2011, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 12/21/2011, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 12/21/2011, Discovery due by 2/21/2012, Motion in Limine due by 6/1/2012, Motions due by 3/12/2012, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 5/18/2012, Pretrial Briefs due by 6/21/2012, Jury Selection Deadline 6/26/2012, ADR Statement due by 3/30/2012, Mediation Due by 4/30/2012,. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 9/26/2011. (asni, ) (Entered: 09/26/2011)
148 REPLY to Response to Motion re 136 Third MOTION to Compel Response filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of David Shapiro, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Shapiro Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Shapiro Declaration, # 4 Addendum −− Unpublished Case)(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 09/29/2011)
150 MOTION for Reconsideration as entry onto Land Should be Governed by Rule 26 (C), not 26 (B) and appropriate limiations should be set and for Clarification re 145 Minute Entry by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. Response to Motion due by 10/17/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PLN 30(b)6, # 2 Exhibit DOJ 30(b)6, # 3 Exhibit DOJ 2nd notice 30(b)6, # 4 Exhibit DOJ ltr. Dated Sept 29, 2011, # 5 Exhibit Emails regarding jail tour, # 6 Exhibit Unpublished letters)No proposed order(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
151 DELETION OF DOCKET ENTRY NUMBER 149 Reason: document not signed correctly Corrected Filing Document Number 150 Modified filing date to that of original filing: 9/30/2011 Response due date modified to that of original filing: 10/17/2011 (asni, ) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
152 MOTION to Enforce the Court's September 20, 2011 Order re 145 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Reconsideration, by United States of America. Response to Motion due by 10/21/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Request for Entry, # 2 Exhibit B, September 29, 2011 Letter from Robin Jackson, # 3 Exhibit C, September 29, 2011 Letter from Michael Songer, # 4 Exhibit D, September 2, 2011 Letter from Matthew Donnelly, # 5 Exhibit E, July 21, 2011 Email Re: 30(b)(6) Depositions, # 6 Exhibit F, September 30, 2011 Email Re: Expert Inspection and 30(b)(6), # 7 Exhibit G, July 20, 2011 Email Re: Tour and Inspection of BCDC)No proposed order(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 10/04/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 18 of 23

10/04/2011 10/04/2011 10/06/2011 10/11/2011 10/11/2011 10/12/2011
10/14/2011
10/17/2011 10/19/2011

153 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Expedite consideration of 152 MOTION to Enforce the Court's September 20, 2011 and 150 MOTION for Reconsideration by United States of America. Response to Motion due by 10/21/2011 No proposed order(Bowens, Barbara) Modifiedat the request of the attorney to edit text on 10/5/2011 (asni, ). (Entered: 10/04/2011)
154 RESPONSE in Opposition re 150 MOTION for Reconsideration Response filed by United States of America.Reply to Response to Motion due by 10/14/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Request for Entry, # 2 Exhibit B, September 29, 2011 Letter from Robin Jackson, # 3 Exhibit C, September 29, 2011 Letter from Michael Songer, # 4 Exhibit D, September 2, 2011 Letter from Matthew Donnelly, # 5 Exhibit E, July 21, 2011 Email Re: 30(b)(6) Depositions, # 6 Exhibit F, September 30, 2011 Email Re: Expert Inspection and 30(b)(6), # 7 Exhibit G, July 20, 2011 Email Re: Tour and Inspection of BCDC)(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
155 RESPONSE in Opposition re 143 MOTION to Strike 137 Plaintiff's ID of Expert Witnesses MOTION to Strike 137 Plaintiff's ID of Expert Witnesses Response filed by United States of America.Reply to Response to Motion due by 10/17/2011 (Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
157 REPLY to Response to Motion re 152 MOTION to Enforce the Court's September 20, 2011 Order re 145 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Response filed by United States of America. (Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
158 REPLY to Response to Motion re 150 MOTION for Reconsideration Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. refiled by the clerk at the request of chambers to change event type. (asni, ) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
159 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings. Telephonic Motions Hearing held on 09−20−11, before Judge Margaret B. Seymour. Court Reporter/Transcriber Jenny H. Williams, RPR, Telephone number/E−mail Jenny_Williams@scd.uscourts.gov or (803)351−9742. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 7 calendar days from the filing of the transcript to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. Redaction Request due 11/2/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/14/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/10/2012. (jwil, ) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
160 TEXT ORDER This matter is before the court on motion for clarification and reconsideration of the court's September 20, 2011 order, which motion was filed by Defendants on September 30, 2011 (ECF No. 150). Also before the court is the United States' motion to enforce the court's September 20, 2011 order (ECF. No. 152), which motion was filed October 4, 2011. The parties jointly request an expedited ruling (ECF No. 153). The court holds as follows. The United States shall be allowed to take two 30(b)(6) depositions; however, the United States should attempt to complete the depositions in less than fourteen hours. The United States also shall be permitted to enter Berkeley County Detention Center and interview detainees and staff to the extent and in the manner requested in the United States' Request for Entry Upon Land served July 19, 2011 (ECF No. 152−1). IT IS SO ORDERED. re 150 Motion for Reconsideration 152 Motion to enforce the Court's September 20, 2011 Order 153 Motion to Expedite Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 10/14/2011.(asni, ) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
161 Withdrawal of Motions: 143 MOTION to Strike 137 Plaintiff's ID of Expert Witnesses filed by H Wayne DeWitt, Tony Riley, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, John Doe 3.refiled by the clerk to correct event type. (asni, ) (Entered: 10/18/2011)
163 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 136 Third MOTION to Compel : Motion Hearing set for 11/1/2011 11:30 AM before Honorable Margaret B Seymour. This hearing will be conducted via telephone. Plaintiff shall initiate the call and have all parties on the line prior to contacting the Court at 803−253−3421.(asni, ) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 19 of 23

10/21/2011 10/25/2011 10/27/2011 11/16/2011 11/21/2011 11/29/2011
12/08/2011
12/12/2011 12/13/2011 12/14/2011

164 TEXT ORDER The court having reviewed in camera eight letters provided by Plaintiff in relation to Defendants' Request for Production 17A, concludes that the letters are protected by attorney−client privilege. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to compel production of these documents is denied. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 10/21/2011. (asni, ) (Entered: 10/21/2011)
165 Case Reassigned to Judge Honorable Sol Blatt, Jr. Judge Honorable Margaret B Seymour no longer assigned to the case. (glev, ) (Entered: 10/25/2011)
166 NOTICE of Cancellation of Hearing: motion hearing set for 11/1/2011 at 11:30 am (mdea ) (Entered: 10/27/2011)
167 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pretrial management and consideration of all pretrial motions. Signed by Honorable Sol Blatt, Jr on 11/15/2011. Motions referred to Bristow Marchant.(vdru, ) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
169 PLAINTIFF'S ID OF EXPERT WITNESSES by United States of America.(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
170 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant: Status Conference held on 11/29/2011. Status conference held in Judge Marchants Chambers. Susan Dunn on behalf of Plaintiffs, Barbara Bowens on behalf of intervenor Plaintiff, Sandra Senn on behalf of the Defendants. Attorney Gedney Howe also attending. Parties to provide consent order for mediation by Friday December 2, 2011. Parties to advise by no later than December 15, 2011 if consent order to be entered on motion for injunctive relief. Pending motion to compel likely to be withdrawn − parties to notify the Court. Attorney Howe to notify the Court if he will be filing an appearance in the case. Court Reporter In chambers. (elac, ) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
173 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant: Status Conference held on 12/8/2011. Status conference held in Judge Marchants Chambers. Susan Dunn on behalf of Plaintiff, Barbara Bowens on behalf of intervenor Plaintiff, Sandra Senn on behalf of the Defendants, attended. Attorney Gedney Howe also attended. David Shapiro on behalf of Plaintiffs, and Michael Songer on behalf of intervenor Plaintiff, participated by telephone. Shapiro and Songer expressed concerns regarding proceeding with mediation, but agreed to continue to pursue discussions with Defendants counsel. The parties were granted until Wednesday, December 21, 2011, to file any supplemental materials they wish the Court to consider with regard to Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief. With regard to Plaintiffs Third Motion to Compel, Defendants agree to produce the material sought by 5:00 p.m on Friday, December 9, 2011. Defendants are also to produce material ordered to be produced pursuant to Judge Seymours order of September 20, 2011 by this same deadline or alternatively provide Plaintiffs with an update on the status of the production of this material together with a deadline for doing so. Given the time since Judge Seymours order, the Court stresses the importance of Defendants expediting the production of this previously ordered material. Court Reporter (in chambers). (obri, ) Modified on 12/8/2011 to add docket text (cwhi, ). (Entered: 12/08/2011)
174 TEXT ORDER finding as moot 136 Motion to Compel. See Minute entry (Court Docket No. 173). Defendants agreed to produce requested material by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 9, 2011. If Plaintiffs are dissatisfied with responses received, they may file a new motion to compel addressing any deficiencies. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 12/12/2011.(elac, ) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
175 NOTICE of Appearance by Gedney M Howe, III on behalf of H Wayne DeWitt (Howe, Gedney) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
176 MOTION to Quash by H Wayne DeWitt. Response to Motion due by 1/3/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1 − DeWitt Notice of Deposition, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Howe ltr 12−8−11, # 4 Exhibit 3 − Shapiro email 12−8−11)No proposed orderMotions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Howe, Gedney) (Entered: 12/14/2011)

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 20 of 23

12/14/2011 12/14/2011 12/14/2011 12/15/2011 12/15/2011 12/16/2011 12/19/2011 12/21/2011 12/21/2011 12/23/2011
12/23/2011 12/23/2011

177 RESPONSE in Opposition re 176 MOTION to Quash Response filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News.Reply to Response to Motion due by 12/27/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit −− Declaration of David M. Shapiro, # 2 Exhibit A −− November 21 Letter, # 3 Exhibit B −− Subpoena, # 4 Addendum −− Unpublished Cases)(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
178 RESPONSE in Opposition re 176 MOTION to Quash Response filed by United States of America.Reply to Response to Motion due by 12/27/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Excerpt from Deposition Transcript of Cliff McElvogue)(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
179 MOTION to Compel by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 1/3/2012 Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counselMotions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
180 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 176 Motion to Quash. Details set forth in Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 12/15/2011.(cwhi, ) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
181 AMENDED ORDER granting in part and denying in part 176 Motion to Quash. Amended to correct scrivener's error. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 12/15/2011. (cwhi, ) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
182 Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct 173 Telephone Conference,,,,,, Supplemental Briefing Schedule by United States of America. Response to Motion due by 1/6/2012 No proposed orderMotions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
183 TEXT ORDER granting 182 Motion to Amend/Correct. The parties to submit supplemental materials on December 23, 2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 12/19/2011.(elac, ) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
184 AFFIDAVIT of Records Custodian by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
185 DEFENDANT'S ID OF EXPERT WITNESSES by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.(Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
186 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION − Superseding 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion) Motion filed by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit −− Declaration of Paul Wright, # 2 Exhibit A −− Rejection Notices, # 3 Exhibit B −− Letters from Sgt. Jacumin, # 4 Affidavit −− Declaration of David Shapiro, # 5 Exhibit A −− McElvogue Deposition Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit B −− Riley Deposition Excerpts, # 7 Exhibit C −− Nov. 2, 30(b)(6) Deposition Excerpts, # 8 Exhibit D −− Nov. 30(b)(6) Deposition Excerpts, # 9 Exhibit E −− Taschner Deposition Excerpts, # 10 Exhibit F−−Garrett Deposition Excerpts, # 11 Exhibit G −− Harvey Deposition Excerpts, # 12 Exhibit H −− October 7, 2011 Letter, # 13 Exhibit I −− October 21, 2011 Letter, # 14 Exhibit J −− Incident Reports, # 15 Exhibit K −− Mail Log Excerpts, # 16 Exhibit L −− Selected Leach Emails, # 17 Exhibit M −− Defendants' Response to Third Set of Requests for Admission, # 18 Exhibit N −− Incident Report, # 19 Exhibit O −− Email from Robin Jackson to Sgt. Jacumin, # 20 Exhibit P −− Mail Log Notation, # 21 Exhibit Q −− Berkeley County Website Information, # 22 Exhibit R −− Response to Detainee Appeal, # 23 Exhibit S −− Bair Report, # 24 Exhibit T −− Clark Report, # 25 Exhibit U −− Aiken Report, # 26 Addendum −− Unpublished Cases)(Dunn, Susan) Modified on 1/3/2012 to correct event type (rpol, ). (Entered: 12/23/2011)
187 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Response to Supplemental memorandum in support of Preliminary Injunction by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. Response to Motion due by 1/9/2012 Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counselMotions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 12/23/2011)
188 RESPONSE in Support re 186 (superseding 47 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction). Response filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Michael

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 21 of 23

12/23/2011
01/03/2012 01/03/2012 01/05/2012 01/06/2012 01/06/2012 01/11/2012
01/12/2012 01/13/2012

Songer Declaration, # 2 Supporting Documents Exhibit A, Hill Finklea Detention Center Inmate Correspondence Policy, Revised 12/09/11, # 3 Supporting Documents Exhibit B, Hill Finklea Detention Center Inmate Correspondence Policy, Effective 5/12/11, # 4 Supporting Documents Exhibit C, Expert Report James E. Aiken, # 5 Supporting Documents Exhibit D, Deposition of Clifford E. McElvogue, # 6 Supporting Documents Exhibit E, Deposition of Tony Allen Riley, # 7 Supporting Documents Exhibit F, Deposition Excerpts of Kris Jacumin, November 2, 2011, # 8 Supporting Documents Exhibit G, Deposition of Garrett Harvey, # 9 Supporting Documents Exhibt H, Deposition of Patrick Garrett, # 10 Supporting Documents Exhibit I, Deposition Excerpts of David Taschner, # 11 Supporting Documents Exhibit J, Deposition Excerpts of Kris Jacumin, November 3, 2011, # 12 Supporting Documents Exhibit K, E−mails from Donald Leach, II re: staples in jail, # 13 Supporting Documents Exhibit L, Defendant Dewitts Response to U.S. First Requests to Admit, # 14 Supporting Documents Exhibit M, Declaration of Bryan Bush, # 15 Supporting Documents Exhibit N, Expert Report of John L. Clark)(Bowens, Barbara) Modified on 1/3/2012 to add document link (rpol, ). (Entered: 12/23/2011)
189 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. Response to Motion due by 1/9/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support, # 2 Exhibit Leach Expert Report, # 3 Exhibit Wright Deposition Transcript, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits to Wright Deposition, # 5 Exhibit Jacumin Affidavit, # 6 Exhibit Exhibits A−I of Jacumin Affidavit, # 7 Exhibit Exhibits J−S of Jacumin Affidavit, # 8 Exhibit Jacumin Deposition 1, # 9 Exhibit Jacumin Deposition 2, # 10 Exhibit Deland Expert Report, # 11 Exhibit Letter from David M. Shapiro)No proposed orderMotions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Senn, Sandra) (Entered: 12/23/2011)
190 RESPONSE in Opposition re 179 MOTION to Compel Response filed by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley.Reply to Response to Motion due by 1/13/2012 (Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 01/03/2012)
192 TEXT ORDER granting 187 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 01/03/2012.(elac, ) (Entered: 01/03/2012)
194 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims by Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 1/23/2012 Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counselMotions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
195 ORDER granting 194 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims. Response to Motion due by 2/6/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 1/6/2012.(cwhi, ) (Entered: 01/06/2012)
196 RESPONSE in Support re 136 Third MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Compel Discovery Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery Response filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Jennifer Wedekind, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of David Fathi, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Fathi Declaration)(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 01/06/2012)
198 Joint MOTION for Entry of Consent Injunction by United States of America, Prison Legal News, Human Rights Defense Center,H Wayne Dewitt. Response to Motion due by 1/30/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Consent Inunction)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel. .(Bowens, Barbara) Modified on 1/12/2012 to remove referral Judge. Motion is no longer referred. (cwhi, ). Modified on 1/12/2012 to add filers listed on document (cwhi, ). (Entered: 01/11/2012)
199 DELETION OF DOCKET ENTRY NUMBER 197 Reason: Filed in error by filing user. Corrected Filing Document Number 198 . (cwhi, ) (Entered: 01/12/2012)
201 ORDER granting 198 Motion for Entry of Consent Injunction. Details set forth in Order. Signed by Honorable Sol Blatt, Jr on 1/13/2012.(cwhi, ) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 22 of 23

01/13/2012 02/23/2012 02/28/2012 10/01/2012 10/02/2012 11/06/2013
11/07/2013 03/18/2014
04/01/2014 04/18/2014 04/28/2014
04/30/2014 07/02/2014

202 NOTICE of Settlement by Prison Legal News (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Settlement agreement)(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
204 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by United States of America. Response to Motion due by 3/12/2012 No proposed orderMotions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 02/23/2012)
205 ORDER granting 204 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 2/28/2012.(cwhi, ) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
207 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney (David M. Shapiro) by Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 10/18/2012. Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.Motions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Dunn, Susan) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
208 ORDER granting 207 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 10/2/2012.(cwhi, ) (Entered: 10/02/2012)
210 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Carl Takei ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0420−5025323) by Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 11/25/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Carl Takei)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.Motions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Dunn, Susan) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/7/2013: # 2 Certificate of Good Standing) (cwhi, ). (Entered: 11/06/2013)
211 ORDER granting 210 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 11/7/2013.(cwhi, ) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
212 MOTION Termination of Injunction re 201 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief and request for Expedited Hearing by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. Response to Motion due by 4/4/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Memo in Support)No proposed order.Motions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
213 RESPONSE in Support re 212 MOTION Termination of Injunction re 201 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief and request for Expedited Hearing Response filed by Prison Legal News, United States of America. (Bowens, Barbara) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
214 ORDER granting 212 Motion for Termination of Injunction. It is hereby ordered that the Consent Injunction is terminated, and this matter is ended with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Sol Blatt, Jr on 4/16/2014.(cwhi, ) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
215 MOTION for Extension of Time by Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 5/15/2014. Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.Motions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Dunn, Susan) (Main Document 215 replaced on 4/29/2014) (cwhi, ). Modified on 4/29/2014 to replace document with corrected signature as provided by the filing user. (cwhi, ). (Entered: 04/28/2014)
216 ORDER granting 215 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff Prison Legal News shall file their petition and application for attorney's fees and costs on or before July 2, 2014. Signed by Honorable Sol Blatt, Jr on 4/29/2014.(vdru, ) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
217 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Prison Legal News. Response to Motion due by 7/21/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Supporting Documents List of exhibits, # 2 Affidavit Fee Declaration of Fathi, # 3 Exhibit Fathi's Resume, # 4 Exhibit Shapiro's Resume, # 5 Exhibit Takei's Resume, # 6 Exhibit Summary of Time records, # 7 Exhibit Laffey Matrix, # 8 Exhibit Letter from Shapiro and Songer to Jackson (4/3/12), # 9 Exhibit Letter from Shapiro and SOnger to JAckson (4/5/12), # 10 Exhibit Letter from Shapiro and Songer to Jackson 4/12/12, # 11 Exhibit Email Jackson to Shapiro and Songer 4/17/12, # 12 Exhibit Letter from Shapiro and SOnger to Jackson 5/1/12, # 13 Exhibit Letter Songer to Jackson 8/7/12, # 14 Exhibit letter Fathi to Jackson 11/16/12, # 15 Exhibit Letter Fathi to Jackson 12/13/12, # 16 Exhibit Letter Songer to Jackson 6/26/13, # 17 Exhibit Letter Fathi to Jackson 10/15/13, # 18 Exhibit Letter Jackson to Songer and Fathi 10/8/13, # 19 Affidavit Dunn declaration, # 20 Exhibit Dunn Time Summary, # 21 Affidavit Weber Declaration, # 22 Exhibit Weber Resume, # 23

Case: 2:10-cv-2594 As of: 11/06/2017 12:14 AM EST 23 of 23

07/18/2014 07/22/2014 08/11/2014 08/12/2014 08/14/2014

Exhibit Weber time summary)Proposed order is being emailed to chambers with copy to opposing counsel.(Dunn, Susan) Modified on 7/7/2014 to edit docket text as motion no longer referred (cwhi, ). (Entered: 07/02/2014)
219 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 217 MOTION for Attorney Fees by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. Response to Motion due by 8/4/2014. No proposed order. (Jackson, Robin) Modified to edit text as motion is no longer referred on 7/22/2014 (ssam, ). (Entered: 07/18/2014)
221 TEXT ORDER granting 219 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 217 MOTION for Attorney Fees . It is ordered that the Defendants shall have a 21 day extension until August 11, 2014 to file their reply to Plaintiffs petition for attorneys fees and costs. Response to Motion due by 8/11/2014. Entered at the Direction of The Honorable Sol Blatt, Jr on 7/22/2014.(vdru, ) (Entered: 07/22/2014)
222 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs by H Wayne DeWitt, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Cliff McElvogue, Tony Riley. Response to Motion due by 8/28/2014. No proposed order.Motions referred to Bristow Marchant.(Jackson, Robin) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
223 TEXT ORDER granting 222 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 217 Plaintiff's MOTION for Attorney Fees . Defendant's Response to Motion due by 8/14/2014. Entered at the Direction of The Honorable Sol Blatt, Jr on 8/12/2014.(vdru, ) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
224 ORDER DISMISSING CASE without costs and without prejudice to the right of either party, upon good cause shown within sixty (60) days, to reinstate the action if settlement is not consummated. Signed by Honorable Sol Blatt, Jr on 8/14/2014. (vdru, ) (Entered: 08/14/2014)