Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 1 of 32

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLANIA

MUMIA ABU JAMAL, ROBERT L. :

HOLBROOK, KERRY

:

SHAKABOONA MARSHALL,

:

PRISON RADIO, HUMAN RIGHTS :

COALITION, EDUCATORS FOR

:

MUMIA ABU-JAMAL

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

KATHLEEN KANE, Attorney General :

of Pennsylvania, and R. SETH WILLIAMS, District Attorney of

:

Philadelphia County

Case No. ELECTRONICALLY FILED

Defendants.

Complaint Plaintiffs, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Kerry Shakaboona Marshall, Prison Radio, Human Rights Coalition, and Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal, by and through their undersigned counsel, file the following Complaint.
Introduction 1. This case is an injunctive challenge, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, § 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, to 18 P.S. § 11.1304, signed into law by the Governor of Pennsylvania on October 21, 2014. 2. The statute provides, in full:

1

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 2 of 32
Section 1. The act of November 24, 1998 (P.L. 882, No. 111), known as the Crime Victims Act, is amended by adding a section to read: << PA ST 18 P.S. § 11.1304 >> Section 1304 Revictimization relief (a) Action.—In addition to any other right of action and any other remedy provided by law, a victim of a personal injury crime may bring a civil action against an offender in any court of competent jurisdiction to obtain injunctive and other appropriate relief, including reasonable attorney fees and other costs associated with the litigation, for conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim. (b) Redress on behalf of victim.—The district attorney of the county in which a personal injury crime took place or the Attorney General, after consulting with the district attorney, may institute a civil action against an offender for injunctive or other appropriate relief for conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim. (c) Injunctive relief.—Upon a showing of cause for the issuance of injunctive relief, a court may issue special, preliminary, permanent or any other injunctive relief as may be appropriate under this section. (d) Definition.—As used in this section, the term “conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim” includes conduct which causes a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish. Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
3. The statute was enacted principally to silence Plaintiff Mumia AbuJamal. It chills his ability--and the ability of the other Plaintiffs and other current and former prisoners—to engage in speech protected by the First Amendment.
2

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 3 of 32
Jurisdiction and Venue 4. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and (4), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 5. This Court is the appropriate venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the events and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Parties 6. Plaintiff Mumia Abu-Jamal is an imprisoned writer and journalist currently held at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) Mahanoy in Frackville, Pennsylvania. 7. Plaintiff Robert L. Holbrook is an imprisoned member of the Human Rights Coalition, activist and writer held at SCI Greene in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania. 8. Plaintiff Kerry Shakaboona Marshall is an imprisoned member of the Human Rights Coalition, activist and commentator for Prison Radio held at SCI Rockview in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. 9. Plaintiff Prison Radio (prisonradio.org) is a multi-media production company that records the voices of prisoners and broadcasts them via radio, television, Internet, and film. Prison Radio is a project of the Redwood Justice Fund, a non-profit corporation based in California. 10. Plaintiff the Human Rights Coalition (HRC) is a nonprofit corporation based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania whose mission is to protect the human rights of
3

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 4 of 32
prisoners and criminal defendants and advocate for changes to the criminal legal and prison systems.
11. Plaintiff Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal (EMAJ) is an unincorporated network of teachers who organize and advocate for the release of Mumia Abu-Jamal from prison, prioritizing education over incarceration, and bringing the experiences and perspectives of imprisoned intellectuals to a broader public.
12. Defendant Kathleen Kane is the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania. As the Attorney General she acts under color of state law and has the power to enforce 18 P.S. § 11.1304. She is sued in her official capacity.
13. Defendant Seth Williams is the District Attorney of the County of Philadelphia. As the District Attorney he acts under color of state law and has the power to enforce 18 P.S. § 11.1304. He is sued in his official capacity.
Statement of Facts A Law to Silence Current and Former Prisoners 14. On September 29, 2014, Goddard College in Plainfield, Vermont announced that “Mumia Abu-Jamal, an American prisoner, author, and journalist who received his Bachelor of Arts from Goddard in 1996, was selected by the students of the Undergraduate Program’s Fall 2014 graduating class to be their commencement speaker this Sunday, October 5.” Because Abu-Jamal is incarcerated, the speech was pre-recorded by Prison Radio via telephone at SCI Mahanoy.
4

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 5 of 32
15. In response, the Fraternal Order of Police, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) Secretary John Wetzel, Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, and a number of Pennsylvania state legislators led by Pennsylvania State Representative Michael Vereb launched a media campaign against Abu-Jamal’s exercise of First Amendment rights.
16. Maureen Faulkner, the widow of Daniel Faulkner, the police officer Abu-Jamal was convicted of killing, stated in the press, “The only thing I would want to hear from Mumia Abu-Jamal is him admitting and confessing to my husband’s murder.”
17. "It's a disgrace that you have to even hear his voice. My husband has been dead for 32 years and his voice was taken from him by Abu-Jamal," Faulkner told CNN over a phone interview. She also asked “Why does he have any constitutional rights?”
18. DOC press secretary Susan McNaughton told CNN, “We have tried to intervene but we have been told by the court that we can’t,” indicating that the DOC is aware that Abu-Jamal’s commencement address and other public commentaries are constitutionally protected.
19. DOC Secretary Wetzel expressed his “disdain” for Goddard’s decision to invite Abu-Jamal to give the commencement address, but also acknowledged that Abu-Jamal was permitted to make phone calls, and the prison had no authority to prevent the recording of these calls.
5

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 6 of 32
20. Governor Corbett and Pennsylvania state legislators seized the opportunity to draft legislation that would allow crime victims and prosecutors to strip those convicted of personal injury crimes of their constitutional rights under the First Amendment.
21. On October 6, 2014, a press conference led by Pennsylvania House Representative Michael Vereb took place in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to promote House Bill 2533. The press conference was attended by the head of the Office of the Victims Advocate, state Senator Raferty, House Representative Turzai, several District Attorneys, members of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Pennsylvania State Police, former U.S. Marshalls, and Governor Corbett.
22. House Bill 2533 provides a cause of action for victims of personal injury crimes to file a civil action against an offender if that offender has engaged in conduct that causes temporary or permanent mental anguish. The text of the Bill, which has become law, is the exact same text contained in paragraph 2 of this complaint.
23. At the October 6 press conference, a statement from Maureen Faulkner was read where she stated that Abu-Jamal’s speech activity, including his publishing books, giving “countless live and recorded interviews,” appearing in “supportive documentaries,” and as a commencement speaker has been “emotionally painful.” She went on to state, “The time has come to put an end to the desecration of our free speech laws by Mumia and anyone else in the Pennsylvania State system who has violently taken the life of another.”
6

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 7 of 32
24. Governor Corbett gave a speech at the press conference in which he made it explicit that House Bill 2533 was intended to restrict the ability of Abu-Jamal and other “violent felons” from “using public venues to promote themselves and their own agenda.” The Governor stated, “nobody has a right to continually taunt the victims of their violent crimes in the public square.”
25. Pennsylvania House Representative Michael Vereb, who co-sponsored the legislation, also spoke at the press conference, reiterating that the primary purpose of this Bill was to silence Mumia Abu-Jamal. Vereb’s co-sponsor memo in support of the legislation also made clear that the intent of the Bill was to silence Mumia AbuJamal. “Memorandum: Cosponsor Request – Revictimization Relief Act,” Representative Michael Vereb, October 2, 2014, http://www.repvereb.com/NewsItem.aspx?NewsID=21644.
26. Vereb falsely stated that there are “TV production studios in prison” and that prisoners are permitted 25-minute phone calls. Vereb referred to Abu-Jamal’s speech as “taxpayer-paid rants.”
27. Defendant R. Seth Williams spoke at the press conference as well. As the District Attorney in the county where Abu-Jamal was convicted, he has standing to sue Abu-Jamal on behalf of Maureen Faulkner under 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
28. As the District Attorney in the county where Plaintiffs Holbrook and Marshall were convicted, he has standing to sue either of them as well under 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
7

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 8 of 32
29. Defendant Williams expressed his support for the House Bill 2533, denounced Abu-Jamal, and boasted of his participation in the recent successful campaign to defeat President Obama’s nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the Civil Rights Division of the United States Justice Department due to Adegbile’s affiliation with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, an organization that represented Abu-Jamal in his criminal appeals.
30. House Bill 2533 passed through the House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee on October 6, 2014. The discussion in the subcommittee focused on Abu-Jamal’s commencement address, and how this bill would restrict his ability to speak in the future.
31. During the Subcommittee hearing, in response to a question from a legislator, the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee, attorney Thomas Dymek, stated that the bill was designed to permit a judge “to exercise his or her equitable discretion to see whether this is a situation where an injunction is called for. Or that is constitutionally permissible.”
32. In response to a question as to how it could be known ahead of time whether Abu-Jamal’s speech would have “the intent to revictimize” anyone, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Victims Advocate stated that Abu-Jamal’s lack of remorse for the crime of his conviction – a crime he maintains he is innocent of – was sufficient evidence to prove that he would seek to revictimize the family of Daniel Faulkner.
8

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 9 of 32
33. Subcommittee members also expressed their desire that a court could enjoin the delivery or publishing of speech by “a third party who was the vessel of that conduct or speech[.]” This discussion was directly addressing the situation of the commencement address of Abu-Jamal, which was recorded by Prison Radio.
34. The Pennsylvania House of Representatives took an existing bill that had been passed in the Pennsylvania Senate, known as Senate Bill 508, and entirely replaced its text with the text of House Bill 2533.
35. On October 15, 2014, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted to pass Senate Bill 508, which now consisted of the text of House Bill 2533. The vote was 197-0.
36. On October 16, 2014, the Pennsylvania Senate passed the amended Senate Bill 508 37-11.
37. During the Senate debate, Pennsylvania State Senator Shirley Kitchen stated that “this bill has turned into part of a plan by a group of people that is flexing their power,” and that the “bill does not help victims, and what it does is stifle free speech.”
38. On October 21, 2014, incumbent Governor Tom Corbett signed the bill into law while campaigning for re-election in Philadelphia. He signed the bill on the corner of 13th and Locust Streets, where officer Faulkner was killed and Mumia AbuJamal shot in the chest in the early morning hours of December 9, 1981. Maureen Faulkner was present at the signing.
9

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 10 of 32
39. The accompanying press conference focused on the Goddard College commencement speech given by Abu-Jamal, and how this new law was intended to silence him.
Mumia Abu-Jamal 40. Mumia Abu-Jamal is a writer and radio commentator confined at SCI Mahanoy in Frackville, Pennsylvania. He was convicted of a personal-injury crime in Philadelphia County. 41. The state of Pennsylvania held Abu-Jamal in solitary confinement on death row for 29 years pursuant to a death sentence. The death sentence in AbuJamal’s case was overturned as unconstitutional in 2001 by a judge in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision on two occasions. Although his sentence was reversed in 2001, Abu-Jamal remained on death row until December 2011 while the state appealed the reversal of the death sentence. 42. During his time on death row, Abu-Jamal earned a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Goddard College, and a Masters of Arts Degree from California State University Dominguez Hills. 43. During Abu-Jamal’s appeals of his conviction and sentence, a massive international movement developed in opposition to his death sentence and conviction. Demonstrations were held in cities around the world, Amnesty International found his original trial “failed to meet minimum international standards
10

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 11 of 32
safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings,” and civil and human rights organizations and individuals across the United States rallied for his freedom.
44. While he was incarcerated on death row, Abu-Jamal was visited by Pierre Sane, then-Secretary General of Amnesty International, Danielle Mitterrand, First Lady of France, and Nobel Peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Each of these individuals made public comments about their visit with Abu-Jamal.
45. Prior to Abu-Jamal’s incarceration, he had been a journalist who earned a reputation for challenging injustice and abuse of authority, including abusive policing practices in Philadelphia.
46. At the time of his arrest and incarceration in December 1981, Abu-Jamal was the President of the Philadelphia Chapter of the National Association of Black Journalists. As a staff reporter for WHYY, Philadelphia’s National Public Radio (NPR) affiliate, Abu-Jamal won the Major Armstrong Award from Columbia University in 1980. During the 1970s, he filed stories and anchored shows for more than a dozen radio and television stations throughout the Delaware Valley and appeared on nationally distributed NPR broadcasts such as Morning Edition.
47. After he was incarcerated, Abu-Jamal continued his journalism from death row, writing thousands of commentaries about a range of topics, including life on death row, U.S. politics, war and militarism, the criminal legal system, AfricanAmerican religious traditions, education, history, and countless others.
48. Abu-Jamal authored the following seven books while on death row:
11

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 12 of 32
a. Live From Death Row, Addison-Wesley (1995); Harper Perennial (1996). b. Death Blossoms: Reflections from a Prisoner of Conscience, Litmus Books (1996);
South End Press (2003). c. All Things Censored, Seven Stories Press (2000). d. Faith of Our Fathers: An Examination of the Spiritual Life of African and
African-American People, Africa World Press (2003). e. We Want Freedom: A Life in the Black Panther Party, South End Press
(2004). f. Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the USA, City Lights
Publishers (2009). g. The Classroom and the Cell: Conversations on Black Life in America, co-
authored with Marc Lamont Hill, Third World Press (2011). 49. In 2015, two additional books authored by Abu-Jamal will be published. 50. In addition to the books he has authored and his thousands of radio commentaries, Abu-Jamal has written for numerous publications such as the Yale Law Journal, The Nation, Forbes, Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, Essence, Emerge, and had articles included in anthologies published by Rowan & Littlefield, Temple University Press, Penguin Books, The Red Sea Press, and others. 51. Pennsylvania state officials and the Fraternal Order of Police have tried to censor Mumia Abu-Jamal in the past. In May 1994, Prison Radio recorded commentaries by Abu-Jamal that were planned for broadcast by NPRs flagship
12

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 13 of 32
program, All Things Considered. The FOP contacted the Pennsylvania DOC to protest, and enlisted U.S. Senator Robert Dole in their efforts. Senator Dole threatened NPR’s funding from the floor of the U.S. Senate. After initially promoting the series, NPR fired Abu-Jamal.
52. In response to the lobbying of the FOP, the DOC punished Abu-Jamal for violating a prison rule that forbid prisoners from conducting a business or profession. Abu-Jamal v. Price, 154 F.3d 128, 131 (3d Cir. 1998).
53. The Third Circuit ordered the entry of an injunction prohibiting DOC defendants from enforcing the business profession rule against Abu-Jamal, holding that Abu-Jamal had met the standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction since enforcement of the rule would cause him irreparable harm under the First Amendment.
54. After publication of Abu-Jamal’s first book in 1995, Live From Death Row, the FOP launched a campaign intended to keep sales of the book down. The FOP even flew a plane with a banner denouncing the publisher Addison-Wesley over the publisher’s corporate headquarters.
55. In November 1996, the DOC responded to FOP pressure by eliminating in-person broadcast media visits with all prisoners.
56. Abu-Jamal has also been the subject of several feature-length films, most of which feature interviews with him:
13

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 14 of 32
a. A Case for Reasonable Doubt, aired on HBO and Channel 4 England (1998).
b. In Prison My Whole Life, nominated for a Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival (2007).
c. Justice on Trial, Big Noise Media (2010). d. Mumia – Long Distance Revolutionary: A Journey with Mumia Abu-Jamal,
produced by Street Legal Cinema and Prison Radio (2013). e. Manufacturing Guilt, Street Legal Cinema and Prison Radio (2013). 57. On October 5, 2014, Abu-Jamal presented a commencement address via a pre-recorded statement to a graduating class at Goddard College in Vermont. AbuJamal is an alumnus of Goddard College. 58. Abu-Jamal has given three other commencement addresses in the past: Goddard College in 2008, Antioch College in 2000, and Evergreen College in 1999. 59. Abu-Jamal has also given lectures and participated in classroom discussions in colleges and universities through his work with Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal. 60. Politicians in Pennsylvania and the Fraternal Order of Police have consistently attempted to silence Abu-Jamal on account of his maintaining his innocence and continuing to work as a journalist. 61. Abu-Jamal faces a credible threat that Defendants in this litigation will file an enforcement action pursuant to 18 P.S. § 11.1304. The Governor, Defendant
14

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 15 of 32
R. Seth Williams, and legislators who drafted the legislation made it clear that the principal purpose of the law was to censor Abu-Jamal.
62. The statute, and the threat of enforcement, chill Abu-Jamal’s First Amendment rights by constraining his ability to speak, publish, and otherwise communicate.
Robert L. Holbrook 63. Plaintiff Robert Holbrook is an activist and writer currently imprisoned at SCI Greene. He is serving a sentence of life-without-parole for a criminal conviction imposed when he was 16 years-old. He was convicted of a personal-injury crime in Philadelphia County. 64. Since 2008, Holbrook’s conviction and sentence has been the subject of numerous articles published in print and Internet sources. 65. Holbrook has written articles on an array of subjects of public concern, including juvenile life without parole, mandatory minimum sentencing, the killing of Trayvon Martin, prison censorship, drone warfare, the Egyptian Revolution, use of confidential informants by police, solitary confinement, and many more. 66. Articles written by or quoting Holbrook have been published in the Philadelphia Sunday Sun, Impacto Latin Newspaper, the Philadelphia City Paper, the Philadelphia Metro, the Philly Independent Media Center, the Las Vegas Weekly, the San Francisco Bay View, and The Defenestrator online newspaper.
15

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 16 of 32
67. Holbrook also regularly contributes to Plaintiff HRC’s publication The Movement, and works closely with prisoner advocacy organizations in support of protecting and advancing the human rights of former and current prisoners.
68. Pennsylvania state officials have sought to silence Mr. Holbrook’s speech and advocacy in the past. Prison officials have prevented him from receiving correspondence pertaining to his case and the issue of juvenile life without parole, censored academic articles sent to him by a college professor with whom he was writing a research paper, and issued him a demotional transfer to a more restrictive prison due to his challenging conditions of confinement via administrative grievances and writing to outside advocates.
69. Holbrook’s speech and conduct on matters of public concern is threatened by 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
70. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 does not contain any limiting principle or language that would prevent it from being applied against Holbrook.
71. Given that Holbrook writes on matters of public concern that rouse intense passions, including issues pertaining to sentencing juvenile offenders, he has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor him.
72. 18 P.S. § 11.1304, and the threat of enforcement, chill Holbrook’s First Amendment rights by constraining his ability to speak, publish, and otherwise communicate.
16

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 17 of 32
Kerry Shakaboona Marshall 73. Plaintiff Kerry Shakaboona Marshall is an activist and writer currently imprisoned at SCI Rockview. He is serving a sentence of life-without-parole for a criminal conviction imposed when he was 17-years-old. He was convicted of a personal-injury crime in Philadelphia County. 74. Marshall is the founder and editor of HRC’s publication, The Movement, a magazine containing content that is critical of the criminal legal and prison systems, and supportive of the efforts of prisoners, their families, support people, and advocates to effect positive changes in these systems. 75. Marshall contributes a column at the front of each edition of The Movement. These columns focus on mass incarceration, the criminal legal system, and prison conditions, and regularly encourage people in prison and their loved ones not in prison to get involved with HRC. 76. Marshall is also a commentator for Prison Radio, and has recorded more than 10 commentaries thus far in 2014. Much of the work he does in collaboration with Prison Radio is about issues of youth incarceration and the effect it has on individuals, families and communities. His commentaries have discussed institutional racism, human rights problems in the U.S., juvenile life without parole, the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs, and prison censorship. 77. Marshall’s speech and conduct on matters of public concern is threatened by 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
17

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 18 of 32
78. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 does not contain any limiting principle or language that would prevent it from being applied against Marshall.
79. Given that Marshall writes on matters of public concern that rouse intense passions, including issues pertaining to sentencing juvenile offenders, human rights violations in the U.S, and institutional racism, he has a credible fear that the 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor him.
80. 18 P.S. § 11.1304, and the threat of enforcement, chill Marshall’s First Amendment rights by constraining his ability to speak, publish, and otherwise communicate.
Prison Radio 81. Prison Radio is a multi-media production company that was founded in 1990 with the purpose of bringing the voices of prisoners to the public. Prisoner commentaries on a range of subjects are recorded by Prison Radio on location and via telephone and broadcast via radio, television, film, and the Internet. Prison Radio produces commentaries that are aired on hundreds of radio and television stations every week, and more than a thousand broadcast outlets routinely carry their material to an international audience. 82. Prison Radio has recorded hundreds of prisoners over the last 25 years. In 2014, Prison Radio has worked with 30 imprisoned correspondents who have recorded more than 200 essays. Many of these prisoners have been convicted of personal injury crimes.
18

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 19 of 32
83. Prison Radio has contributed content to ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, BET, MTV, HBO, 20/20, Channel 4 England, Telesur, German TV, French National TV, Democracy Now on the Pacifica Network, Free Speech Radio News, and countless other networks and programs.
84. In 2013, Prison Radio co-produced the film Mumia: Long Distance Revolutionary, with Street Legal Films. The film was released by First Run Features and has been screened in more than 100 cities all over the United States. More than 20,000 DVDs of the film have been sold, and the film was broadcast on the STARZ network. It has also been translated into German and Spanish, has broadcast on Telesur, and is currently being subtitled in French.
85. Prison Radio is the producer of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s commentaries, including his Goddard College commencement address.
86. Prison Radio produces the commentaries of Kerry Shakaboona Marshall.
87. Prison Radio also features commentaries from other imprisoned correspondents in Pennsylvania, many of who have been convicted of personal injury crimes.
88. Bryant Arroyo is a state prisoner at SCI Frackville who has contributed commentaries to Prison Radio. These commentaries focus on Arroyo’s efforts to prove his innocence, censorship in prison, and his leading a successful campaign to
19

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 20 of 32
prevent the construction of a coal gasification plant near the prison where he was confined. Arroyo has been convicted of a personal injury crime.
89. This speech on matters of public concern by Prison Radio correspondents is threatened by the 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
90. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 does not contain any limiting principle or language that would prevent it from being applied against Prison Radio correspondents.
91. Given that each correspondent writes on matters of public concern that rouse intense passions, Prison Radio has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor its correspondents and enjoin Prison Radio from broadcasting their voices.
92. The Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee explicitly discussed the possibility that this legislation could and should be used to enjoin the conduct of individuals and organizations that broadcast speech such as Mumia Abu-Jamal’s commencement address.
93. 18 P.S. § 11.1304, and the threat of enforcement, chill Prison Radio’s First Amendment rights by constraining its ability to speak, publish, broadcast, and otherwise communicate.
Human Rights Coalition 94. The Human Rights Coalition (HRC) was founded in the year 2000, and incorporated in Pennsylvania on August 13, 2012. HRC’s membership is comprised of prisoners’ families, formerly and currently imprisoned people, community activists,
20

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 21 of 32
and human rights defenders. Many of its members have been convicted of personal injury crimes.
95. HRC is consistently critical of human rights violations within the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC). Since 2007, HRC has documented several hundred reported human rights violations within the DOC, including accounts of physical, verbal, and sexual abuse, retaliation, inadequate and negligent medical and mental health care, warehousing of mentally ill prisoners in psychologically damaging conditions of solitary confinement, obstruction and denial of access to the courts, pervasive racial discrimination, and deprivations of food, recreation time, personal property, and necessary hygiene items. Prisoners contact HRC to report these abuses and HRC follows up by telephone and mail to obtain as much information and corroboration as possible. These violations are compiled by HRC members outside of prison into a prison abuse log available online at http://hrcoalition.org/AbuseLogs.
96. Media outlets have relied on HRC for information regarding human rights violations within the DOC, including the Harrisburg Patriot News, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Wilkes Barre Times Leader, Citizens Voice, Philadelphia City Paper, Philadelphia Weekly, Huffington Post, The Nation, as well as several online, radio, and television outlets. HRC relies on prisoners in order to disseminate information to these and other news outlets.
97. Since 2009, the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has utilized HRC’s documentation of
21

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 22 of 32
human rights violations as one source amongst others for assessing the DOC’s compliance with constitutional standards. These reports assisted the DOJ in launching a civil rights investigation within DOC prisons. In May 2013, this investigation was expanded to include every prison within the DOC on the grounds that DOJ had uncovered substantial evidence that prisoners with mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities were being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in the state’s solitary confinement units.
98. On August 2, 2010, HRC members testified in front of the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee regarding human rights violations within the DOC reported by former and current prisoners.
99. On September 18, 2012, Pennsylvania State Representative Ronald Waters held a hearing in front of the state House Democratic Policy Committee titled “Effects of Solitary Confinement.” This hearing was held at Temple University. HRC members assisted hearing organizers by identifying lawyers, mental health professionals, former prisoners, and prisoner family members who should testify. HRC members provided testimony as well based on the experiences and reports of former and current prisoners.
100. HRC submitted written testimony to the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights in June 2012, when that body held a hearing on the use of solitary confinement in the United States.
22

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 23 of 32
This testimony contained descriptions of human rights violations in the DOC’s solitary confinement units based on reports from prisoners.
101. HRC also publishes a news magazine titled The Movement. It covers news related to HRC’s mission, including legal news, political analysis, human rights reports, interviews with and articles by community activists and professionals, academic essays, letters and articles by prisoners and their families, and updates and information on HRC’s work.
102. Correspondence and articles by prisoners, many of whom have been convicted of personal injury crimes, is a core feature of The Movement. Plaintiffs Holbrook and Marshall are regular contributors to The Movement, for example. Stories by and about Mumia Abu-Jamal have been published in The Movement as well.
103. HRC has members who are currently imprisoned and an Advisory Board of prisoners. This Advisory Board is a critical component of HRC. The Advisory Board provides HRC with campaign strategies and ideas for events and actions.
104. At HRC’s public events, statements from prisoners, especially members of the Advisory Board, are read.
105. HRC has been on multiple radio shows on WPEB 88.1 FM in Philadelphia and shows broadcast on the Internet. In these media appearances, HRC’s outside members frequently utilize the words and stories from HRC’s inside membership and Advisory Board.
23

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 24 of 32
106. The Movement is the primary means through which HRC communicates with supporters inside and outside of prison. The publication provides updates on important political and legal developments related to the criminal legal and prison systems, and keeps supporters informed as to the activities and initiatives of HRC.
107. HRC has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor current and former prisoners who contribute to The Movement, thereby compromising HRC’s publication of The Movement.
108. HRC has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor current prisoners who report abuse in the DOC, thereby compromising HRC’s ability to produce and publish prison abuse logs.
109. HRC has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor current prisoners who are members of HRC and members of HRC’s Advisory Board in their communications with HRC on the strategy, campaign, and actions of HRC, thereby compromising HRC’s ability to associate with current prisoners and fulfill a crucial component of HRC’s mission and work.
110. HRC’s speech on matters of public concern is threatened by 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
111. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 does not contain any limiting principle or language that would prevent it from being applied against HRC for publishing, quoting, or associating with current and former prisoners.
24

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 25 of 32
112. Given that HRC’s mission focuses on matters of public concern that rouse intense passions, HRC has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor it on account of its publishing or otherwise disseminating the words and opinions of current and former prisoners.
113. 18 P.S. § 11.1304, and the threat of enforcement, chill HRC’s First Amendment rights by constraining its ability to speak, publish, broadcast, and otherwise communicate.
Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal 114. Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal (EMAJ) was founded in 1995 when Tom Ridge, then the Governor of Pennsylvania, signed a death warrant for the execution of Abu-Jamal. Throughout these years, EMAJ’s purpose has been (a) to expose the violations of due process and of other constitutional rights Abu-Jamal experienced at his arrest and in his 1982 trial, (b) to call for a new trial, and (c) across the last decade, in particular, to call for Abu-Jamal’s immediate release because of years of torturous solitary confinement, and because of the state’s refusal to review what EMAJ holds to be clearly exculpatory evidence. 115. EMAJ has worked for nineteen years as a loose network of national and world scholars to present material about Abu-Jamal’s case in their regularly-scheduled classes, at campus teach-ins, in community press conferences (at venues as diverse as labor union halls, legislative rotundas, and even Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center), in two major newspaper public service advertisements, and in a host of
25

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 26 of 32
educational events and university gatherings. These presentations about Abu-Jamal’s case regularly include commentary by Abu-Jamal, often specifically recorded for the occasion.
116. In May 2000, EMAJ published a full-page advertisement on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal in The New York Times. It featured scholars across the United States and world, and hundreds of signatories from all levels of education.
117. EMAJ members utilize the works and participation of imprisoned writers and intellectuals, including political dissidents and radicals, in their work in an effort to bring these voices into liberal arts education. EMAJ takes this approach so that a broader section of the public has access to perspectives and experiences that contribute to critical inquiry and discourse on matters of public concern.
118. EMAJ has often featured the live phone-in voice of Abu-Jamal and other incarcerated persons, pre-recorded audio and video materials of them, as well as printed writings by them in teachers’ university and college classrooms. Hundreds of such educators have taught in this way. EMAJ members who have engaged in such interactions with prisoners include: Bob Buchanan, Goddard College; Neema Caughran, Goddard College; Jan Clausen, Goddard College; Angela Y. Davis, University of California, Santa Cruz; David G. Embrick, Loyola University (IL); Robert A. Ferguson, Columbia University Law School; Johanna Fernandez, Baruch College, City University of New York; Maike Garland, Goddard College; Craig Gordon, Oakland Unified School District (CA); Lisa Noelle Guenther, Vanderbilt
26

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 27 of 32
University; Tom Hansen, Autonomous University of Social Movements (Chicago); Marc Lamont Hill, Morehouse College; Joy A. James, Williams College; Jamal Joseph, Columbia University; Wonhee Anne Joh, Garrett Seminary (IL), Robin D. G. Kelley, University of California, Los Angeles; Ibram X. Kendi, State University of New York, Albany; Ju-Pong Lin, Goddard College; Bob Mandel, Oakland Unified School District (CA); Anthony Monteiro, Temple University; Mary Phillips, Lehman College, City University of New York; Peter J. Paris, Princeton Theological Seminary; Vijay Prashad, Trinity College (CT); Dylan Rodriguez, University of California, Riverside; Robyn Spencer, Lehman College, City University of New York; Eva-Maria Swidler, Goddard College; Karen Stupski, Goddard College; Mark Lewis Taylor, Princeton Theological Seminary; Christopher Tinson, Hampshire College; Victor Wallis, Berklee College of Music; Robert Wells, Oakland Unified School District (CA); Cornel West, Union Theological Seminary.
119. At the invitation of either an outside scholar or the prisoner, the EMAJ scholars named in this Complaint have participated in, and depend upon, the following kinds of interactions with Mumia Abu-Jamal, other prisoners in Pennsylvania, and prisoners in other states:
a. Prisoner phone calls to EMAJ members: these calls are typically amplified and a prisoner speaks to students in a professor’s classroom.
b. Amplification of prisoner voices at public forums: EMAJ members have amplified voices and recordings of prisoners via telephone or audio
27

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 28 of 32
speakers at campus-wide events such as teach-ins and colloquia, as well as off-campus events. c. Publication by or influenced by prisoners: EMAJ members have worked with prisoners to facilitate publications by prisoners in book or article form, and EMAJ members have published work that was informed by prisoners’ views and publications. d. Meetings with prisoners: EMAJ members have met with prisoners inside prison in order to develop relationships, understanding, and knowledge that carries over into EMAJ members’ classrooms and other professional endeavors. e. Mail correspondence with prisoners: Several EMAJ members have exchanged letters and documents with prisoners that cultivate deeper knowledge and understanding of prison life, social systems, and almost all areas of human endeavor, including letters and assessments received by EMAJ members in response to their published works. 120. Most of the above-listed activities have involved Mumia Abu-Jamal, or other Pennsylvania prisoners. 121. Most of these EMAJ members have been in the past, or will be in the future, part of conferences that invite the airing of Pennsylvania prisoners’ recorded and amplified voices, their writings and their perspectives.
28

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 29 of 32
122. EMAJ has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor Mumia Abu-Jamal, thereby compromising the ability of EMAJ members to invite Abu-Jamal to lecture to and dialogue with students in their courses or at other academic forums, or otherwise communicate with EMAJ members.
123. EMAJ has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor other Pennsylvania prisoners, including Plaintiffs Holbrook and Marshall, thereby compromising the ability of EMAJ members to invite them to lecture to and dialogue with students in their courses or at other academic forums, or otherwise communicate with EMAJ members.
124. EMAJ’s speech on matters of public concern is threatened by the 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
125. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 does not contain any limiting principle or language that would prevent it from being applied against EMAJ for inviting Abu-Jamal or other Pennsylvania prisoners to speak to students; broadcasting, quoting, or publishing Abu-Jamal or other Pennsylvania prisoners; or engaging in advocacy efforts in association with Abu-Jamal or other Pennsylvania prisoners.
126. Given that EMAJ’s mission focuses on matters of public concern that rouse intense passions, EMAJ has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor it on account of its publishing or otherwise disseminating the words and opinions of Mumia Abu-Jamal or other current or former prisoners of the state of Pennsylvania.
29

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 30 of 32
127. 18 P.S. § 11.1304, and the threat of enforcement, chill EMAJ’s First Amendment rights by constraining its ability to speak, publish, broadcast, and otherwise communicate.
Causes of Action COUNT I –First and Fourteenth Amendment – Against All Defendants
128. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-127 as if fully stated herein. 129. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 130. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 is overbroad, vague, and penalizes a substantial amount of lawful speech, including truthful statements and speech on matters of public concern. The statute was explicitly written and passed in an attempt to penalize lawful speech. 131. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 is void for vagueness. It provides no guidance as to what conduct it prohibits. 132. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 discriminates on the basis of the content of the speech and the identity of the speaker. 133. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 was enacted in retaliation for Plaintiff Abu-Jamal’s exercise of his First Amendment rights. COUNT II – Article 1, § 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution – Against R.
Seth Williams 134. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-127 as if fully stated herein.
30

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 31 of 32
135. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 violates Article 1, § 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,
which provides for freedom of the press, proclaiming that “every citizen may freely
speak, write and print on any subject[.]”
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court grant the following relief:
A. Grant a Preliminary Injunction invalidating and prohibiting enforcement
of the statute;
B. Grant a Permanent Injunction invalidating the statute;
C. Declare the statute to be a violation of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments and Article 1, § 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution;
D. Grant attorneys’ fees and costs;
E. Award such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Bret D. Grote Bret D. Grote PA I.D. No. 317273 Dustin McDaniel (pro hac vice, to be admitted) PA I.D. No. 314618 Jules Lobel, of counsel (pro hac vice, to be admitted) Abolitionist Law Center P.O. Box 8654 Pittsburgh, PA 15221 Telephone: (412) 654-9070 bretgrote@abolitionistlawcenter.org dsm@abolitionistlawcenter.org
31

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 1 Filed 11/10/14 Page 32 of 32

Dated: November 10, 2014

/s/ Deneekie Grant Deneekie Grant (pro hac vice, to be admitted) PA I.D. No. 314220 /s/ Ashley Henderson Ashley Henderson (pro hac vice, to be admitted) PA I.D. No. 313492 Amistad Law Project P.O. Box 9148 Philadelphia, PA 19139 Telephone: 267-225-5884 ashley@amistadlaw.org nikki@amistadlaw.org
/s/ David M. Shapiro David M. Shapiro (pro hac vice, to be admitted) Assistant Clinical Professor of Law Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center Northwestern University School of Law 375 E. Chicago Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 (312) 503-0711
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

32

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MUMIA ABU JAMAL, et al.,

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-2148

:

Plaintiffs

:

(Chief Judge Conner)

:

v.

:

:

KATHLEEN KANE, Attorney

:

General of Pennsylvania, et al.,

:

:

Defendants

:

______________________________________________________________________________

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, et al., Plaintiffs
v. KATHLEEN KANE, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, et al.,
Defendants

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-45

:

:

(Chief Judge Conner)

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

MEMORANDUM

Presently before the court are two challenges to the Revictimization Act, 18

PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1304, a 2014 amendment to Pennsylvania‟s Crime Victims Act,

11 PA. CONS. STAT. §§ 11.101 et seq. Plaintiffs attack the constitutionality of Section

11.1304, which authorizes the Commonwealth‟s Attorney General, district attorneys,

and “victims” of personal injury crimes to bring a civil action seeking injunctive and

other relief whenever an “offender” engages in any “conduct which perpetuates the

continuing effect of the crime on the victim.” 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1304(a)-(b). At

the parties‟ joint request, the court consolidated the above-captioned matters for

purposes of resolving various pending motions.

Both plaintiff groups seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in
addition to a declaratory judgment that the Act is unconstitutional, both facially and
as applied to plaintiffs, in violation of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Defendants oppose plaintiffs‟ requests and further move to dismiss
both actions for want of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1). Defendant R. Seth Williams, District Attorney for Philadelphia
County, separately asserts that plaintiffs fail to state a viable claim under Rule
12(b)(6). In this opinion, the court will address defendants‟ threshold jurisdictional
challenges. See Tolan v. United States, 176 F.R.D. 507, 509 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (“[T]he
court should consider the 12(b)(1) challenge first because if it must dismiss the
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, all other defenses and objections
become moot.”) (citing In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 837 F. Supp. 104, 105 (E.D.
Pa. 1993), aff‟d 39 F.3d 61 (3d Cir. 1994)). I. Background1
On October 21, 2014, on a street corner in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, then-
Governor Tom Corbett signed the Revictimization Act, 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1304,
into law. The Act provides, in full:
(a) ACTION.-- In addition to any other right of action and any other remedy provided by law, a victim of a personal injury crime may bring a civil action against an offender in any court of competent jurisdiction to obtain injunctive and other appropriate relief, including reasonably attorney fees and other costs associated with the litigation, for conduct
1 In accordance with the standard of review for a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, see infra Section II, the court will present the facts as alleged in the complaint.
2

which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim.
(b) REDRESS ON BEHALF OF VICTIM.-- The district attorney of the county in which a personal injury crime took place or the Attorney General, after consulting with the district attorney, may institute a civil action against an offender for injunctive or other appropriate relief for conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim.
(c) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.-- Upon a showing of cause for the issuance of injunctive relief, a court may issue special, preliminary, permanent or any other injunctive relief as may be appropriate under this section.
(d) DEFINITION.-- As used in this section, the term “conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim” includes conduct which causes a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish.
18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1304. Neither the Revictimization Act itself nor any other
provision of the Crime Victims Act defines the term “offender.” See id. The Crime
Victims Act defines “victim” to include: a direct victim (defined as “[a]n individual
against whom a crime has been committed or attempted . . . .”); a parent or legal
guardian of a child victim; a minor child who is a material witness to homicide,
aggravated assault, or rape committed or attempted against a member of the child‟s
family; and a family member of a homicide victim. Id. § 11.103. The term “family
member” is further defined to include anyone related to the victim within the third
degree of consanguinity, anyone maintaining a common-law relationship with the
victim, and any resident of a victim‟s household, as well as “stepbrothers or
stepsisters, stepchildren, stepparents or a fiancé.” Id.
3

The Act‟s sponsor, State Representative Mike Vereb, introduced the
legislation on October 2, 2014, three days after Goddard College—a small liberal
arts college in Vermont and plaintiff Mumia Abu-Jamal‟s alma mater—announced
its selection of Abu-Jamal as its commencement speaker. (See PLN Doc. 1 ¶¶ 22, 25;
Abu-Jamal Doc. 12 ¶¶ 16, 22-23).2 Representative Vereb thereafter circulated a
memorandum soliciting co-sponsors for the legislation, stating:
A convicted murderer is still traumatizing the victim‟s family and it needs to stop. We need to ensure this doesn‟t happen to any other victim or their family . . . .
Officer Faulkner‟s wife Maureen was left a widow by AbuJamal. But not only did Maureen lose her husband and the life she hoped to lead with him, Maureen also since has been revictimized again and again by Abu-Jamal‟s ongoing acts. It is time to put a stop to this, not only for Maureen, but for all victims of personal crimes.
(PLN Doc. 1 ¶ 26). On October 6, 2014, the House Judiciary Committee convened to
discuss the Revictimization Act. (See id. ¶ 28). In opening remarks, the Committee
Chairman opined that the Act would help eliminate the “extreme distress” suffered
by victims and their families, and admonished the College for its “unworthy” and
“despicable” decision to “allow a cold-blooded murderer to engage in this conduct.”
(Id. ¶ 29). Committee Counsel explained that the Act vests broad discretion in
courts presiding over such cases, positing that it may even permit a court “to stop a
third party who is the vessel of [offender] conduct or speech from delivering it or
publishing that information.” (Id. ¶¶ 32-33). Encouraging the legislature to pass the
2 Citations to “Abu-Jamal Doc.” are to docket entries appearing in Abu-Jamal v. Kane, No. 1:14-CV-2148. Citations to “PLN Doc.” are to docket entries appearing in Prison Legal News v. Kane, No. 1:15-CV-45.
4

Act, Governor Corbett explained that it would “prevent convicted violent felons from every day revictimizing families and other injured parties by using public venues to promote themselves and their own agenda truly at the emotional expense of the victims and of the public.” (Id. ¶ 35).
The Act unanimously passed the State House of Representatives on October 15, 2014, less than two weeks after its introduction. (See id. ¶ 38). The following day, the Senate passed the Act by a 37-11 vote. (Id. ¶ 39). At an October 21 billsigning ceremony near the intersection where Abu-Jamal‟s crime of conviction occurred, Governor Corbett championed the Act‟s ability to enjoin offenders whose speech continues to distress victims. The Governor noted that the Act “is not about any one single criminal,” but that it was certainly “inspired by the excesses and hypocrisy of one particular killer,” (see Doc. 19-7, Ex. 4 at 1), ostensibly Abu-Jamal. The law took effect immediately. See 2014 Pa. Laws 150, § 2.
On November 10, 2014, twenty days after the Act became law, the Abu-Jamal plaintiffs filed a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that the legislation is an unconstitutional restriction of speech in violation of the First Amendment. (See Abu-Jamal Doc. 1). Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, joining several additional plaintiffs to the litigation, shortly thereafter. (Abu-Jamal Doc. 12). Plaintiffs in Abu-Jamal are a group of five incarcerated individuals who engage in written and oral human rights advocacy; a California nonprofit organization that broadcasts prisoner recordings online; a Philadelphia nonprofit that advocates on behalf of prisoners; and an unincorporated network of educators who advocate for Abu-Jamal‟s release. (See Abu-Jamal Doc. 12 ¶¶ 6-13). Together,
5

the Abu-Jamal plaintiffs assert that the Act is void for vagueness and overbreadth, and is further an impermissible content-based regulation of speech. They seek declaratory judgment and permanent injunctive relief, in addition to the preliminary injunctive relief sought by motion filed January 8, 2015. (See AbuJamal Doc. 18).
Also on January 8, 2015, plaintiffs in Prison Legal News simultaneously filed a verified complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction. (See PLN Docs. 1-2). The Prison Legal News plaintiff group comprises various entities and individuals who rely on and publish speech by individuals such as plaintiffs in Abu-Jamal, in addition to five individuals formerly incarcerated for personal injury crimes in Pennsylvania who now engage in a variety of advocacy activities. (See PLN Doc. 1 ¶¶ 27-150). In addition to the vagueness, overbreadth, and content-based arguments raised by the Abu-Jamal plaintiffs, the Prison Legal News complaint challenges the Act as an unlawful prior restraint of speech. (See id. ¶¶ 169-74).
The court consolidated the actions for purposes of resolving the motions for injunctive relief and defendants‟ anticipated Rule 12 filings. (See Abu-Jamal Docs. 23, 29; PLN Docs. 10, 21). On January 23, 2015, the Attorney General and District Attorney Williams moved to dismiss both actions, asserting that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (See Abu-Jamal Docs. 30-31; PLN Docs. 24-25). On February 26, 2015, the court held oral argument limited to the justiciability concerns raised by defendants. At the conclusion thereof, the court took defendants‟ motions under advisement.
6

II. Standard of Review Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides that a court may dismiss a
claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). Such jurisdictional challenges take of one two forms: (1) parties may levy a “factual” attack, arguing that one or more of the pleadings‟ factual allegations are untrue, removing the action from the court‟s jurisdictional ken, see Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass‟n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977); or (2) they may assert a “facial” challenge, which assumes the veracity of complaint‟s allegations but nonetheless argues that a claim is not within the court‟s jurisdiction, see Tolan, 176 F.R.D. at 510. In either instance, it is the plaintiff‟s burden to establish jurisdiction. See Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891 (“[T]he plaintiff will have the burden of proving that jurisdiction does in fact exist.”). Courts should grant a Rule 12(b)(1) motion only when it appears with certainty that assertion of jurisdiction would be improper. See Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 178 (3d Cir. 2000) (“A claim may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) only if it „clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction‟ or is „wholly insubstantial or frivolous.‟”); see also Tolan, 176 F.R.D. at 510 (“Only if it appears to a certainty that the pleader will not be able to assert a colorable claim of subject matter jurisdiction may the complaint be dismissed.”). III. Discussion
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution confers upon the federal courts the power to adjudicate “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. CONST. art I, § 2. As the Supreme Court oft reiterates: “No principle is more fundamental
7

to the judiciary‟s proper role in our system of government than th[is] constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction. . . .” Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 37 (1976)). Absent a case or controversy, the court cannot proceed and must dismiss the action. See Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, 514 (1868) (“Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.”). Defendants collectively assert a twofold jurisdictional challenge: first, they maintain that both plaintiff groups lack standing to challenge the Revictimization Act, and second, they assert that the First Amendment constitutional attacks are not ripe for adjudication. The court will address defendants‟ contentions seriatim.3
A. Standing To satisfy the constitutional standing requirement and confer jurisdiction upon the court, plaintiffs must have standing. See Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Am. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982); see also Common Cause of Pa. v. Commw. of Pa., 558 F.3d 249, 258 (3d Cir. 2009) (“[The] case or controversy requirement is satisfied only where a plaintiff has standing.”) (quoting Sprint Commc‟ns Co. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 273 (2008)). The “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” requires that a plaintiff establish:
3 The court recognizes that threshold justiciability inquiries into standing and ripeness typically rise or fall together. See, e.g., Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2341 n.5 (2014) (“[S]tanding and ripeness issues . . . boil down to the same question.”). Nonetheless, the doctrines operate separately and the court must be mindful of their distinct applications. See Goudy-Bachman, 764 F. Supp. 2d 684, 692 (M.D. Pa. 2011).
8

(1) an injury in fact—“an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not „conjectural‟ or „hypothetical‟ ”; (2) “a causal connection between the injury and the complained of—the injury has to be „fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant;‟” and (3) that it is “ „likely,‟ as opposed to merely „speculative,‟ that the injury will be „redressed by a favorable decision.‟ ” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (citations omitted)). With Lujan‟s factors as guideposts, the court must satisfy itself that a litigant has a sufficient “personal stake” in the matter to justify a federal court‟s exercise of jurisdiction. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498-99 (1975)).
In their briefs and at oral argument, each party focused its efforts on the injury in fact requirement. Defendants assert that, because neither the Attorney General nor District Attorney Williams has enforced the Revictimization Act or expressly threatened its enforcement, no plaintiff can establish that their injury is “actual” or “imminent.” (Abu-Jamal Doc. 36 at 3-12; Doc. 37 at 7-10; PLN Doc. 33 at 3-12; Doc. 34 at 6-9). Both plaintiff groups concede that the Act has not been enforced and that no plaintiff has been directly threatened with enforcement. (Tr. 25:10-20, 29:21-30:6).4 They contend that, notwithstanding lack of enforcement, the Act presently chills their constitutional right to speak freely on issues of public concern, satisfying the injury in fact requirement. (See Tr. 25:19-27:7, 30:6-31:8).
4 Citations to “Tr. __” are to the transcript of the oral argument proceedings convened on February 26, 2015.
9

In First Amendment litigation, “allegations of a subjective „chill‟ are not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm.” Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1972) (citing United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 89 (1947)). It is equally well established, however, that plaintiffs need not await enforcement of a statute before seeking relief in a court of law. See Susan B. Anthony, 134 S. Ct. at 2342 (“When an individual is subject to such a threat, an actual arrest, prosecution, or other enforcement action is not a prerequisite to challenging the law.”) (citing Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974) (“[I]t is not necessary that petitioner first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights.”)).
Rather, in the pre-enforcement context, the injury in fact analysis tasks the court to consider whether a plaintiff has alleged “[1] an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but [2] proscribed by statute, and [3] there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.” Susan B. Anthony, 134 S. Ct. at 2342 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat‟l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979)); Planned Parenthood of Ctrl. N.J. v. Farmer, 220 F.3d 127, 148 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Babbitt, 442 U.S. at 298). Defendants focus their efforts primarily on a single prong, asserting that neither plaintiff group can establish a credible threat of prosecution under the Act. (See Abu-Jamal Doc. 36 at 3-12; Doc. 37 at 7-10; PLN Doc. 33 at 3-12; Doc. 34 at 6-9). Each party clings to selective—and, in their view, unforgiving—quotation from Supreme Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals pre-enforcement jurisprudence;
10

the court‟s analysis, however, is hardly so black and white. Rather, several factors gleaned from the extensive body of pre-enforcement case law inform the court‟s analysis. See, e.g., Susan B. Anthony, 134 S. Ct. at 2342-43 (comparing cases).
Before examining the credibility of the threats plaintiffs identify, the court must first address a threshold issue raised by District Attorney Williams. In his opening brief, District Attorney Williams promised not to enforce the Act or take any action thereunder pending the outcome of this litigation. (Abu-Jamal Doc. 37 at 9; PLN Doc. 34 at 8). When plaintiffs challenged the tenuity of this promise, District Attorney Williams replied by foreswearing any enforcement of the Act whatsoever pending a determination of its constitutionality in a court of competent jurisdiction. (See Abu-Jamal Doc. 44 at 6; PLN Doc. 46 at 7-8). For this reason, District Attorney Williams contends that plaintiffs simply cannot establish a credible threat of enforcement as to his office. (Abu-Jamal Doc. 44 at 6; PLN Doc. 46 at 7-8). This argument finds much support in the law. See Salvation Army v. Dep‟t of Cmty. Affairs of State of N.J., 919 F.2d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 1990) (declining to “provide an advisory opinion” when the record reflected “an express assurance that there will be no enforcement against [plaintiff] of the waived provisions of the statute”); see also Susan B. Anthony, 134 S. Ct. at 2345 (finding standing when, inter alia, “respondents have not disavowed enforcement if petitioners make similar statements in the future.”); Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 16 (2010) (same, when government had “not argued . . . that plaintiffs will not be prosecuted if they do what they say they wish to do”); Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass‟n Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 393 (1988) (same, when government “has not suggested that
11

the newly enacted law will not be enforced”); Babbitt, 442 U.S. at 302 (same, when “state has not disavowed any intention of invoking the criminal penalty provision” at issue).5 The explicit disavowal of enforcement by District Attorney Williams eliminates any imminent threat of injury as to that defendant and his office. Hence, the court is compelled to grant District Attorney Williams‟ Rule 12(b)(6) motion for lack of standing.
The Attorney General offers no such assurance. Rather, she maintains that there exists no threat “of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment,” Steffel, 415 U.S. at 460, reiterating that no plaintiff has been sued—by her office or otherwise—under the new law. It is the Attorney General‟s position that, because the law has not been enforced by anyone in the four months since its enactment, plaintiffs‟ constitutional claims are foreclosed and nonadjudicable for lack of a credible threat of imminent harm. (See Abu-Jamal Doc. 33 at 4-6; PLN Doc. 36 at 4-6). A blend of both precedent and policy considerations requires a contrary finding.
Several cases illustrate the circumstances in which pre-enforcement challengers satisfy Article III standing requirements. In Virginia v. American Booksellers Ass‟n, 484 U.S. 383 (1988), for example, the Supreme Court found a statutory challenge to be justiciable despite a lack of prior threats or a history of enforcement when the law in question was “aimed directly at” the bookseller
5 The Abu-Jamal plaintiffs appeared to agree at oral argument, noting that even when a plaintiff is the direct target of a statute, a defendant can “overcome standing” if they “make an explicit disavowal of any intent to enforce” it. (See Tr. 28:17-29:7).
12

plaintiffs. See id. at 392 (“That [injury in fact] requirement is met here, as the law is aimed directly at plaintiffs . . .”) (citing Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 194 (1976); Doe. v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973)). Similarly, in Constitution Party of Pennsylvania v. Aichele, 757 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2014), the Third Circuit found a pre-enforcement challenge to two portions of the Commonwealth‟s election code to be justiciable when those provisions “directly regulate[d] the conduct” of the complainants. Id. at 362 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561-62 (holding that “there is little question” in such cases that the law causes the plaintiff an injury)). By virtue of this precedent, plaintiffs sub judice who have been convicted of a personal injury crime have standing to challenge the statute because they are directly in the crosshairs of its prohibitions. See Am. Booksellers, 484 U.S. at 392 (citing Craig, 429 U.S. at 194; Doe, 410 U.S. at 188); Aichele, 757 F.3d at 362 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561-62); see also Antonin Scalia, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers, 17 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 881, 894 (1983) (“Thus, when an individual who is the very object of a law‟s requirement or prohibition seeks to challenge it, he always has standing.”).
The Attorney General‟s failure to foreswear enforcement of this legislation lends further credit to plaintiffs‟ fears. The court‟s finding supra that plaintiffs do not have standing as to District Attorney Williams illustrates this: just as a promise not to enforce the Act eliminates any threat to plaintiffs, the Attorney General‟s
13

refusal to do so enhances that threat.6 Both the Supreme Court and the Third
Circuit recognize a refusal to disavow enforcement as a relevant consideration in
determining the justiciability of a statutory challenge. See Susan B. Anthony, 134
S. Ct. at 2345; Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 16; Am. Booksellers, 484 U.S.
at 393; Babbitt, 442 U.S. at 302; Planned Parenthood, 220 F.3d at 148. That threat is
amplified in the instant matter, when the Act authorizes any victim of a personal
injury crime, or any family member of a homicide victim, to file suit. See Susan B.
Anthony, 134 S. Ct. at 2345 (“The credibility of [a] threat is bolstered by the fact that
authority to file a complaint . . . is not limited to a prosecutor or an agency. . . .”).7
The Attorney General maintains that the universe of potential enforcers is
“relatively small,” (Tr. 9:8-13), but the Act‟s broad definition of “family member”—
to include members related to a victim within the third degree of consanguinity,
common law spouses, and even residents of the victim‟s household—belies this
assertion. See 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.103. It is further refuted by plaintiffs‟
allegation that the Commonwealth‟s Victim Advocate has already engaged in “test
6 Moreover, “in the absence of a controlling decision by a court of competent jurisdiction,” Attorney General Kane is compelled to defend the Revictimization Act by Pennsylvania law. See 71 PA. CONS. STAT. § 732-204(a)(3) (“It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to uphold and defend the constitutionality of all statutes so as to prevent their suspension or abrogation in the absence of a controlling decision by a court of competent jurisdiction.”). For this additional reason, the standing inquiry as to the Attorney General diverges from that applied to District Attorney Williams.
7 The court recognizes that Susan B. Anthony involved prior threats against the very plaintiffs in that action and is, to that extent, materially distinct from the instant matter. Nonetheless, the policy concerns raised by the Court with regard to an expansive universe of potential complainants is equally resonant sub judice, particularly in light of the emotionally charged posture of the potential adversaries in Revictimization Act lawsuits.
14

case” discussions with at least one victim, seeking to enjoin publication of AbuJamal‟s weekly radio commentary and the publication of an upcoming book. (See Doc. 19-7, Ex. 5 at 1-2). Consequently, there exists a “real risk” of an onslaught of complaints filed by individuals who, unlike the Attorney General or district attorneys, “are [not] constrained by explicit guidelines or ethical obligations.” Susan B. Anthony, 134 S. Ct. at 2345 (citing Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 6).
Of greater concern, the “danger of this statute is, in large measure, one of self-censorship.” Am. Booksellers, 484 U.S. at 393. Plaintiffs must immediately alter their conduct if they wish to avoid the statute‟s threat of a lawsuit, injunction, attorneys‟ fees, and “other relief.” See 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1304. At least one plaintiff, Kerry Shakaboona Marshall, shelved publication of his memoir, detailing his life as a juvenile offender serving life without parole, for fear of a lawsuit. (See Abu-Jamal Doc. 19-10 ¶ 7). The harm notably extends beyond self-censorship, as third parties have begun denying speaking and publishing opportunities to the offender plaintiffs for fear of enforcement action. (See, e.g., Abu-Jamal Doc. 19-7 ¶ 15 (Noelle Hanrahan, a producer at Prison Radio, stating that Free Speech Radio News will no longer air Abu-Jamal‟s weekly commentaries because of the Act). The non-offender plaintiffs assert a related and reciprocal harm: they suffer from the offender plaintiffs‟ self-censorship, because their advocacy and journalistic endeavors rely on such speech. (See, e.g., Abu-Jamal Doc. 19-5 ¶ 8 (professor Mark Lewis Taylor stating that he refrained from allowing Abu-Jamal to participate by phone in his classroom discussions); PLN Doc. 1 ¶ 49 (PLN has not yet published
15

new Abu-Jamal article “due to the threat that the [Revictimization Act] imposes”); see also PLN Doc. 1 ¶ 94-95 (Prison Society will warn its potential contributors of threats posed by the Act)). These examples corroborate plaintiffs‟ subjective fears of imminent harm.
Regarding the non-offender plaintiffs, the Attorney General suggests that the definition of “offender” is unequivocal and does not reach third parties. (See PLN Doc. 33 at 25-26). To the extent the Attorney General implies that the non-offender plaintiffs are without standing to sue for this reason alone, the court disagrees. The Attorney general‟s position ignores a principle oft-emphasized by the Supreme Court, to wit: in the unique context of First Amendment challenges, litigants need not establish concrete individual harm to satisfy Article III‟s case or controversy requirement. See, e.g., Sec‟y of State of Md. v. J.H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947, 95657 (1984) (“Litigants . . . are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own rights of free expression are violated, but because . . . the statute‟s very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.”) (quoting Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 (1973)).
The Attorney General lastly argues that, because a judge must ultimately determine whether to impose the prospective injunctive relief contemplated by the Act, any injury cited by plaintiffs is necessarily attenuated. The Attorney General is correct to the extent that the statute is not self-executing; any victim seeking relief thereunder must apply to a judge “in a court of competent jurisdiction” to seek relief. See 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1304(a). Nonetheless, the statute authorizes claims for injunctive and other relief against the plaintiffs, and its boundaries and
16

manner of execution are, at this juncture, unclear. See id. Moreover, even if a victim is unsuccessful in obtaining injunctive relief, the offender must defend a lawsuit and faces a potential assessment of attorneys‟ fees in connection with any Section 11.1304 action, regardless of whether he or she prevails on the merits. See id. The Supreme Court and Third Circuit both have found standing in preenforcement fundamental rights cases despite the fact that the ultimate penalty feared by plaintiffs is left to the discretion of a third party. See, e.g., Susan B. Anthony, 134 S. Ct. at 2338-39 (statute vesting authority in election commission to assess costs upon application of “any person”); Aichele, 757 F.3d at 362-63 (statute permitting a court to assess costs “as that court deems just” upon application of private actors (internal quotation marks omitted)). This court similarly rejects the Attorney General‟s argument that judicial oversight as to the injunctive element of the statute eliminates plaintiffs‟ standing to sue.
In the matter before the court, plaintiffs are the explicit object of the new legislation. They have alleged real and reasonable fears that the legislation will be enforced against them in the immediate future, and the Attorney General has not expressly or impliedly indicated that she will not enforce it. Cf. Am. Booksellers, 484 U.S. at 393 (finding standing absent historical enforcement or express threats when state did not disavow the legislation and plaintiffs established credible fear of imminent prosecution); Pic-A-State Pa., Inc. v. Reno, 76 F.3d 1294, 1300 (3d Cir. 1996) (summarily finding standing when the challenged regulation “is directed at” plaintiffs and exposed them to strong sanctions for noncompliance) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 154 (1967), overruled on other grounds, Califano v.
17

Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 104 (1977)). For all of these reasons, the court is “not troubled by the pre-enforcement nature of this suit,” Am. Booksellers, 484 U.S. at 393, and finds that both plaintiff groups have standing to maintain this action.
B. Ripeness The determination of standing, however, does not end the court‟s Article III case or controversy inquiry. Both plaintiff groups must also satisfy the justiciability doctrine of ripeness. This inquiry examines whether the claim itself is sufficiently mature and properly adjudicable. See Peachlum v. City of York, 333 F.3d 429, 433 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 148-49; Phila. Fed. of Teachers, Am. Fed. of Teachers, Local 3, AFL-CIO v. Ridge, 150 F.3d 319, 323 (3d Cir. 1998)). Two fundamental considerations govern a ripeness analysis: (1) “the fitness of the issues for judicial decision,” and (2) “the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Abbott Labs., 398 U.S. at 149. In the pre-enforcement context, these considerations dictate that: (1) the parties have sufficiently adverse legal interests; (2) the facts are sufficiently concrete to allow for conclusive legal judgment; and (3) the judgment has utility, or renders practical help to the parties. See Peachlum, 333 F.3d at 435 (citing Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 912 F.2d 643, 647 (3d Cir. 1990)). The Attorney General‟s ripeness argument parallels her standing position: she contends that both plaintiff groups‟ claims are unripe and non-justiciable because they rely on contingent future events. (See Abu-Jamal Doc. 36 at 8-12; PLN Doc. 33 at 8-12). It follows, the Attorney General argues, that the parties are not adverse, and the issues are not sufficiently concrete, because plaintiffs face no
18

immediate harm or hardship until and unless the Act is enforced against them. (See Abu-Jamal Doc. 36 at 8-12; PLN Doc. 33 at 8-12). The Attorney General‟s ripeness argument suffers the same maladies as her standing position.
First Amendment facial overbreadth challenges are “subject to a relaxed ripeness standard.” Peachlum, 333 F.3d at 434 (citing Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2002)). Indeed, ripeness inquiries are at their “most relaxed” in this context. Id. at 438 (emphasis added) (citing Kines v. Day, 754 F.2d 28, 30-31 (3d Cir. 1985)). This modified burden is critical in free speech litigation, because “unconstitutional statutes . . . tend to chill protected expression among those who forbear speaking because of the law’s very existence.” Id. at 434-45 (emphasis added) (citing Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 612; 13A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & EDWARD H. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3532.5 (2d ed. 1984)). Thus, when pre-enforcement challenges hinge principally on questions of law, a court may render conclusive determinations, assuming satisfaction of Article III standing requirements. GoudyBachman, 764 F. Supp. 2d at 693 (citing Pittsburgh Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Int‟l Union of Operating Eng‟rs, Local Union No. 66, 580 F.3d 185, 191 (3d Cir. 2009)). Such is the case sub judice.
Plaintiffs are the admitted objects of the Revictimization Act, and the Attorney General is authorized to use the Act against them in court. She has not disavowed an intent to enforce the legislation, and for this reason, the parties are sufficiently adverse for ripeness purposes. Moreover, neither party suggests that a more developed factual record will better inform the court‟s resolution of plaintiffs‟
19

constitutional challenges. See, e.g., Goudy-Bachman, 764 F. Supp. 2d at 693-94 (holding that pre-enforcement plaintiffs had standing to challenge the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act despite the fact that the mandate was not yet effective when the case commenced) (citing Pic-A-State Pa., 76 F.3d at 1300. As the Third Circuit routinely observes: in “cases involving fundamental rights, even the remotest threat of prosecution, such as the absence of a promise not to prosecute, has supported a holding of ripeness” when the central issues are “predominantly legal” and do “not require additional factual development.” Peachlum, 333 F.3d at 435 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Presbytery of N.J. of Orthodox Presbyterian Church v. Florio, 40 F.3d 1454, 1464 (3d Cir. 1994)).
Further, a decision on the constitutionality of the statute would have broad and immediate utility, not only to the parties before the court but to offenders and potential third parties across the Commonwealth whose expression, according to plaintiffs, is currently chilled by the Act‟s existence. See, e.g., Pic-A-State, 76 F.3d at 1300 (finding definite utility in judgment that would permit plaintiff to “promptly resume its activities”). In light of the foregoing, and the court‟s determination on standing, the instant dispute is ripe for adjudication.
20

IV. Conclusion The court is satisfied that jurisdiction is proper as to the Attorney General,
but will dismiss this action as to District Attorney Williams. An order resolving defendants‟ respective Rule 12(b)(1) motions and charting the course for further proceedings shall issue.

Dated:

March 6, 2015

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania

 
 Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 37

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLANIA

MUMIA ABU JAMAL, ROBERT L. :

HOLBROOK, KERRY

:

SHAKABOONA MARSHALL,

: Case No. 1:14-CV-2148

DONNELL PALMER, ANTHONY :

CHANCE, PRISON RADIO, HUMAN : Honorable Christopher C. RIGHTS COALITION, EDUCATORS : Conner

FOR MUMIA ABU-JAMAL

:

Plaintiffs,

: ELECTRONICALLY FILED :

:

v.

:

:

KATHLEEN KANE, Attorney General :

of Pennsylvania, and R. SETH WILLIAMS, District Attorney of

:

Philadelphia County

:

:

Defendants.

:

Complaint Plaintiffs, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Kerry Shakaboona Marshall, Donnell Palmer, Anthony Chance, Prison Radio, Human Rights Coalition, and Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal, by and through their undersigned counsel, file the following Complaint.
Introduction 1. This case is an injunctive challenge, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, § 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, to 18 P.S. § 11.1304, signed into law by the Governor of Pennsylvania on October 21, 2014.

1

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 2 of 37
2. The statute provides, in full:
Section 1. The act of November 24, 1998 (P.L. 882, No. 111), known as the Crime Victims Act, is amended by adding a section to read:
<< PA ST 18 P.S. § 11.1304 >>
Section 1304 Revictimization relief
(a) Action.—In addition to any other right of action and any other remedy provided by law, a victim of a personal injury crime may bring a civil action against an offender in any court of competent jurisdiction to obtain injunctive and other appropriate relief, including reasonable attorney fees and other costs associated with the litigation, for conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim.
(b) Redress on behalf of victim.—The district attorney of the county in which a personal injury crime took place or the Attorney General, after consulting with the district attorney, may institute a civil action against an offender for injunctive or other appropriate relief for conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim.
(c) Injunctive relief.—Upon a showing of cause for the issuance of injunctive relief, a court may issue special, preliminary, permanent or any other injunctive relief as may be appropriate under this section.
(d) Definition.—As used in this section, the term “conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim” includes conduct which causes a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish.
Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
3. The statute was enacted principally to silence Plaintiff Mumia Abu-
Jamal. It chills his ability--and the ability of the other Plaintiffs and other current and
former prisoners—to engage in speech protected by the First Amendment.
2

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 3 of 37
Jurisdiction and Venue 4. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and (4), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 5. This Court is the appropriate venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the events and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Parties 6. Plaintiff Mumia Abu-Jamal is an imprisoned writer and journalist currently held at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) Mahanoy in Frackville, Pennsylvania. 7. Plaintiff Robert L. Holbrook is an imprisoned member of the Human Rights Coalition, activist and writer held at SCI Greene in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania. 8. Plaintiff Kerry Shakaboona Marshall is an imprisoned member of the Human Rights Coalition, activist and commentator for Prison Radio held at SCI Rockview in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. 9. Plaintiff Donnell Palmer is an imprisoned activist and writer held at SCI Graterford in Graterford, Pennsylvania. 10. Plaintiff Anthony Chance is an imprisoned activist and writer held at SCI Graterford in Graterford, Pennsylvania. 11. Plaintiff Prison Radio (prisonradio.org) is a multi-media production company that records the voices of prisoners and broadcasts them via radio,
3

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 4 of 37
television, Internet, and film. Prison Radio is a project of the Redwood Justice Fund, a non-profit corporation based in California.
12. Plaintiff the Human Rights Coalition (HRC) is a nonprofit corporation based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania whose mission is to protect the human rights of prisoners and criminal defendants and advocate for changes to the criminal legal and prison systems.
13. Plaintiff Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal (EMAJ) is an unincorporated network of teachers who organize and advocate for the release of Mumia Abu-Jamal from prison, prioritizing education over incarceration, and bringing the experiences and perspectives of imprisoned intellectuals to a broader public.
14. Defendant Kathleen Kane is the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania. As the Attorney General she acts under color of state law and has the power to enforce 18 P.S. § 11.1304. She is sued in her official capacity.
15. Defendant Seth Williams is the District Attorney of the County of Philadelphia. As the District Attorney he acts under color of state law and has the power to enforce 18 P.S. § 11.1304. He is sued in his official capacity.
Statement of Facts A Law to Silence Current and Former Prisoners 16. On September 29, 2014, Goddard College in Plainfield, Vermont announced that “Mumia Abu-Jamal, an American prisoner, author, and journalist who received his Bachelor of Arts from Goddard in 1996, was selected by the students of
4

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 5 of 37
the Undergraduate Program’s Fall 2014 graduating class to be their commencement speaker this Sunday, October 5.” Because Abu-Jamal is incarcerated, the speech was pre-recorded by Prison Radio via telephone at SCI Mahanoy.
17. In response, the Fraternal Order of Police, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) Secretary John Wetzel, Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, and a number of Pennsylvania state legislators led by Pennsylvania State Representative Michael Vereb launched a media campaign against Abu-Jamal’s exercise of First Amendment rights.
18. Maureen Faulkner, the widow of Daniel Faulkner, the police officer Abu-Jamal was convicted of killing, stated in the press, “The only thing I would want to hear from Mumia Abu-Jamal is him admitting and confessing to my husband’s murder.”
19. "It's a disgrace that you have to even hear his voice. My husband has been dead for 32 years and his voice was taken from him by Abu-Jamal," Faulkner told CNN over a phone interview. She also asked “Why does he have any constitutional rights?”
20. DOC press secretary Susan McNaughton told CNN, “We have tried to intervene but we have been told by the court that we can’t,” indicating that the DOC is aware that Abu-Jamal’s commencement address and other public commentaries are constitutionally protected.
5

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 6 of 37
21. DOC Secretary Wetzel expressed his “disdain” for Goddard’s decision to invite Abu-Jamal to give the commencement address, but also acknowledged that Abu-Jamal was permitted to make phone calls, and the prison had no authority to prevent the recording of these calls.
22. Governor Corbett and Pennsylvania state legislators seized the opportunity to draft legislation that would allow crime victims and prosecutors to strip those convicted of personal injury crimes of their constitutional rights under the First Amendment.
23. On October 6, 2014, a press conference led by Pennsylvania House Representative Michael Vereb took place in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to promote House Bill 2533. The press conference was attended by the head of the Office of the Victims Advocate, state Senator Raferty, House Representative Turzai, several District Attorneys, members of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Pennsylvania State Police, former U.S. Marshalls, and Governor Corbett.
24. House Bill 2533 provides a cause of action for victims of personal injury crimes to file a civil action against an offender if that offender has engaged in conduct that causes temporary or permanent mental anguish. The text of the Bill, which has become law, is the exact same text contained in paragraph 2 of this complaint.
25. At the October 6 press conference, a statement from Maureen Faulkner was read where she stated that Abu-Jamal’s speech activity, including his publishing books, giving “countless live and recorded interviews,” appearing in “supportive
6

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 7 of 37
documentaries,” and as a commencement speaker has been “emotionally painful.” She went on to state, “The time has come to put an end to the desecration of our free speech laws by Mumia and anyone else in the Pennsylvania State system who has violently taken the life of another.”
26. Governor Corbett gave a speech at the press conference in which he made it explicit that House Bill 2533 was intended to restrict the ability of Abu-Jamal and other “violent felons” from “using public venues to promote themselves and their own agenda.” The Governor stated, “nobody has a right to continually taunt the victims of their violent crimes in the public square.”
27. Pennsylvania House Representative Michael Vereb, who co-sponsored the legislation, also spoke at the press conference, reiterating that the primary purpose of this Bill was to silence Mumia Abu-Jamal. Vereb’s co-sponsor memo in support of the legislation also made clear that the intent of the Bill was to silence Mumia AbuJamal. “Memorandum: Cosponsor Request – Revictimization Relief Act,” Representative Michael Vereb, October 2, 2014, http://www.repvereb.com/NewsItem.aspx?NewsID=21644.
28. Vereb falsely stated that there are “TV production studios in prison” and that prisoners are permitted 25-minute phone calls. Vereb referred to Abu-Jamal’s speech as “taxpayer-paid rants.”
7

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 8 of 37
29. Defendant R. Seth Williams spoke at the press conference as well. As the District Attorney in the county where Abu-Jamal was convicted, he has standing to sue Abu-Jamal on behalf of Maureen Faulkner under 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
30. As the District Attorney in the county where Plaintiffs Holbrook, Palmer, Chance, and Marshall were convicted, he has standing to sue eitherany of them as well under 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
31. Defendant Williams expressed his support for the House Bill 2533, denounced Abu-Jamal, and boasted of his participation in the recent successful campaign to defeat President Obama’s nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the Civil Rights Division of the United States Justice Department due to Adegbile’s affiliation with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, an organization that represented Abu-Jamal in his criminal appeals.
32. House Bill 2533 passed through the House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee on October 6, 2014. The discussion in the subcommittee focused on Abu-Jamal’s commencement address, and how this bill would restrict his ability to speak in the future.
33. During the Subcommittee hearing, in response to a question from a legislator, the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee, attorney Thomas Dymek, stated that the bill was designed to permit a judge “to exercise his or her equitable discretion to see whether this is a situation where an injunction is called for. Or that is constitutionally permissible.”
8

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 9 of 37
34. In response to a question as to how it could be known ahead of time whether Abu-Jamal’s speech would have “the intent to revictimize” anyone, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Victims Advocate stated that Abu-Jamal’s lack of remorse for the crime of his conviction – a crime he maintains he is innocent of – was sufficient evidence to prove that he would seek to revictimize the family of Daniel Faulkner.
35. Subcommittee members also expressed their desire that a court could enjoin the delivery or publishing of speech by “a third party who was the vessel of that conduct or speech[.]” This discussion was directly addressing the situation of the commencement address of Abu-Jamal, which was recorded by Prison Radio.
36. The Pennsylvania House of Representatives took an existing bill that had been passed in the Pennsylvania Senate, known as Senate Bill 508, and entirely replaced its text with the text of House Bill 2533.
37. On October 15, 2014, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted to pass Senate Bill 508, which now consisted of the text of House Bill 2533. The vote was 197-0.
38. On October 16, 2014, the Pennsylvania Senate passed the amended Senate Bill 508 37-11.
39. During the Senate debate, Pennsylvania State Senator Shirley Kitchen stated that “this bill has turned into part of a plan by a group of people that is flexing
9

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 10 of 37
their power,” and that the “bill does not help victims, and what it does is stifle free speech.”
40. On October 21, 2014, incumbent Governor Tom Corbett signed the bill into law while campaigning for re-election in Philadelphia. He signed the bill on the corner of 13th and Locust Streets, where officer Faulkner was killed and Mumia AbuJamal shot in the chest in the early morning hours of December 9, 1981. Maureen Faulkner was present at the signing.
41. The accompanying press conference focused on the Goddard College commencement speech given by Abu-Jamal, and how this new law was intended to silence him.
Mumia Abu-Jamal 42. Mumia Abu-Jamal is a writer and radio commentator confined at SCI Mahanoy in Frackville, Pennsylvania. He was convicted of a personal-injury crime in Philadelphia County. 43. The state of Pennsylvania held Abu-Jamal in solitary confinement on death row for 29 years pursuant to a death sentence. The death sentence in AbuJamal’s case was overturned as unconstitutional in 2001 by a judge in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision on two occasions. Although his sentence was reversed in 2001, Abu-Jamal remained on death row until December 2011 while the state appealed the reversal of the death sentence.
10

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 11 of 37
44. During his time on death row, Abu-Jamal earned a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Goddard College, and a Masters of Arts Degree from California State University Dominguez Hills.
45. During Abu-Jamal’s appeals of his conviction and sentence, a massive international movement developed in opposition to his death sentence and conviction. Demonstrations were held in cities around the world, Amnesty International found his original trial “failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings,” and civil and human rights organizations and individuals across the United States rallied for his freedom.
46. While he was incarcerated on death row, Abu-Jamal was visited by Pierre Sane, then-Secretary General of Amnesty International, Danielle Mitterrand, First Lady of France, and Nobel Peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Each of these individuals made public comments about their visit with Abu-Jamal.
47. Prior to Abu-Jamal’s incarceration, he had been a journalist who earned a reputation for challenging injustice and abuse of authority, including abusive policing practices in Philadelphia.
48. At the time of his arrest and incarceration in December 1981, Abu-Jamal was the President of the Philadelphia Chapter of the National Association of Black Journalists. As a staff reporter for WHYY, Philadelphia’s National Public Radio (NPR) affiliate, Abu-Jamal won the Major Armstrong Award from Columbia University in 1980. During the 1970s, he filed stories and anchored shows for more
11

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 12 of 37
than a dozen radio and television stations throughout the Delaware Valley and appeared on nationally distributed NPR broadcasts such as Morning Edition.
49. After he was incarcerated, Abu-Jamal continued his journalism from death row, writing thousands of commentaries about a range of topics, including life on death row, U.S. politics, war and militarism, the criminal legal system, AfricanAmerican religious traditions, education, history, and countless others.
50. Abu-Jamal authored the following seven books while on death row: a. Live From Death Row, Addison-Wesley (1995); Harper Perennial (1996). b. Death Blossoms: Reflections from a Prisoner of Conscience, Litmus Books (1996); South End Press (2003). c. All Things Censored, Seven Stories Press (2000). d. Faith of Our Fathers: An Examination of the Spiritual Life of African and African-American People, Africa World Press (2003). e. We Want Freedom: A Life in the Black Panther Party, South End Press (2004). f. Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the USA, City Lights Publishers (2009). g. The Classroom and the Cell: Conversations on Black Life in America, coauthored with Marc Lamont Hill, Third World Press (2011).
51. In 2015, two additional books authored by Abu-Jamal will be published.
12

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 13 of 37
52. In addition to the books he has authored and his thousands of radio commentaries, Abu-Jamal has written for numerous publications such as the Yale Law Journal, The Nation, Forbes, Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, Essence, Emerge, and had articles included in anthologies published by Rowan & Littlefield, Temple University Press, Penguin Books, The Red Sea Press, and others.
53. Pennsylvania state officials and the Fraternal Order of Police have tried to censor Mumia Abu-Jamal in the past. In May 1994, Prison Radio recorded commentaries by Abu-Jamal that were planned for broadcast by NPRs flagship program, All Things Considered. The FOP contacted the Pennsylvania DOC to protest, and enlisted U.S. Senator Robert Dole in their efforts. Senator Dole threatened NPR’s funding from the floor of the U.S. Senate. After initially promoting the series, NPR fired Abu-Jamal.
54. In response to the lobbying of the FOP, the DOC punished Abu-Jamal for violating a prison rule that forbid prisoners from conducting a business or profession. Abu-Jamal v. Price, 154 F.3d 128, 131 (3d Cir. 1998).
55. The Third Circuit ordered the entry of an injunction prohibiting DOC defendants from enforcing the business profession rule against Abu-Jamal, holding that Abu-Jamal had met the standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction since enforcement of the rule would cause him irreparable harm under the First Amendment.
13

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 14 of 37
56. After publication of Abu-Jamal’s first book in 1995, Live From Death Row, the FOP launched a campaign intended to keep sales of the book down. The FOP even flew a plane with a banner denouncing the publisher Addison-Wesley over the publisher’s corporate headquarters.
57. In November 1996, the DOC responded to FOP pressure by eliminating in-person broadcast media visits with all prisoners.
58. Abu-Jamal has also been the subject of several feature-length films, most of which feature interviews with him:
a. A Case for Reasonable Doubt, aired on HBO and Channel 4 England (1998).
b. In Prison My Whole Life, nominated for a Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival (2007).
c. Justice on Trial, Big Noise Media (2010). d. Mumia – Long Distance Revolutionary: A Journey with Mumia Abu-Jamal,
produced by Street Legal Cinema and Prison Radio (2013). e. Manufacturing Guilt, Street Legal Cinema and Prison Radio (2013). 59. On October 5, 2014, Abu-Jamal presented a commencement address via a pre-recorded statement to a graduating class at Goddard College in Vermont. AbuJamal is an alumnus of Goddard College. 60. Abu-Jamal has given three other commencement addresses in the past: Goddard College in 2008, Antioch College in 2000, and Evergreen College in 1999.
14

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 15 of 37
61. Abu-Jamal has also given lectures and participated in classroom discussions in colleges and universities through his work with Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal.
62. Politicians in Pennsylvania and the Fraternal Order of Police have consistently attempted to silence Abu-Jamal on account of his maintaining his innocence and continuing to work as a journalist.
63. Abu-Jamal faces a credible threat that Defendants in this litigation will file an enforcement action pursuant to 18 P.S. § 11.1304. The Governor, Defendant R. Seth Williams, and legislators who drafted the legislation made it clear that the principal purpose of the law was to censor Abu-Jamal.
64. The statute, and the threat of enforcement, chill Abu-Jamal’s First Amendment rights by constraining his ability to speak, publish, and otherwise communicate.
Robert L. Holbrook 65. Plaintiff Robert Holbrook is an activist and writer currently imprisoned at SCI Greene. He is serving a sentence of life-without-parole for a criminal conviction imposed when he was 16 years-old. He was convicted of a personal-injury crime in Philadelphia County. 66. Since 2008, Holbrook’s conviction and sentence has been the subject of numerous articles published in print and Internet sources.
15

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 16 of 37
67. Holbrook has written articles on an array of subjects of public concern, including juvenile life without parole, mandatory minimum sentencing, the killing of Trayvon Martin, prison censorship, drone warfare, the Egyptian Revolution, use of confidential informants by police, solitary confinement, and many more.
68. Articles written by or quoting Holbrook have been published in the Philadelphia Sunday Sun, Impacto Latin Newspaper, the Philadelphia City Paper, the Philadelphia Metro, the Philly Independent Media Center, the Las Vegas Weekly, the San Francisco Bay View, and The Defenestrator online newspaper.
69. Holbrook also regularly contributes to Plaintiff HRC’s publication The Movement, and works closely with prisoner advocacy organizations in support of protecting and advancing the human rights of former and current prisoners.
70. Pennsylvania state officials have sought to silence Mr. Holbrook’s speech and advocacy in the past. Prison officials have prevented him from receiving correspondence pertaining to his case and the issue of juvenile life without parole, censored academic articles sent to him by a college professor with whom he was writing a research paper, and issued him a demotional transfer to a more restrictive prison due to his challenging conditions of confinement via administrative grievances and writing to outside advocates.
71. Holbrook’s speech and conduct on matters of public concern is threatened by 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
16

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 17 of 37
72. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 does not contain any limiting principle or language that would prevent it from being applied against Holbrook.
73. Given that Holbrook writes on matters of public concern that rouse intense passions, including issues pertaining to sentencing juvenile offenders, he has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor him.
74. 18 P.S. § 11.1304, and the threat of enforcement, chill Holbrook’s First Amendment rights by constraining his ability to speak, publish, and otherwise communicate.
Kerry Shakaboona Marshall 75. Plaintiff Kerry Shakaboona Marshall is an activist and writer currently imprisoned at SCI Rockview. He is serving a sentence of life-without-parole for a criminal conviction imposed when he was 17-years-old. He was convicted of a personal-injury crime in Philadelphia County. 76. Marshall is the founder and editor of HRC’s publication, The Movement, a magazine containing content that is critical of the criminal legal and prison systems, and supportive of the efforts of prisoners, their families, support people, and advocates to effect positive changes in these systems. 77. Marshall contributes a column at the front of each edition of The Movement. These columns focus on mass incarceration, the criminal legal system, and prison conditions, and regularly encourage people in prison and their loved ones not in prison to get involved with HRC.
17

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 18 of 37
78. Marshall is also a commentator for Prison Radio, and has recorded more than 10 commentaries thus far in 2014. Much of the work he does in collaboration with Prison Radio is about issues of youth incarceration and the effect it has on individuals, families and communities. His commentaries have discussed institutional racism, human rights problems in the U.S., juvenile life without parole, the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs, and prison censorship.
79. Marshall’s speech and conduct on matters of public concern is threatened by 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
80. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 does not contain any limiting principle or language that would prevent it from being applied against Marshall.
81. Given that Marshall writes on matters of public concern that rouse intense passions, including issues pertaining to sentencing juvenile offenders, human rights violations in the U.S, and institutional racism, he has a credible fear that the 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor him.
82. 18 P.S. § 11.1304, and the threat of enforcement, chill Marshall’s First Amendment rights by constraining his ability to speak, publish, and otherwise communicate.
Donnell Palmer 83. Donnell Palmer is an imprisoned activist and writer held at SCI Graterford in Graterford, Pennsylvania. He was convicted of a personal-injury crime in Philadelphia County.
18

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 19 of 37
84. Plaintiff Palmer has been a participant in the Temple Inside Out program since 2007. This program organizes workshops and trainings with the public.
85. Plaintiff Palmer is a member of multiple prisoner-led organizations that invite members of the public to workshops, classes, discussions, and meetings.
86. Donnell Palmer participated in the book project Lette rs to My Younger Self: An Anthology of Writings by Incarcerated Men at S.C.I. Grate rford an d a W ri ting Wordbook. Prisoners at SCI Graterford wrote a combination of letters to their younger selves and essays.
87. The book was published by Serving House Books. The editors were Emily Defrietas and Jayne Thompson, a creative writing and English instructor at Widener University.
88. It was published in May 2014 and is available for purchase on Amazon.com as a softcover book and an ebook and on BarnesAndNoble.com as a softcover book.
89. Neither the publisher, editors, nor participants of the book receive income from the sales of the book. Instead, approximately 1 and a half copies of the book are donated to at-risk youth for each book that is purchased.
19

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 20 of 37
90. The book received clearance from the Office of the Victim Advocate prior to publication.
91. Participants are referred to by nicknames, first name and last initial, or some other moniker in the book.
92. Plaintiff Palmer is referred to as D. Saadiq P. in the book. 93. Some participants recorded their sections of the book with a recorder one of the outside editors brought into SCI Graterford. These recordings were played on WHYY radio station on the Radio Times radio show on October 24, 2014 and are archived on the WHYY website. 94. Following the success of the Radio Times show, the publisher has talked about the possibility of creating an audiobook version of Let ters t o M y Younger Self with the participants again reading their pieces. 95. Plaintiff Palmer has also written fiction and other nonfiction works. He is in the process of getting these works published. These would be published under the name Donnell Palmer or a pseudonym. 96. Plaintiff Palmer has also written several political poems about the criminal justice system, criminality, ethics, and violence. 97. Palmer has spoken to a producer about recording the poems and distributing them to the public.
20

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 21 of 37
98. Palmer has written articles on an array of subjects of public concern, including death by incarceration sentences, and many more.
99. Palmer’s speech and conduct on matters of public concern is threatened by 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
100. Palmer’s artistic speech and conduct is threatened by 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
101. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 does not contain any limiting principle or language that would prevent it from being applied against Palmer.
102. Given that Palmer writes on matters of public concern that rouse intense passions, including issues pertaining to the criminal justice system and life without parole sentences, he has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor him.
103. 18 P.S. § 11.1304, and the threat of enforcement, chill Palmer’s First Amendment rights by constraining his ability to speak, publish, and otherwise communicate.
Anthony Chance 104. Anthony Chance is an imprisoned activist and writer held at SCI Graterford in Graterford, Pennsylvania. He was convicted of a personal-injury crime in Philadelphia County. 105. Anthony Chance was a part of an educational program from approximately 2007 to 2011 through Montgomery County Community
21

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 22 of 37
College. Prisoners and students outside took the same course and wrote papers on identical topics and prisoners’ papers, including Plaintiff Chance’s, were shared with the students outside. These papers were on topics ranging from current events to the criminal justice system and life in prison.
106. Plaintiff Chance is a member of multiple prisoner-led organizations that invite members of the public to workshops, classes, discussions, and meetings.
107. Anthony Chance has written two books. These books are being edited and will be self-published and put on Amazon.com.
108. These books are completely fiction. 109. Following the passage of Senate Bill 508, Plaintiff Chance has decided to publish these books under a pseudonym. 110. Chance’s speech and conduct on matters of public concern is threatened by 18 P.S. § 11.1304. 111. Chance’s artistic speech and conduct is threatened by 18 P.S. § 11.1304. 112. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 does not contain any limiting principle or language that would prevent it from being applied against Chance. 113. Given that Chance writes on matters of public concern that rouse intense passions, including issues pertaining to the criminal
22

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 23 of 37
justice system, he has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor him.
114. 18 P.S. § 11.1304, and the threat of enforcement, chill Chance’s First Amendment rights by constraining his ability to speak, publish, and otherwise communicate.
Prison Radio 115. Prison Radio is a multi-media production company that was founded in 1990 with the purpose of bringing the voices of prisoners to the public. Prisoner commentaries on a range of subjects are recorded by Prison Radio on location and via telephone and broadcast via radio, television, film, and the Internet. Prison Radio produces commentaries that are aired on hundreds of radio and television stations every week, and more than a thousand broadcast outlets routinely carry their material to an international audience. 116. Prison Radio has recorded hundreds of prisoners over the last 25 years. In 2014, Prison Radio has worked with 30 imprisoned correspondents who have recorded more than 200 essays. Many of these prisoners have been convicted of personal injury crimes. 117. Prison Radio has contributed content to ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, BET, MTV, HBO, 20/20, Channel 4 England, Telesur, German TV, French National TV, Democracy Now on the Pacifica Network, Free Speech Radio News, and countless other networks and programs.
23

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 24 of 37
118. In 2013, Prison Radio co-produced the film Mumia: Long Distance Revolutionary, with Street Legal Films. The film was released by First Run Features and has been screened in more than 100 cities all over the United States. More than 20,000 DVDs of the film have been sold, and the film was broadcast on the STARZ network. It has also been translated into German and Spanish, has broadcast on Telesur, and is currently being subtitled in French.
119. Prison Radio is the producer of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s commentaries, including his Goddard College commencement address.
120. Prison Radio produces the commentaries of Kerry Shakaboona Marshall.
121. Prison Radio also features commentaries from other imprisoned correspondents in Pennsylvania, many of who have been convicted of personal injury crimes.
122. Bryant Arroyo is a state prisoner at SCI Frackville who has contributed commentaries to Prison Radio. These commentaries focus on Arroyo’s efforts to prove his innocence, censorship in prison, and his leading a successful campaign to prevent the construction of a coal gasification plant near the prison where he was confined. Arroyo has been convicted of a personal injury crime.
123. This speech on matters of public concern by Prison Radio correspondents is threatened by the 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
24

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 25 of 37
124. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 does not contain any limiting principle or language that would prevent it from being applied against Prison Radio correspondents.
125. Given that each correspondent writes on matters of public concern that rouse intense passions, Prison Radio has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor its correspondents and enjoin Prison Radio from broadcasting their voices.
126. The Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee explicitly discussed the possibility that this legislation could and should be used to enjoin the conduct of individuals and organizations that broadcast speech such as Mumia Abu-Jamal’s commencement address.
127. 18 P.S. § 11.1304, and the threat of enforcement, chill Prison Radio’s First Amendment rights by constraining its ability to speak, publish, broadcast, and otherwise communicate.
Human Rights Coalition 128. The Human Rights Coalition (HRC) was founded in the year 2000, and incorporated in Pennsylvania on August 13, 2012. HRC’s membership is comprised of prisoners’ families, formerly and currently imprisoned people, community activists, and human rights defenders. Many of its members have been convicted of personal injury crimes. 129. HRC is consistently critical of human rights violations within the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC). Since 2007, HRC has documented
25

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 26 of 37
several hundred reported human rights violations within the DOC, including accounts of physical, verbal, and sexual abuse, retaliation, inadequate and negligent medical and mental health care, warehousing of mentally ill prisoners in psychologically damaging conditions of solitary confinement, obstruction and denial of access to the courts, pervasive racial discrimination, and deprivations of food, recreation time, personal property, and necessary hygiene items. Prisoners contact HRC to report these abuses and HRC follows up by telephone and mail to obtain as much information and corroboration as possible. These violations are compiled by HRC members outside of prison into a prison abuse log available online at http://hrcoalition.org/AbuseLogs.
130. Media outlets have relied on HRC for information regarding human rights violations within the DOC, including the Harrisburg Patriot News, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Wilkes Barre Times Leader, Citizens Voice, Philadelphia City Paper, Philadelphia Weekly, Huffington Post, The Nation, as well as several online, radio, and television outlets. HRC relies on prisoners in order to disseminate information to these and other news outlets.
131. Since 2009, the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has utilized HRC’s documentation of human rights violations as one source amongst others for assessing the DOC’s compliance with constitutional standards. These reports assisted the DOJ in launching a civil rights investigation within DOC prisons. In May 2013, this investigation was expanded to include every prison within the DOC on the grounds that DOJ had
26

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 27 of 37
uncovered substantial evidence that prisoners with mental illness and/or intellectual disabilities were being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in the state’s solitary confinement units.
132. On August 2, 2010, HRC members testified in front of the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee regarding human rights violations within the DOC reported by former and current prisoners.
133. On September 18, 2012, Pennsylvania State Representative Ronald Waters held a hearing in front of the state House Democratic Policy Committee titled “Effects of Solitary Confinement.” This hearing was held at Temple University. HRC members assisted hearing organizers by identifying lawyers, mental health professionals, former prisoners, and prisoner family members who should testify. HRC members provided testimony as well based on the experiences and reports of former and current prisoners.
134. HRC submitted written testimony to the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights in June 2012, when that body held a hearing on the use of solitary confinement in the United States. This testimony contained descriptions of human rights violations in the DOC’s solitary confinement units based on reports from prisoners.
135. HRC also publishes a news magazine titled The Movement. It covers news related to HRC’s mission, including legal news, political analysis, human rights reports, interviews with and articles by community activists and professionals,
27

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 28 of 37
academic essays, letters and articles by prisoners and their families, and updates and information on HRC’s work.
136. Correspondence and articles by prisoners, many of whom have been convicted of personal injury crimes, is a core feature of The Movement. Plaintiffs Holbrook and Marshall are regular contributors to The Movement, for example. Stories by and about Mumia Abu-Jamal have been published in The Movement as well.
137. HRC has members who are currently imprisoned and an Advisory Board of prisoners. This Advisory Board is a critical component of HRC. The Advisory Board provides HRC with campaign strategies and ideas for events and actions.
138. At HRC’s public events, statements from prisoners, especially members of the Advisory Board, are read.
139. HRC has been on multiple radio shows on WPEB 88.1 FM in Philadelphia and shows broadcast on the Internet. In these media appearances, HRC’s outside members frequently utilize the words and stories from HRC’s inside membership and Advisory Board.
140. The Movement is the primary means through which HRC communicates with supporters inside and outside of prison. The publication provides updates on important political and legal developments related to the criminal legal and prison systems, and keeps supporters informed as to the activities and initiatives of HRC.
28

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 29 of 37
141. HRC has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor current and former prisoners who contribute to The Movement, thereby compromising HRC’s publication of The Movement.
142. HRC has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor current prisoners who report abuse in the DOC, thereby compromising HRC’s ability to produce and publish prison abuse logs.
143. HRC has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor current prisoners who are members of HRC and members of HRC’s Advisory Board in their communications with HRC on the strategy, campaign, and actions of HRC, thereby compromising HRC’s ability to associate with current prisoners and fulfill a crucial component of HRC’s mission and work.
144. HRC’s speech on matters of public concern is threatened by 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
145. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 does not contain any limiting principle or language that would prevent it from being applied against HRC for publishing, quoting, or associating with current and former prisoners.
146. Given that HRC’s mission focuses on matters of public concern that rouse intense passions, HRC has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor it on account of its publishing or otherwise disseminating the words and opinions of current and former prisoners.
29

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 30 of 37
147. 18 P.S. § 11.1304, and the threat of enforcement, chill HRC’s First Amendment rights by constraining its ability to speak, publish, broadcast, and otherwise communicate.
Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal 148. Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal (EMAJ) was founded in 1995 when Tom Ridge, then the Governor of Pennsylvania, signed a death warrant for the execution of Abu-Jamal. Throughout these years, EMAJ’s purpose has been (a) to expose the violations of due process and of other constitutional rights Abu-Jamal experienced at his arrest and in his 1982 trial, (b) to call for a new trial, and (c) across the last decade, in particular, to call for Abu-Jamal’s immediate release because of years of torturous solitary confinement, and because of the state’s refusal to review what EMAJ holds to be clearly exculpatory evidence. 149. EMAJ has worked for nineteen years as a loose network of national and world scholars to present material about Abu-Jamal’s case in their regularly-scheduled classes, at campus teach-ins, in community press conferences (at venues as diverse as labor union halls, legislative rotundas, and even Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center), in two major newspaper public service advertisements, and in a host of educational events and university gatherings. These presentations about Abu-Jamal’s case regularly include commentary by Abu-Jamal, often specifically recorded for the occasion.
30

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 31 of 37
150. In May 2000, EMAJ published a full-page advertisement on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal in The New York Times. It featured scholars across the United States and world, and hundreds of signatories from all levels of education.
151. EMAJ members utilize the works and participation of imprisoned writers and intellectuals, including political dissidents and radicals, in their work in an effort to bring these voices into liberal arts education. EMAJ takes this approach so that a broader section of the public has access to perspectives and experiences that contribute to critical inquiry and discourse on matters of public concern.
152. EMAJ has often featured the live phone-in voice of Abu-Jamal and other incarcerated persons, pre-recorded audio and video materials of them, as well as printed writings by them in teachers’ university and college classrooms. Hundreds of such educators have taught in this way. EMAJ members who have engaged in such interactions with prisoners include: Bob Buchanan, Goddard College; Neema Caughran, Goddard College; Jan Clausen, Goddard College; Angela Y. Davis, University of California, Santa Cruz; David G. Embrick, Loyola University (IL); Robert A. Ferguson, Columbia University Law School; Johanna Fernandez, Baruch College, City University of New York; Maike Garland, Goddard College; Craig Gordon, Oakland Unified School District (CA); Lisa Noelle Guenther, Vanderbilt University; Tom Hansen, Autonomous University of Social Movements (Chicago); Marc Lamont Hill, Morehouse College; Joy A. James, Williams College; Jamal Joseph, Columbia University; Wonhee Anne Joh, Garrett Seminary (IL), Robin D. G. Kelley,
31

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 32 of 37
University of California, Los Angeles; Ibram X. Kendi, State University of New York, Albany; Ju-Pong Lin, Goddard College; Bob Mandel, Oakland Unified School District (CA); Anthony Monteiro, Temple University; Mary Phillips, Lehman College, City University of New York; Peter J. Paris, Princeton Theological Seminary; Vijay Prashad, Trinity College (CT); Dylan Rodriguez, University of California, Riverside; Robyn Spencer, Lehman College, City University of New York; Eva-Maria Swidler, Goddard College; Karen Stupski, Goddard College; Mark Lewis Taylor, Princeton Theological Seminary; Christopher Tinson, Hampshire College; Victor Wallis, Berklee College of Music; Robert Wells, Oakland Unified School District (CA); Cornel West, Union Theological Seminary.
153. At the invitation of either an outside scholar or the prisoner, the EMAJ scholars named in this Complaint have participated in, and depend upon, the following kinds of interactions with Mumia Abu-Jamal, other prisoners in Pennsylvania, and prisoners in other states:
a. Prisoner phone calls to EMAJ members: these calls are typically amplified and a prisoner speaks to students in a professor’s classroom.
b. Amplification of prisoner voices at public forums: EMAJ members have amplified voices and recordings of prisoners via telephone or audio speakers at campus-wide events such as teach-ins and colloquia, as well as off-campus events.
32

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 33 of 37
c. Publication by or influenced by prisoners: EMAJ members have worked with prisoners to facilitate publications by prisoners in book or article form, and EMAJ members have published work that was informed by prisoners’ views and publications.
d. Meetings with prisoners: EMAJ members have met with prisoners inside prison in order to develop relationships, understanding, and knowledge that carries over into EMAJ members’ classrooms and other professional endeavors.
e. Mail correspondence with prisoners: Several EMAJ members have exchanged letters and documents with prisoners that cultivate deeper knowledge and understanding of prison life, social systems, and almost all areas of human endeavor, including letters and assessments received by EMAJ members in response to their published works.
154. Most of the above-listed activities have involved Mumia Abu-Jamal, or other Pennsylvania prisoners.
155. Most of these EMAJ members have been in the past, or will be in the future, part of conferences that invite the airing of Pennsylvania prisoners’ recorded and amplified voices, their writings and their perspectives.
156. EMAJ has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor Mumia Abu-Jamal, thereby compromising the ability of EMAJ members to invite
33

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 34 of 37
Abu-Jamal to lecture to and dialogue with students in their courses or at other academic forums, or otherwise communicate with EMAJ members.
157. EMAJ has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor other Pennsylvania prisoners, including Plaintiffs Holbrook, Palmer, Chance and Marshall, thereby compromising the ability of EMAJ members to invite them to lecture to and dialogue with students in their courses or at other academic forums, or otherwise communicate with EMAJ members.
158. EMAJ’s speech on matters of public concern is threatened by the 18 P.S. § 11.1304.
159. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 does not contain any limiting principle or language that would prevent it from being applied against EMAJ for inviting Abu-Jamal or other Pennsylvania prisoners to speak to students; broadcasting, quoting, or publishing Abu-Jamal or other Pennsylvania prisoners; or engaging in advocacy efforts in association with Abu-Jamal or other Pennsylvania prisoners.
160. Given that EMAJ’s mission focuses on matters of public concern that rouse intense passions, EMAJ has a credible fear that 18 P.S. § 11.1304 will be used to censor it on account of its publishing or otherwise disseminating the words and opinions of Mumia Abu-Jamal or other current or former prisoners of the state of Pennsylvania.
34

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 35 of 37
161. 18 P.S. § 11.1304, and the threat of enforcement, chill EMAJ’s First Amendment rights by constraining its ability to speak, publish, broadcast, and otherwise communicate.
Causes of Action COUNT I –First and Fourteenth Amendment – Against All Defendants
162. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-127161 as if fully stated herein. 163. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 164. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 is overbroad, vague, and penalizes a substantial amount of lawful speech, including truthful statements and speech on matters of public concern. The statute was explicitly written and passed in an attempt to penalize lawful speech. 165. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 is void for vagueness. It provides no guidance as to what conduct it prohibits. 166. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 discriminates on the basis of the content of the speech and the identity of the speaker. 167. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 was enacted in retaliation for Plaintiff Abu-Jamal’s exercise of his First Amendment rights. COUNT II – Article 1, § 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution – Against R.
Seth Williams 168. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-127161 as if fully stated herein.
35

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 36 of 37
169. 18 P.S. § 11.1304 violates Article 1, § 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,
which provides for freedom of the press, proclaiming that “every citizen may freely
speak, write and print on any subject[.]”
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court grant the following relief:
A. Grant a Preliminary Injunction invalidating and prohibiting enforcement
of the statute;
B. Grant a Permanent Injunction invalidating the statute;
C. Declare the statute to be a violation of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments and Article 1, § 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution;
D. Grant attorneys’ fees and costs;
E. Award such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Bret D. Grote Bret D. Grote PA I.D. No. 317273 Dustin McDaniel (pro hac vice, to be admitted) PA I.D. No. 314618 Jules Lobel, of counsel (pro hac vice, to be admitted) Abolitionist Law Center P.O. Box 8654 Pittsburgh, PA 15221 Telephone: (412) 654-9070 bretgrote@abolitionistlawcenter.org dsm@abolitionistlawcenter.org
36

Case 1:14-cv-02148-CCC Document 12-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 37 of 37

Dated: Deember 1, 2014

/s/ Deneekie Grant Deneekie Grant (pro hac vice) PA I.D. No. 314220 /s/ Ashley Henderson Ashley Henderson (pro hac vice) PA I.D. No. 313492 Amistad Law Project P.O. Box 9148 Philadelphia, PA 19139 Telephone: 267-225-5884 ashley@amistadlaw.org nikki@amistadlaw.org
/s/ David M. Shapiro David M. Shapiro (pro hac vice) Assistant Clinical Professor of Law Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center Northwestern University School of Law 375 E. Chicago Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 (312) 503-0711
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

37

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MUMIA ABU JAMAL, et al.,

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-2148

:

Plaintiffs

:

(Chief Judge Conner)

:

v.

:

:

KATHLEEN KANE, Attorney

:

General of Pennsylvania,

:

:

Defendant

:

______________________________________________________________________________

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, et al., Plaintiffs
v. KATHLEEN KANE, Attorney General of Pennsylvania,
Defendant

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-45

:

:

(Chief Judge Conner)

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

MEMORANDUM

The case at bar presents a constitutional challenge to a state statute. The

disputed enactment creates a right of action to enjoin the expressive conduct of

violent criminals that causes mental anguish to victims or their families.

Significantly, however, the fact that certain plaintiffs have been convicted of

infamous or violent crimes is largely irrelevant to our First Amendment analysis. A

past criminal offense does not extinguish the offender‟s constitutional right to free

expression. The First Amendment does not evanesce at the prison gate, and its

enduring guarantee of freedom of speech subsumes the right to expressive conduct

that some may find offensive.

The court concludes that the challenged statute betrays several constitutional requirements; the enactment is unlawfully purposed, vaguely executed, and patently overbroad in scope. However well-intentioned its legislative efforts, the General Assembly fell woefully short of the mark. The result is a law that is manifestly unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to plaintiffs. Thus, the court is compelled to grant plaintiffs‟ requests for declaratory relief, declare the Revictimization Relief Act, 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1304, to be violative of the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and permanently enjoin its enforcement. I. Background1
Before the court are two challenges to the Revictimization Relief Act, a 2014 amendment to Pennsylvania‟s Crime Victims Act, 18 PA. CONS. STAT. §§ 11.101 et seq. Plaintiffs attack the constitutionality of section 11.1304, which authorizes the Commonwealth‟s Attorney General, district attorneys, and “victims” of personal injury crimes to bring a civil action to obtain injunctive relief when an “offender” engages in “conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim.” 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1304(a)-(b). Both plaintiff groups seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as well as a declaratory judgment that the Act violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
1 The court will summarize the relevant factual background and procedural history herein. A more detailed account is set forth in the court‟s memorandum (Doc. 47) dated March 6, 2015, familiarity with which is presumed.
2

The full text of the Act provides:
(a) ACTION.-- In addition to any other right of action and any other remedy provided by law, a victim of a personal injury crime may bring a civil action against an offender in any court of competent jurisdiction to obtain injunctive and other appropriate relief, including reasonable attorney fees and other costs associated with the litigation, for conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim.
(b) REDRESS ON BEHALF OF VICTIM.-- The district attorney of the county in which a personal injury crime took place or the Attorney General, after consulting with the district attorney, may institute a civil action against an offender for injunctive or other appropriate relief for conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim.
(c) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.-- Upon a showing of cause for the issuance of injunctive relief, a court may issue special, preliminary, permanent or any other injunctive relief as may be appropriate under this section.
(d) DEFINITION.-- As used in this section, the term “conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim” includes conduct which causes a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish.
18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1304. The Act‟s sponsor, State Representative Mike Vereb,
announced the bill on October 2, 2014, just three days after Goddard College—a
small liberal arts college in Vermont and plaintiff Mumia Abu-Jamal‟s alma mater—
announced its selection of Abu-Jamal as its commencement speaker. (See Joint
Stip. ¶¶ 1-2).2 His cosponsor memorandum admonished an unidentified “convicted
killer” for “traumatizing the victim‟s family.” (Id. Ex. 2). The Act passed both
2 Citations to “Joint Stip.” are to the joint stipulation of facts and exhibits submitted by the parties on March 23, 2015. (Abu-Jamal Doc. 49; PLN Doc. 52).
3

chambers of the General Assembly in less than two weeks‟ time, unaltered from its original form. (See id. ¶¶ 6-7, 11).
During an October 21 bill-signing event near the intersection where AbuJamal‟s crime of conviction occurred, then-Governor Tom Corbett lauded the Act for its ability to enjoin offenders whose speech distresses victims. The Governor noted that the Act “is not about any one single criminal” but was “inspired by the excesses and hypocrisy of one particular killer,” (id. Ex. 7 at 1), transparently referencing Abu-Jamal. John Rafferty, a sponsoring senator, championed the Act as a means to prohibit “these rascals, these bad people from becoming entertainment values here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” (Id. at 3). The law took effect immediately. See 2014 Pa. Laws 150, § 2.
Twenty days after the Act became law, the Abu-Jamal plaintiffs filed a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 naming Kathleen Kane, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and R. Seth Williams, District Attorney for Philadelphia County, as defendants. (See Abu-Jamal Doc. 1).3 Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to include several additional challengers. (See Abu-Jamal Doc. 12). The Prison Legal News plaintiffs followed suit shortly thereafter. (See PLN Doc. 1). Collectively, the plaintiff groups assert that the Act is impermissibly vague, substantially overbroad, and an unlawful, content-based regulation of speech. (See Abu-Jamal Doc. 12; PLN Doc. 1). The Prison Legal News plaintiffs also label the Act an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech. (See PLN Doc. 1 ¶¶ 169-74).
3 Citations to “Abu-Jamal Doc.” are to docket entries appearing in Abu-Jamal v. Kane, No. 1:14-CV-2148. Citations to “PLN Doc.” are to docket entries appearing in Prison Legal News v. Kane, No. 1:15-CV-45.
4

The court consolidated the actions for purposes of resolving plaintiffs‟ requests for preliminary injunctive relief and defendants‟ Rule 12 motions. (See Abu-Jamal Docs. 23, 29; PLN Docs. 10, 21). On January 23, 2015, both defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs‟ claims, asserting that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (See Abu-Jamal Docs. 30-31; PLN Docs. 24-25). Defendants argued that, because neither defendant has enforced the Act, no plaintiff can establish harm, or an imminent threat thereof, flowing from the legislation. (See Abu-Jamal Docs. 30-31; PLN Docs. 24-25). The court held argument limited to justiciability concerns on February 26, 2015, and thereafter issued a memorandum opinion resolving both Rule 12 motions. See AbuJamal v. Kane, No. 1:14-CV-2148, 2015 WL 999194 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2015). The court dismissed the District Attorney, finding that his guarantee to refrain from enforcement of the Act pending review of its constitutionality eliminated any threat of injury as to his office. See id. at *6. With regard to the Attorney General, the court concluded that both groups established standing given her office‟s refusal to disavow enforcement of the Act and the immediate self-censorship resulting therefrom. See id. at *6-8.
The court consolidated trial on the merits with the preliminary injunction hearing, (Doc. 48 ¶ 4), holding a bench trial and oral argument on March 30, 2015. At the conclusion thereof, the court took plaintiffs‟ requests under advisement. II. Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 permits a district court to consolidate a preliminary injunction hearing with trial on the merits when appropriate. FED. R.
5

CIV. P. 65(a)(2) (“Before or after beginning a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing.”). In deciding whether permanent injunctive relief should issue, the court must first determine “if the plaintiff has actually succeeded on the merits.” Pa. Pride, Inc. v. Southampton Twp., 78 F. Supp. 2d 359, 361 (M.D. Pa. 1999) (quoting Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Bolar Pharm. Co., Inc., 747 F.2d 844, 850 (3d Cir. 1984)). This inquiry tasks the court to determine whether a plaintiff has “met its burden of proof.” Ciba-Geigy Corp., 747 F.2d at 850 (citing Evans v. Buchanan, 555 F.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1977)). The parties agree that no genuine disputes of material fact remain and that the question before the court is purely one of law. Accordingly, the court will treat plaintiffs‟ pending applications as motions for summary judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a) (“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”); see also Krebs v. Rutgers, 797 F. Supp. 1246, 1252-53 (D.N.J. 1992) (applying Rule 56 to injunctive relief application when parties agreed that remaining merits issue “involve[d] consideration of a pure point of law”). III. Undisputed Facts4
Plaintiffs sub judice represent two distinct but allied groups. The Abu-Jamal plaintiffs include five inmates, each of whom has been convicted of and is presently incarcerated for committing a personal injury crime in Pennsylvania. (See Doc. 49 ¶¶ 15, 31, 40, 48, 58). These prisoners frequently engage in written and oral
4 The above statement of undisputed facts derives from the parties‟ joint stipulation of facts, which the court adopts in full.
6

commentary, advocacy, and educational endeavors on a variety of topics of public concern. (See id. ¶¶ 15-22, 31-37, 41-44, 49-54, 59-61). The Abu-Jamal plaintiffs also include Prison Radio, Human Rights Coalition (“HRC”), and Educators for Mumia Abu-Jamal (“EMAJ”), three entities which regularly publish inmate plaintiffs‟ speech. (See id. ¶¶ 64, 75-77, 86-92). Prison Radio produces prisoner commentary “aired on hundreds of radio and television stations every week.” (Id. ¶¶ 64-71). HRC is an incorporated advocacy group, comprising prisoners‟ families, former and current prisoners, and activists. (See id. ¶¶ 75-76). It publishes The Movement, a magazine that features correspondence and articles by prisoners regarding legal, political, human rights, and other issues of public interest. (See id. ¶¶ 77-78). EMAJ is an unincorporated network of educators who feature correspondence from and telephonic discussions with Abu-Jamal in their classes. (Id. ¶¶ 86-90).
The Prison Legal News plaintiffs, by contrast, are individuals and entities who rely on inmate speech in their work. Plaintiffs Prison Legal News (“PLN”), the Philadelphia City Paper, Pennsylvania Prison Society (“PPS”), and Solitary Watch are publications and organizations that publish prisoner speech to convey information of public concern. (See id. ¶¶ 96-97, 141-42, 150-52). Daniel Denvir is a journalist for the Philadelphia City Paper, and Christopher Moraff is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in nonparty publications such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Daily Beast, and others. (Id. ¶ 104). Both journalists have devoted their careers to covering wide-ranging criminal justice issues and believe the Act may apply to their work. (Id. ¶¶ 105-11, 128-32). Professor Regina Austin similarly fears that the Act applies to video testimonials she creates in support of
7

clemency applications for Pennsylvania prisoners. (Id. ¶¶ 160-64). Steven Blackburn, Wayne Jacobs, Edwin Desamour, and William Cobb are former Pennsylvania prisoners who engage in public speaking and advocacy work with the goals of, inter alia, encouraging at-risk youth to avoid a life of crime, decreasing recidivism, and assisting with reintegration into society. (See id. ¶¶ 169-73, 178-83, 188-92, 197-203).
Since its passage, the Revictimization Act has had an undeniable chilling effect on the speech of prisoners and on the behavior of those individuals and entities who rely on that speech. Although several plaintiffs have continued their respective endeavors without restraint or repercussion, (see id. ¶¶ 26-27, 30, 35-36, 39), some have limited their commentaries or been denied publication for fear of the Act‟s enforcement. For example, nonparty Free Speech Radio News ceased widely publishing Abu-Jamal‟s weekly commentaries on the radio. (See id. ¶¶ 23-25). Kerry Shakaboona Marshall (“Marshall”) shelved publication of his book, a memoir of his experiences as a juvenile serving life in prison without parole. (See id. ¶ 37). Anthony Chance (“Chance”) will publish under a pseudonym, in an effort to avoid the Act‟s scope. (Id. ¶ 61). Prison Radio, HRC, and EMAJ have continued their work without incident, but at least one member of EMAJ was delayed in presenting Abu-Jamal to his class pending review of the Act by seminary counsel. (Id. ¶¶ 9192). PLN withheld publication of an article authored by Abu-Jamal, (id. ¶ 98), and PPS published a warning in its “Graterfriends” newsletter admonishing potential authors of the new risk attendant to prisoner publications. (Id. ¶ 147). The parties
8

agree that, subjective chill notwithstanding, the Act has yet to be enforced. (See id. ¶ 13). IV. Discussion
Plaintiffs assert three principal challenges: first, that the Act is a contentbased regulation of speech unjustified by compelling government interests; second, that it is impermissibly vague; and third, that it is substantially overbroad, all in violation of the United States Constitution. Each challenge is meritorious.
A. The Revictimization Relief Act Impermissibly Regulates Speech Based On Content
Legislation restricting expression based on content is inherently suspect. As a consequence, such enactments demand the highest level of judicial scrutiny. See United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2543 (2012) (quoting Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002)); see also Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 648-49 (1984) (“Regulations which permit the Government to discriminate on the basis of the content of the message cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment.”). Indeed, the “high purpose” of the Constitution‟s leading amendment is to protect even that content which an audience might find unpleasant. See Coleman v. Gettysburg Coll., 335 F. Supp. 2d 586, 589 (M.D. Pa. 2004) (“[Free speech] may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” (quoting Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 408-09 (1989))). Absent a compelling governmental purpose, the state may not react with interdiction based solely on disagreement with an expression. See Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2543; Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 55-56
9

(1988); Members of City Council of L.A. v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 804 (1984); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 462-63 (1980).
From these principles derives a corollary that has become the hallmark of First Amendment jurisprudence: the government may not proscribe speech based exclusively on its potential to offend. See Johnson, 491 U.S. at 414 (identifying same as the “bedrock principle” of the First Amendment (citing Hustler Magazine, 485 U.S. at 55-56; Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 804; Carey, 447 U.S. at 462-463; Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1976); Police Dep‟t of Chi. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972); United States v. O‟Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 382 (1968))). In other words, our Constitution prohibits the state from reacting to the emotive response of a few individuals with enactments that place arbitrary limits upon free expression. See, e.g., Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2551; United States v. Playboy Entm‟t Grp., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377, 390-91 (1992); Forsyth Cnty. v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134-35 (1992); Johnson, 491 U.S. at 414; Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 322 (1988); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 21 (1971); United States v. Marcavage, 609 F.3d 264, 282 (3d Cir. 2010); see also Coleman, 335 F. Supp. at 589 (“Offense to the few is the repercussion of freedom for all.”). Even when a court discerns from speech “nothing of any possible value to society,” it must nonetheless accord that expression the same protections granted to the Nation‟s most prized literature. Brown v. Entm‟t Merchs. Ass‟n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2737 n.4 (2011) (quoting Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 510 (1948)).
The Attorney General does not deny these cornerstones of First Amendment jurisprudence. Instead, she denounces plaintiffs‟ characterization of the statute as a
10

regulation of expression, describing it instead as a limitation of certain “behavior.” The Attorney General argues that the law‟s primary goal is to eliminate “taunting” or “harassing” behavior toward victims. (See Abu-Jamal Doc. 36 at 22; PLN Doc. 33 at 22). She emphasizes the statute‟s use of the term “conduct” and dismisses any First Amendment infringement as “incidental” to this broader purpose. (See AbuJamal Doc. 36 at 16; PLN Doc. 33 at 16). It follows, she argues, that the Act commands a less exacting degree of constitutional scrutiny. See O‟Brien, 391 U.S. at 376-77 (noting that courts tolerate “incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms” when an “important government interest” justifies broader prohibitions of conduct with “ „speech‟ and „nonspeech‟ elements”).
The Act itself contains no restrictive language supporting the construction urged by the Attorney General.5 In toto, the Act comprises four sentences, none of which limits the parameters of the statute as a whole. See 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1304. Nor does the Act‟s legislative history reinforce the Attorney General‟s interpretation. No supporter spoke of an intent to prevent a convicted rapist from “crank calling” his victim, or a convicted kidnapper from standing outside of her victim‟s home for hours on end. (See, e.g., Joint Stip. Exs. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7). Indeed, throughout its brief legislative gestation, the law was championed primarily as a device for suppressing offender speech. (See id.) The Act‟s sponsor extolled its capacity to silence Abu-Jamal in particular. (See id. Ex. 2 at 1). The chairman of the house judiciary committee opined that the Act would end the “extreme distress”
5 In fact, during oral argument, the Attorney General made numerous concessions which broadened, rather than narrowed, the scope of the Act. These concerns guide the court‟s overbreadth and vagueness analysis infra.
11

suffered by victims when offenders achieve celebrity, admonishing Goddard College for providing a “cold blooded murderer” with a speaking forum. (See id. Ex. 4 at 1). Senator Rafferty praised the Act for creating a remedy “when the perpetrator of the crime is getting attention that [the victim] may feel is not warranted.” (Id. Ex. 6 at 1). And Governor Corbett commended the legislature for expeditiously passing a law that quells the “obscene celebrity” of an “unrepentant cop killer.” (Id. Ex. 7 at 1).
The Act‟s remedy clearly reflects an intent to inhibit expression based exclusively on content—in particular, the impact that content has on a listener, reader, or other recipient. See TBS, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 642 (1994) (observing that “the mere assertion of a content-neutral purpose” will not “be enough to save a law which, on its face, discriminates based on content”). The Act permits enjoinder of offender speech based entirely on its effect on a victim. See 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1304. In this regard, the Supreme Court is unequivocal: a legislative proscription conditioned upon the impact an expression has on its listeners “is the essence of content-based regulation.” Playboy Entm‟t Gr., 529 U.S. at 811-12; see also Forsyth Cnty., 505 U.S. at 134 (holding that “[l]isteners‟ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation”); Boos, 485 U.S. at 321 (concluding that prohibition premised on “the direct impact that speech has on its listeners . . . must be considered content-based”).
The Revictimization Relief Act is the embodiment of a content-based regulation of speech. Its terms single out a distinct group and disincentivize its members from speaking. A cursory reading of the Act, coupled with its legislative
12

history, reveals a principal purpose of restricting expressive activity based on
content. See 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1304. As applied to plaintiffs sub judice, the
Act has the nearly exclusive effect of deterring public expression. (E.g., Joint Stip.
¶¶ 23-25, 37, 61, 91-92, 98, 147). Strict constitutional scrutiny thus governs the
court‟s review of this content-based legislation.6 See Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2543
(quoting Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at 573); Brown, 131 S. Ct. at 2738-39 (citing R.A.V., 505
U.S. at 395); Carey, 447 U.S. at 461-62 (citing Mosley, 408 U.S. at 98-99).
The Revictimization Act instantly fails the “exacting scrutiny” applied to
such restrictions. See Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2548. The Supreme Court unfailingly
rebukes attempts to censure speech based solely on its potential to hurt, disgust, or
offend. See, e.g., R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 414; Johnson, 491 U.S. at 414; Boos, 485 U.S. at
321; Hustler Magazine, 485 U.S. at 55. As the Court observed recently in Snyder v.
Phelps, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2013), the First Amendment demands tolerance
of “even hurtful speech” so that “we do not stifle public debate.” Snyder, 131 S. Ct.
at 1220.
For this reason, the Court flatly rejected revictimization as a basis for
restricting expression more than twenty years ago. In Simon & Schuster, Inc. v.
6 Assuming arguendo that the Act or its history revealed a principal intention to regulate behavior and only an incidental regulation of speech, the court‟s holding would remain unaltered. The Supreme Court has held that when a law “generally functions as a regulation of conduct” it is nonetheless subject to strict scrutiny when “as applied to plaintiffs[,] the conduct triggering coverage under the statute consists of communicating a message.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 27-28 (2012) (citing Cohen, 403 U.S. at 16-19). Here, the principal effect of the statute as applied to plaintiffs is the stifling of expression. (E.g., Joint Stip. ¶¶ 23-25, 37, 61, 91-92, 98, 147). Strict scrutiny thus controls notwithstanding the Attorney General‟s tenuous assertion that the Act principally regulates “conduct.” See Holder, 561 U.S. at 27-28; Cohen, 403 U.S. at 16-19.
13

Members of the N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991), the state of New
York sought to redirect profits from published works depicting crimes into escrow
accounts payable to crime victims as recompense for pain and suffering. See id. at
108-11. The Court held that the statute was clearly content-based and, as such,
subject to strict scrutiny. Id. at 115-16. The Court immediately dismissed any state
interest in shielding crime victims from such speech. See id. (quoting United States
v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310, 319 (1990)). Relevant herein, the Court observed that a
state cannot restrict expression in order to limit “whatever mental anguish . . .
victims may suffer from reliving their victimization.” Id. at 118 (quoting Hustler Magazine, 485 U.S. at 55; Eichman, 496 U.S. at 319).7
In the Revictimization Act, the Commonwealth articulates that which the
state of New York in Simon & Schuster did not—an explicit intent to enjoin
expression that causes mental anguish in crime victims. Compare 18 PA. CONS.
STAT. § 11.1304 (“Revictimization Relief Act” (emphasis added)), with Simon &
Schuster, 502 U.S. at 118 (“The [state] disclaims, as it must, any interest in
suppressing descriptions of crime out of solicitude for the sensibilities of readers.”).
Simon & Schuster, in conjunction with decades of Supreme Court precedent, seals
the Act‟s fate. Even the noblest governmental intentions cannot cure impermissible
legislation when the United States Supreme Court has explicitly foreclosed the 7 The court ultimately held that states do have a compelling interest in
compensating victims, but found that the statute was not narrowly tailored to accomplish that interest. See Simon & Schuster, 502 U.S. at 118-22. Specifically, the Court found the statute to be “overinclusive,” encompassing in its scope “works on any subject . . . however tangentially or incidentally” related to a crime, and by any author who admits to a crime in their work, whether or not the author was ever accused or convicted. Id. at 121.
14

legislation‟s purpose. See Simon & Schuster, 502 U.S. at 118; see also Snyder, 131 S. Ct. at 1218 (holding that even when expression “inflict[s] great pain . . . we cannot react . . . by punishing the speaker”). Hence, the court must strike the Revictimization Relief Act for its impermissible infringement on the constitutional guarantee of free expression.
B. The Revictimization Relief Act Is Also Impermissibly Vague and Substantially Overbroad
Vagueness and overbreadth concerns compound the Act‟s constitutional infirmities. The vagueness doctrine is borne of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304 (2008) (“Vagueness doctrine is an outgrowth not of the First Amendment, but of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”). It requires the government to advise precisely what conduct is impacted so that the public may tailor its behavior accordingly. See Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498-99 (1982). Legislation falls short of this mandate when it “fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited.” FCC v. Fox TV Stations, Inc., __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 2307, 2317 (2012) (citing Williams, 553 U.S. at 304); see also Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 498. When free speech is implicated, the Constitution demands “rigorous adherence” to these due process requirements. FCC, 132 S. Ct. at 2317.
Overbreadth concerns, by contrast, arise when a statute restricts more conduct than is necessary to accomplish its legitimate purpose. The Supreme Court has long held that courts may invalidate legislation restricting free speech
15

when “a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in
relation to the statute‟s plainly legitimate sweep.” United States v. Stevens, 559
U.S. 460, 473 (2010) (quoting Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party,
552 U.S. 442, 449, n.6 (2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Erznoznik
v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 216 (1975) (“This Court has long recognized that
a demonstrably overbroad statute or ordinance may deter the legitimate exercise of
First Amendment rights.”).8 In the free speech context, a statute is substantially
overbroad if “it is unclear whether it regulates a substantial amount of protected
speech.” Williams, 553 U.S. at 304 (citing Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870-74 (1997);
Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494-95 & nn. 6-7). The Revictimization Act
implicates—and violates—both doctrines.
The Act is impermissibly vague in its wholesale lack of definition. As a
threshold matter, the statute does not define the term “offender,” see 18 PA. CONS.
STAT. § 11.1304(a), such that the public cannot know whose conduct it regulates.
During a legislative judiciary committee meeting, committee counsel opined that
the term permits a broad construction to include non-offender third parties who
8 The Attorney General cites United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), in her opposition brief, asserting that the overbreadth standard requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that “no set of circumstances exist under which” the Act might be constitutionally applied. (Abu-Jamal Doc. 36 at 15-16; PLN Doc. 33 at 15-16 (noting alternatively that the Supreme Court has “suggested” that the standard “may be” lower)). The Attorney General abandoned this position during oral argument, focusing exclusively on the less rigorous standard cited by plaintiffs. (See Tr. 42:1225). Her earlier contention is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent, which expressly adopts a lighter standard of overbreadth review in free speech cases. See Stevens, 559 U.S. at 473 (“In the First Amendment context . . . this Court recognizes „a second type of facial challenge,‟ whereby a law may be invalidated as overbroad if „a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute‟s plainly legitimate sweep.‟ ”).
16

publish offender speech. (See Joint Stip. Ex. 4 at 3 (describing potential liability for a “vessel” of speech)). The Attorney General suggests that the term includes even persons who are accused but not yet convicted. (See Tr. 45:7-47:23).9 It is thus unclear whether an offender includes the accused, the convicted, the exonerated, third parties, or all of the foregoing. As a result, many plaintiffs—prisoners and non-prisoners alike—instantly modified their conduct for fear of falling within the ambit of the Act. (See id. ¶¶ 23-25, 37, 61, 91-92, 98, 147).
The Act‟s primary barometer of actionable expressive activity is equally vague. It refers only to “conduct” that causes “a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish,” 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1304, but offers no guidance to state courts in determining whether a plaintiff is entitled to relief. It does not specify whether reactions to speech will be measured by an objective or subjective standard, or what level of “anguish” will suffice. See, e.g., Williams, 553 U.S. at 306 (observing that vague statutes include those which define prohibited conduct by terms such as “annoying” or “indecent,” requiring “wholly subjective judgments without statutory definitions, narrowing context, or settled legal meanings” (citing Reno, 521 U.S. at 870-71 & n.35; Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614 (1971))). During oral argument, the Attorney General conceded that her office is uncertain whether even Maureen Faulkner—the victim-catalyst for the legislation—could successfully obtain relief under the Act. (Tr. 35:25 (“They could certainly attempt to . . . [but] I don‟t believe that they could necessarily secure it.”)). Such equivocality reflects the
9 Citations to “Tr. __” are to the transcript of oral argument, held March 30, 2015.
17

impossibility of defending this law: the weight of precedent has forced the Attorney General to contort the legislature‟s vision so as to render it unrecognizable from its original intent. (See, e.g., id.)
Of further concern is the Act‟s use of the term “includes” in defining the conduct it regulates. See 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1304(d). The term implies that other, yet-unidentified conduct exists which might fall within the Act‟s scope. At oral argument, counsel for the Attorney General hypothesized that the catchall phrase encompasses conduct such as harassment and stalking. (See Tr. 40:6-25). However, this interpretation is superfluous when juxtaposed against the balance of her argument: according to the Attorney General‟s papers, such behaviors are already verboten by the General Assembly‟s reference to “conduct which causes a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish.” (Abu-Jamal Doc. 36 at 22; PLN Doc. 33 at 22). Moreover, as detailed supra, the Act‟s central limitation turns on the unknowable emotive responses of victims. Short of clairvoyance, plaintiffs cannot determine in advance whether and to what extent a particular expression will impact a victim‟s sensibilities. The result of these ambiguities is the very selfcensorship identified by the Supreme Court as the hazard of vague legislation. See FCC, 132 S. Ct. at 2317; see also Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 498-99. The statute fails to provide reasonable persons with notice of what—or whose—conduct it endeavors to curtail.
These same concerns contribute to the statute‟s overbreadth. Plaintiffs argue that the Act is boundless in its potential applications, encompassing in its scope virtually any expressive activity by any person who has ever been convicted
18

of a personal injury crime. (Abu-Jamal Doc. 19 at 14; see also PLN Doc. 6 at 26-30). The Attorney General agrees that any conduct which elicits mental anguish in a victim might fall within the Act‟s inestimable sweep so long as that victim can prove the fact of anguish in court. (See Tr. 35:14-37:25). Hence, the Act ostensibly affects protected—and critically important—speech, including: pardon applications, clemency petitions, and any testimony given in connection with those filings; public expressions of innocence, confessions, or apologies; legislative testimony in support of improved prison conditions and reformed juvenile justice systems; programs encouraging at-risk youth to avoid lives of crime; or any public speech or written work whatsoever, regardless of the speaker‟s intention or the work‟s relation to the offense. (See Abu-Jamal Doc. 19 at 15-16; PLN Doc. 6 at 28-29). Absent welldefined parameters, the four corners of the Act will quash important public dialogues, as long as a victim can demonstrate “mental anguish.” 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 11.1304(a), (d).
The Attorney General‟s proposed definition of the term “offender” further compounds the overbreadth concerns borne of the statute‟s plain language. When pressed at oral argument to define the term, the Attorney General suggested that even those who have merely been accused of a crime may be silenced by the Act; for example, a pretrial detainee could be subject to civil liability for publicly professing innocence during the colloquially termed “perp walk,” well in advance of any criminal adjudication of guilt. (See Tr. 45:7-47:23). Taken to its logical conclusion, the Attorney General‟s statutory interpretation would limit an accused person‟s right to profess his innocence before he is proven guilty. Cf. Simon & Schuster, 502
19

U.S. at 121-22 (finding a similar regulation to be “overinclusive” when a person was
neither accused nor convicted but admitted in written work to the crime). The
court thus concludes that the Act is impermissibly vague and substantially
overbroad in further violation of the United States Constitution.10
C. Permanent Injunctive Relief
The court‟s inquiry does not end with a determination that plaintiffs have
succeeded on the merits. See Ciba-Geigy Corp., 747 F.2d at 850. Before the court
may grant injunctive relief, plaintiffs must prove: first, that they have suffered
irreparable injury; second, that legal remedies are inadequate to compensate that
injury; third, that a remedy in equity is warranted after balancing the respective
hardships between the parties; and fourth, that the public interest is not disserved
by an injunction‟s issuance. See eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388,
391 (2006) (citing Amovo Prod. Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987); Weinberger
v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311-13 (1982)). Each of these factors, measured
against the significance of the Act‟s constitutional frailties, demands permanent
injunctive relief.
10 Finally, the court notes that the statute, in its present form, is incapable of judicial cure. The court is mindful that “when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, [it should] try to limit the solution to the problem.” Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 3138, 3161 (2010) (quoting Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England, 546 U.S. 320, 328-29 (2006)). However, the court must also “restrain [itself] „from rewriting state law to conform it to constitutional requirements‟. . . .” Ayotte, 546 U.S. at 329-330 (quoting Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass‟n, Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 397 (1988)). The legislation before the court is unlawful in both purpose and implementation. Any judicial attempt to salvage the Revictimization Relief Act would result in a “far more serious invasion of the legislative domain” than this court may appropriately undertake. See id. at 330 (quoting United States v. Treasury Emps., 513 U.S. 454, 479 n.26 (1995)).
20

The first element is satisfied by the court‟s finding that the Revictimization Act violates plaintiffs‟ right to free expression. The Attorney General asserts that plaintiffs cannot establish harm because their expression has not been chilled. The factual record, the law of the case,11 and governing precedent belie this assertion. The record offers several examples of plaintiffs censoring their own speech, or third parties denying them speaking opportunities, as a result of the Act. (See, e.g., Joint Stip. ¶¶ 23-25, 37, 61, 91-92, 98, 147). Further, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes that the violation of First Amendment rights “for even minimal periods of time unquestionably constitutes irreparably injury.” Swartzwelder v. McNeilly, 297 F.3d 228, 241 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion)) (citing Abu-Jamal v. Price, 154 F.3d 128, 136 (3d Cir. 1998)); K.A. v. Pocono Mt. Sch. Dist., 710 F.3d 99, 113 (3d Cir. 2013). Plaintiffs have suffered— and will continue to suffer—irreparable injury in the absence of immediate and permanent injunctive relief.
The remainder of the factors also weigh in favor of plaintiffs‟ request. This court has held that injunctions are especially appropriate when violations of the First Amendment are concerned “because of the inadequacy of money damages.” Stilp v. Contino, 743 F. Supp. 2d 460, 470 (M.D. Pa. 2010) (quoting Nat‟l People‟s Action v. Wilmette, 914 F.2d 1008, 1013 (7th Cir. 1990)). Monetary damages are woefully insufficient to cure the substantial violations of the right to free speech occasioned by the Revictimization Act. See id. (“In [First Amendment] cases the
11 In ruling on defendants‟ Rule 12 motions, the court held that plaintiffs have demonstrated a “chilling effect” directly flowing from the Revictimization Act. See Abu-Jamal, 2015 WL 999194, at *7.
21

quantification of injury is difficult and damages are therefore not an adequate remedy.” (quoting Flower Cab Co. v. Petitte, 685 F.2d 192, 195 (7th Cir. 1982))).
Similarly, the hardships faced by plaintiffs are considerable: the Act attempts to suppress expression at the very core of the First Amendment. On balance, the hardships that defendants may experience fail to justify infringement of plaintiffs‟ rights: the state has no compelling interest in suppressing offensive speech, and to the extent the Act seeks to enjoin “harassing” or “taunting” behavior, as the Commonwealth alleges, the Attorney General concedes that state law already criminalizes such behavior. (See Tr. 34:6-35:5). Finally, the Third Circuit has held that suppressing protected expression does not advance any public interest. See ACLU v. Reno, 217 F.3d 162, 180 (3d Cir. 2000), vacated on other grounds sub. nom., Ashcroft, 535 U.S. 564; K.A., 710 F.3d at 114 (“[T]he enforcement of an unconstitutional law vindicates no public interest.” (citing ACLU v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240, 251 n.11 (3d Cir. 2003))). Indeed, the public interest is enhanced—not disserved—by permanently enjoining enforcement of an unconstitutional statute. See id. The court will grant plaintiffs‟ requests for permanent injunctive relief.12
12 The PLN plaintiffs separately assert that the Act is an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech. The court finds merit in the three principal arguments asserted jointly by the plaintiffs and declines to address this additional contention.
22

V. Conclusion
The First Amendment‟s guarantee of free speech extends to convicted felons
whose expressive conduct is ipso facto controversial or offensive. The right to free
expression is the shared right to empower and uplift, and to criticize and condemn;
to call to action, and to beg restraint; to debate with rancor, and to accede with
reticence; to advocate offensively, and to lobby politely. Indeed, the “high purpose”
of the foremost amendment is perhaps best displayed through its protection of
speech that some find reprehensible. Johnson, 491 U.S. at 408-09 (“[Free speech]
may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest,
creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”
(quoting Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949))). The United States
Constitution precludes any state enactment that effectively limits expressive
conduct when the essential injury is personal affront.13 See Coleman, 335 F. Supp.
at 589.
The victims who have suffered at the hands of certain plaintiffs are not
without remedies. Victims are free to protest inmate speech through
demonstrations, picketing, or public debate. They may publish responsive leaflets
and editorials. As Maureen Faulkner did, victims may air their grievances to the
13 To be sure, the right to free expression is not without limitation. Various exceptions permit government regulation of speech which, inter alia, incites imminent violence, see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969), includes obscene material, see Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 18-19 (1973), or contains defamatory statements, see Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 757-61 (1985), and nothing set forth in this memorandum should be construed as modifying the existing limitations on the right to free speech. Notably, none of the recognized exceptions applies to the challenged statute. The Revictimization Act falls on the basis of fundamental First Amendment principles.
23

press. Indeed, the victims‟ discourse may include expressive conduct that plaintiffs themselves find objectionable. The First Amendment does not evanesce at any gate, and its enduring guarantee of freedom of speech subsumes the right to expressive conduct that some may find offensive.

Dated:

April 28, 2015

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania

 
 Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 1 of 57

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, DANIEL DENVIR, PHILADELPHIA CITY PAPER, CHRISTOPHER MORAFF, PENNSYLVANIA PRISON SOCIETY, SOLITARY WATCH, PROFESSOR REGINA AUSTIN, STEVEN BLACKBURN, WAYNE JACOBS, EDWIN DESAMOUR, and WILLIAM COBB,
Plaintiffs,
V.
KATHLEEN KANE, in her capacity as Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and R. SETH WILLIAMS, in his capacity as District Attorney of Philadelphia County,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION No. _____________

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 2 of 57
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. On October 21, 2014, then-Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed into law a statute that violates the due process and First Amendment rights of a broad array of individuals and organizations. 2. Dubbed the "Revictimization Relief Act" by its sponsors, this unprecedented statute, 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304, is more accurately described as the "Silencing Act." Indeed, at its signing, the Act was referred to as a means "to keep people like the murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal silent." 3. While the Silencing Act was drafted in response to the graduating class of Goddard College's choice of Abu-Jamal as its commencement speaker, the Act's impact extends far beyond just Abu-Jamal. In fact, the Silencing Act permits courts to enjoin and penalize any speech or other conduct by an "offender" (undefined) that causes "mental anguish" to a personal injury crime "victim" (broadly defined) or otherwise "perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim" (not otherwise defined). 4. Further, according to the legislative history, the Act applies to third parties who publish such speech. 5. Plaintiffs are eleven individuals and organizations ensnared by the Silencing Act's broad and vague sweep. Each engages in speech that it is in the public's interest to encourage, not silence. Seven of the eleven are third parties
-2-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 3 of 57
who rely on and publish speech by individuals convicted of personal injury crimes, in order to inform the public and spur government action regarding issues of public concern. Those issues include wrongful convictions, prison conditions, penal policy, juvenile life without parole, and clemency. The other four Plaintiffs are individuals formerly incarcerated for personal injury crimes who share their own experiences with a wide range of audiences to help reduce crime and facilitate successful prisoner reentry.
6. To eliminate the threat the Silencing Act poses to them and so many others, Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement. As demonstrated below, the Silencing Act is unconstitutional in at least four different ways:
a. First, the Silencing Act is unconstitutionally vague, as a potential target can only guess what conduct-or even whose conduct- falls within the statute' s scope.
b. Second, the Silencing Act unconstitutionally regulates speech based on its content, without any compelling government interest as a justification.
c. Third, the Silencing Act is unconstitutionally overbroad, as most, if not all, of its applications impermissibly restrict protected speech.
-3-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 4 of 57
d. Fourth, the Silencing Act unconstitutionally authorizes courts to impose a prior restraint on speech- which, as the Supreme Court has observed, is the most serious and intolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.
JURISDICTION & VENUE 7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because this suit raises federal questions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 8. Venue is proper in the Middle District ofPennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. §§ 139l(a) and 139l(b), as a substantial part ofthe events giving rise to this action occurred in this District and Defendant Kane resides in this District.
THE PARTIES 9. Plaintiffs Prison Legal News, Daniel Denvir, Philadelphia City Paper, Christopher Moraff, Pennsylvania Prison Society, Solitary Watch, and Professor Regina Austin rely on and publish speech by individuals convicted of personal injury crimes (as defined for purposes of the Silencing Act) to convey information of public concern. Prison Legal News, the City Paper, the Prison Society's "Graterfriends" newsletter, and Solitary Watch are publications that feature content that is written by or quotes Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes. Denvir, a City Paper senior staff writer who focuses on criminal justice
issues, and Moraff, a freelance criminal justice journalist, are both working on
-4-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 5 of 57
long-term pieces that would feature interviews with and comments from Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes. Professor Austin runs a University of Pennsylvania Law School program that, to support clemency applications of Pennsylvania prisoners, creates videos that contain oral or written testimonials by the prisoners themselves. These seven organizations and individuals all reasonably fear that the Silencing Act will be used to enjoin or penalize their publication of offender speech and that the Act will chill offenders from speaking with them- whether through interviews, written submissions, or otherwise.
10. Plaintiffs Steven Blackburn, Wayne Jacobs, Edwin Desamour, and William Cobb were formerly incarcerated for personal injury crimes of which they were convicted in Philadelphia County-first-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, third-degree murder, and kidnapping and robbery, respectively. Since being released from prison, they have drawn on their personal experiences with the justice system to become community leaders working to reduce crime. Through a combination of direct service and advocacy, they and the organizations they have founded and run have striven to help at-risk youth avoid lives of crime and to help those returning from prison reintegrate into their communities and avoid recidivism. Public speaking-through presentations, lectures, panel appearances, media interviews, legislative testimony; documentaries, and more-is
-5-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 6 of 57
a key component of their efforts. Each of these four individuals reasonably fears that the Silencing Act will be used to enjoin or penalize such speech. 1
11. Defendant Kathleen Kane is the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is sued in her official capacity. Defendant Kane, as Attorney General, acts under color of state law and has the authority to file suit under the Silencing Act. See 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304(b).
12. Defendant R. Seth Williams is the District Attorney of Philadelphia and is sued in his official capacity. Defendant Williams, as District Attorney, acts under color of state law and has the authority to file suit under the Silencing Act.
See 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304(b). THE SILENCING ACT'S BROAD AND UNCLEAR SWEEP
13 . Signed into law on October 21, 2014, as an amendment to Pennsylvania's 1998 Crime Victims Act, the Silencing Act provides in full:
(a) ACTION.-- In addition to any other right of action and any other remedy provided by law, a victim of a personal injury crime may bring a civil action against an offender in any court of competent jurisdiction to obtain injunctive and other appropriate relief, including reasonable attorney fees and other costs associated with the litigation, for conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim.
1 More fulsome descriptions of Plaintiffs and the Silencing Act's effect on them are at Paragraphs 47-150.
-6-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 7 of 57
(b) REDRESS ON BEHALF OF VICTIM.-- The district attorney of the county in which a personal injury crime took place or the Attorney General, after consulting with the district attorney, may institute a civil action against an offender for injunctive or other appropriate relief for conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim. (c) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.-- Upon a showing of cause for the issuance of injunctive relief, a court may issue special, preliminary, permanent or any other injunctive relief as may be appropriate under this section. (d) DEFINITION.-- As used in this section, the term "conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim" includes conduct which causes a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish.
18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304.
14. As this reproduction of its entire text makes clear, the Silencing Act
does not define the term "offender." Nor does the rest of the Crime Victims Act.
15. While the Si lencing Act states that "the term 'conduct which
perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim' includes conduct
which causes a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish," both it and the
rest of the Crime Victims Act are silent about what else "conduct which
perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim" "includes."
16. The definitions section of the Crime Victims Act does contain three
relevant definitions, which collectively broaden the scope of the Silencing Act
beyond its plain language.
-7-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 8 of 57
17. First, the Crime Victims Act defines "personal injury crime" as "[a]n act, attempt or threat to commit an act which would constitute a misdemeanor or felony" under the sections of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code relating to "criminal homicide'" "assault'" "kidnapping'" "sexual offenses'" "arson and related offenses," "robbery," "victim and witness intimidation," and various vehicular crimes resulting in death or bodily injury. 1.8 Pa. C.S. § 11.103.
18. Second, the Crime Victims Act defines "victim" to include all of the
following: ( 1) A d irect victim . (2) A parent or legal guardian of a child who is a direct victim, except when the parent or legal guardian of the child is the alleged offender. (3) A minor child who is a material witness to any of the following crimes and offenses ... committed or attempted against a member of the child's family: .. crimina l homicide [,] aggravated assault[,] rape[.] (4) A fami ly member of a homicide victim, including stepbrothers or stepsisters, stepchildren, stepparents or a fiance ... except where the family member is the alleged offender.
!d. 19. Third, the Crime Victims Act defines "family," "when used in
reference to an individual"-as in the fourth part of the "victim" definition- to
encompass:
-8-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 9 of 57
( 1) anyone related to that individual within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity; (2) anyone maintaining a common-law relationship with that individual; or (3) anyone residing in the same household with that individual. !d. 20. An individual's spouse and the individual's or his or her spouse's children, parents, siblings, grandchildren, grandparents, nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts, great-grandchildren, and great-grandparents are all "within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity." THE SILENCING ACT'S LIGHTNING-SPEED ENACTMENT 21. While many statutes are the product of months, if not years, of drafting, debate, hearings, negotiations, and revisions, the Silencing Act took only three weeks to progress from a legislator's idea to a ratified bill signed by the Governor. 22. On September 29,2014, Goddard College, a small school in Vermont, announced that the undergraduate graduating class had selected Mumia AbuJamal, a Goddard alumnus, to be its commencement speaker. (Ex. 1 (Sept. 29, 20 14 Goddard Press Release).)
-9-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 10 of 57
23. According to the announcement, Prison Radio had already pre-
recorded Abu-Jamal's address, which would be played at the October 5
commencement ceremony. (/d.) 24. On September 30, after hearing the news, Maureen Faulkner-the
widow of the police officer whom Abu-Jamal was convicted of murdering- told
Fox News how upset it made her: I am just absolutely outraged that they would have such a hate-filled murderer on as a commencement speaker. I mean, this man-he murdered my husband with malice and premeditation. He is evil. ... And I still do not understand this justice system and why they are allowing him to speak.
(Ex . 2 (Sept. 30, 2014 Interview Transcript) at 2.) 25. On October 2, State Representative Mike Vereb, who was running for
reelection to the Pennsylvania House at the time, introduced the Silencing Act. 26. Representative Vereb circulated a co-sponsor mer:no in which he
stated that Mrs. Faulkner's situation was his motivation for the Silencing Act but
that the law would affect far more than just her and Abu-Jamal:
A convicted murderer is still traumatizing the victim's family and it needs to stop. We need to ensure this doesn't happen to any other victim or their family.... Officer Faulkner's wife Maureen was left a widow by Abu-Jamal. But not only did Maureen lose her husband and the life she hoped to lead with him, Maureen also since has been revictimized again and again by Abu-
- 10-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 11 of 57
Jamal's ongoing acts. It is time to put a stop to this, not only for Maureen, but for all victims of personal crimes. (Ex. 3 (Oct. 2, 2014 Co-Sponsor Memo).) 27. On October 5, Abu-Jamal's pre-recorded speech was played for the Goddard graduates. In his speech, Abu-Jamal did not mention his crime or Mrs. Faulkner. Instead, he reflected on his experience as a Goddard student and urged the graduates to "take what you know and apply it in the real world" and to "help be the change you're seeking to make." (Ex. 4 (Oct. 5, 2014 Commencement Speech Transcript).) 28. The House Judiciary Committee's October 6 session included less than fifteen minutes of discussion of the Silencing Act. (A video of the Judiciary Committee's session is at http://media2.pahousegop.com/Generator.asp? videoname=8600413 61.wmv.) 29. In his opening comments, the Committee Chairman explained that the bill related to Abu-Jamal's commencement address and stated that he could "not express his disdain enough" for Goddard's "unworthy" and "despicable" decision to "allow a cold-blooded murderer to engage in this conduct" that, in the Chairman's view, would cause "extreme distress" to Officer Faulkner's family. 30. But in the ensuing discussion, comments by the Committee Counsel highlighted the bill' s broad- though not at all clear- reach beyond Abu-Jamal.
-11-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 12 of 57
31. One representative asked if the Jaw would affect a program in which prisoners speak to high schools to encourage students to stay on the right path and
out ofjail. 32. The Committee Counsel responded by emphasizing that the Silencing
Act, by design, gives the court tremendous discretion in applying it: The bill is constructed to give a lot of discretion to the judge here because there is not an ability to foresee all the different types of situations where something could come up where there is conduct by an offender, so it is designed as you read the language, only in those situations where it causes this kind of emotional distress to the victim .... And also, it's not mandatory. The judge has to exercise his or her equitable discretion and to see whether this is a situation where an injunction is called for or that constitutionally is permissible and exercise their discretion to make sure to do that properly.
33. Then, when asked if the law would reach a third party who published offender speech, the Committee Counsel said that "the court would have broad power to stop a thi rd party who is the vessel of that conduct or speech from
delivering it or publishing that information." 34. At a press conference later that day, both Governor Corbett and
Defendant and Philadelphia District Attorney Williams spoke enthusiastically in favor of the Silencing Act, lambasting Goddard and Abu-Jamal for causing Mrs. Faulkner pain but also highlighting the impact that the law could have on other
-12-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 13 of 57
victims. (A video of the press conference is at http://media2.pahousegop.com/ Generator.asp?videoname=402857958.wmv.)
35. Governor Corbett, who was up for reelection less that one month later, stressed that the law would "prevent convicted violent felons from every day revictimizing families and other injured parties by using public venues to promote themselves and their own agenda truly at the emotional expense of the victims and of the public."
36. Defendant Williams described the Silencing Act as "allow[ing] victims or prosecutors on behalf of a victim to stop their offenders from revictimizing them," pronounced that the law "is the least we can do for our victims," and told the assembled crowd, "[t]hank you for standing up, thank you for not forgetting about our victims."
37. State Senator John Rafferty-also in the midst of a reelection campaign- spoke, too, vowing to "make sure this bill gets through the Senate [with] quick passage and to the Governor for his signature."
38. Just over one week later, on October 15, 2014, the House passed the Silencing Act unanimously.
39. On October 16,2014, the Senate passed the Silencing Act- by a 3711 vote.
-13-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 14 of 57
40. Not a single change was made to the text of the Silencing Act between its introduction and its passage.
41 . Governor Corbett then signed the Silencing Act into law on October 21, 2014, near the Philadelphia intersection where Officer Faulkner was murdered. (A video of the bill-signing ceremony is at https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=e38fGnlGYs4&feature=youtu.be.)
42. As emcee of the bill-signing ceremony, the Commonwealth's Victim Advocate lauded the Silencing Act as "groundbreaking legislation that currently does not exist in any other state."
43. At the ceremony, Senator Rafferty did not mince words in describing what he saw as the Silencing Act's impact:
It will finally allow the families of crime victims or the crime victims themselves, if they are still with us, or the DA or the Attorney General to go to court to seek an injunction to prevent these rascals, these bad people, from becoming entertainment values here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.... This is important for Pennsylvania, for the City of Philadelphia, to allow us as a civilized society to say "no more, you've hurt us enough criminals, stay back where you belong, this is our country, this is our Commonwealth, let us go forward and heal." 44. Expressing a similar sentiment, Representative Vereb lamented that "[f]or too long, Pennsylvania has sat by and watched as victims like Maureen
-14-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 15 of 57
Faulkner were victimized over and over again by low life criminals" and praised the law for standing up for "the victims~' instead of"the villains."
THE SILENCING ACT'S IMPACT 45. Now that the Silencing Act has taken effect, the prospect of its enforcement- and the injunctive and monetary relief that the law authorizeslooms for thousands of implicated individuals and organizations. 46. Eleven of them are Plaintiffs here.
Prison Legal News 47. Plaintiff Prison Legal News ("PLN"), a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center, is a monthly magazine that reports on criminal justice issues and prison- and jail-related civil litigation, with an emphasis on prisoners' rights. Approximately 95% ofPLN's content is written by current or former inmates. 48. PLN has published articles written by current and former Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia and elsewhere in Pennsylvania, including articles written by Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of Officer Faulkner's murder in Philadelphia. 49. Abu-Jamal recently submitted an article to PLN that PLN wants to publish, but it has not published the article yet due to the threat that the Silencing
Act poses.
-15-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 16 of 57
50. PLN cannot know in advance ·if the publication of an atticle by a person convicted of a personal injury crime will be held to "perpetuate[] the continuing effect of the crime on the victim," such as by "caus[ing] a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish." See 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304. It all depends on the reaction of the particular "victim" to the particular article.
51. But given the broad definition of personal injury crime "victim" for Silencing Act purposes, and given the natural sensitivity of many such victimslike Mrs. Faulkner- to learning of speech by a person convicted of the crime, PLN reasonably believes that at least some of the articles that it wants to publish will fall within the Act's scope.
52. PLN intends to continue to publish articles written by current and former Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia and elsewhere in Pennsylvania, but reasonably fears that the Silencing Act will be used in an effort to enjoin it from, or penalize it for, publishing such articles.
53. PLN also reasonably fears that current and former Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia or elsewhere in Pennsylvania will be chilled from submitting articles for publication due to the risk that the Silencing Act would be used to enjoin or penalize their speech.
-16-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 17 of 57
54. PLN cannot afford to devote resources to defending against Silencing Act lawsuits or to paying awards of attomeys' fees, court costs, or damages under the Act.
Daniel Denvir 55. Plaintiff Daniel Denvir is a senior staff writer at the Philadelphia City Paper. His reporting on a wide range of criminal justice issues has appeared in the City Paper, as well as The New Republic and The Atlantic's CityLab. 56. Denvir was a 2013 Guggenheim Reporting Fellow at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. The Reporting Fellowship is aimed at encouraging and promoting top-quality journalism on criminal justice. 57. In his criminal justice reporting, Denvir often relies on interviews with and comments from Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia. 58. For example, in 2013, Denvir wrote a series of articles in the City Paper about evidence suggesting that Pennsylvania inmates Eugene Gilyard and Lance Felder were innocent of the Philadelphia murder for which they had been convicted. Denvir interviewed Gilyard in prison for the series, and included comments from him in the articles. 59. The first article in the series prompted a key defense witness to come
forward and testify at a Post-Conviction Relief Act hearing, after which the court
-17-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 18 of 57
granted Gilyard and Felder a new trial. Defendant Williams then chose to drop the charges against Gilyard and Felder instead of retrying them, and the two are now free .
60. For his series on Gilyard and Felder, Denvir received the 2014 Public Service Award from the Association of Alternative Newsmedia.
61. Since his articles on Gilyard and Felder, Denvir has continued to investigate potential wrongful convictions of Pennsylvania inmates for personal injury crimes and wants to publish additional reporting on the subject in the near future that quotes from one or more Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal InJUry cnmes.
62. Denvir cannot know in advance if an article quoting a person convicted of a personal injury crime will be held to "perpetuate[] the continuing effect of the crime on the victim," such as by ''caus[ing] a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish." See 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304. It all depends on the reaction of the particular "victim" to the particular article.
63. But given the broad definition of personal injury crime "victim" for Silencing Act purposes, and given the natural sensitivity of many such victims to learning of speech by a person convicted of the crime, Denvir reasonably believes that criminal justice reporting that he wants to publish in the future quoting
- 18-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 19 of 57
Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia or elsewhere in Pennsylvania will fall within the Act's scope.
64. Denvir intends to continue to rely Of1 and include in his criminal justice reporting interviews with and comments from Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia and elsewhere in Pennsylvania, but reasonably fears that the Silencing Act will be used in an effort to enjoin him from, or penalize him for, publishing such reporting.
65. Denvir also reasonably fears that Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia or elsewhere in Pennsylvania will be chilled from speaking with him in connection with his criminal justice reporting-be it about wrongful convictions, correctional officer abuse, sentencing policies, proposed legislation impacting inmates, or otherwise- due to the risk that the Silencing Act would be used to enjoin or penalize their speech.
66. Denvir cannot afford to devote resources to defending against Silencing Act lawsuits or to paying awards of attorneys' fees, court costs, or damages under the Act.
-19-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 20 of 57
Philadelphia City Paper 67. Plaintiff Philadelphia City Paper is a prize-winning and independent alternative weekly newspaper that publishes fresh perspectives on local news, arts, music, movies, and food. 68. The City Paper frequently features content on local criminal justice issues, which has often included interviews with or comments from Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia. For example, the City Paper published the series by Plaintiff Denvir described at Paragraphs 58-60 above, as weiJ as a story on the community-building efforts of Plaintiffs Jacobs and Blackburn-both formerly incarcerated for personal injury crimes-that quoted the two men extensively. 69. The City Paper wants to publish future reporting by Denvir on his continuing investigation, as a City Paper employee, of potential wrongful convictions of Pennsylvania inmates for personal injury crimes. 70. The City Paper cannot know in advance if an article quoting a person convicted of a personal injury crime will be held to "perpetuate[] the continuing effect of the crime on the victim," such as by "caus[ing] a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish." See 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304. It all depends on the reaction of the particular "victim" to the particular article.
-20-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 21 of 57
71. But given the broad definition of personal injury crime "victim" for Silencing Act purposes, and given the natural sensitivity of many such victims to learning of speech by a person convicted of the crime, the City Paper reasonably believes that content that the City Paper wants to publishes in the future quoting Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia or elsewhere in Pennsylvania will fall within the Act's scope.
72. The City Paper intends to continue to publish content that includes interviews with and comments from Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia and elsewhere in Pennsylvania, but reasonably fears that the Silencing Act will be used in an effort to enjoin it from, or penalize it for, publishing such content.
73. The City Paper also reasonably fears that Pennsylvania inmates convicted ofpersonal injury crimes in Philadelphia or elsewhere in Pennsylvania will be chilled from speaking with its reporters due to the risk that the Silencing Act would be used to enjoin or penalize their speech.
74. The City Paper cannot afford to devote resources to defending against Silencing Act lawsuits or to paying awards of attorneys' fees, court costs, or damages under the Act.
75. The City Paper cannot afford to devote resources to the researching and writing of a long-term article only t o ultimately be enjoined from publishing it.
-21-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 22 of 57
76. The City Paper cannot afford to devote resources to the researching and writing of a long-term article only to have key sources chilled from speaking with its reporters due to the threat that the Silencing Act poses to them.
Christopher Moraff 77. Plaintiff Christopher Moraff is a freelance journalist whose reporting on a wide range of criminal justice issues has appeared in publications including The Daily Beast, The Philadelphia Tribune, Philadelphia Magazine, PennLive, The Philadelphia Inquirer, In These Times, Next City, AI Jazeera America, and The American Prospect. 78. Moraff is a 20 14 Guggenheim Reporting Fellow at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. As discussed above, the Reporting Fellowship is aimed at encouraging and promoting top-quality journalism on criminal justice. 79. Moraff is currently working on two long-term articles entailing interviews with Pennsylvania inmates who have been convicted of personal injury cnmes. 80. The first is an article that would put a human face on mandatory juvenile life without parole in Pennsylvania, by sharing the stories of several Pennsylvania inmates who are serving mandatory life sentences for personal injury crimes they committed as juveniles. One of the inmates whom Moraff has
-22-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 23 of 57
identified as a potential subject for this article is Robert Holbrook, a Pennsylvania inmate convicted of a Philadelphia murder over twenty years ago. Holbrook, who has spoken publicly and with the press in the past about his experiences as a juvenile lifer, has said in a separate suit challenging the Silencing Act's constitutionality that the Act now chills his exercise of his right to speak about his expenences.
81 . The second article is about the low percentage of clemency applications granted in Pennsylvania. For that article, Moraff is reviewing records from the hundreds of applications denied last year- again, with the goal of identifying several inmates to interview about their personal stories.
82. Moraff cannot know in advance if an article quoting a person convicted of a personal injury crime will be held to "perpetuate[] the continuing effect of the crime on the victim," such as by "caus[ing] a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish." See 18 Pa. C.S. § ll.l304. It all depends on the reaction of the particular "victim" to the particular article.
83. But given the broad definition ofpersonal injury crime "victim" for Silencing Act purposes, and given the natural sensitivity of many such victims to learning of speech by a person convicted of the crime, Moraff reasonably believes that the articles on which he is working about juvenile life without parole and
about denied clemency applications will fall within the Act's scope.
-23-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 24 of 57
84. Moraff intends to continue to rely on and include in his criminal justice reporting interviews and comments from Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes, but reasonably fears that the Silencing Act will be used in an effort to enjoin him from, or penalize him for, publishing such reporting.
85. Moraff also reasonably fears that Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia or elsewhere in Pennsylvania will be chilled from speaking with him about their experiences as juvenile lifers or as clemency applicants due to the risk that the Silencing Act would be used to enjoin or penalize their speech.
86. Moraff cannot afford to devote resources to defending against Silencing Act lawsuits or to paying awards of attorneys' fees, court costs, or damages under the Act.
87. Moraff cannot afford to devote resources to researching and writing a long-term article only to ultimately be enjoined from publishing it.
88. Moraff cannot afford to devote resources to researching and writing a long-term article only to have key sources chilled from speaking with him due to the threat that the Silencing Act poses to them.
-24-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 25 of 57
Pennsylvania Prison Society 89. Plaintiff Pennsylvania Prison Society is a nonprofit organization that advocates for a humane, just, and restorative correctional system and promotes a rational approach to criminal justice issues in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 90. As part of its mission to maintain communication between prisoners and the outside community, the Prison Society publishes "Grater:friends," a newsletter in which prisoners and non-prisoners voice their opinions and concerns about criminal justice issues. 91. Most articles submitted to and published in Graterfriends are by Pennsylvania inmates, many of whom have been convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia or elsewhere in Pennsylvania. The Prison Society reviews each submission it receives and retains the right to edit or reject any submission. 92. The Prison Society cannot know in advance if an article by a person convicted of a personal injury crime will be held to "perpetuate[] the continuing effect of the crime on the victim," such as by "caus[ing] a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish." See 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304. It all depends on the reaction of the particular "victim" to the particular article. 93 . But given the broad definition of personal injury crime "victim" for Silencing Act purposes, and given the natural sensitivity of many such victims to
learning of speech by a person convicted of the crime, the Prison Society
-25 -

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 26 of 57
reasonably believes that at least some o f the articles it wants to publish in Graterfriends will fall within the Act's scope.
94. The Prison Society intends to continue to publish articles in Graterfriends written by Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia and elsewhere in Pennsylvania, but reasonably fears that the Silencing Act will be used in an effort to enjoin it from, or penalize it for, publishing such articles.
95. The Prison Society also reasonably fears that Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia or elsewhere in Pennsylvania will be chilled from submitting articles for publication in Graterfriends due to the risk that the Silencing Act would be used to enjoin or penalize their speech.
96. In fact, the Prison Society feels obliged to, and intends to, warn inmates of the injunctive and monetary threat that the Silencing Act poses, so that inmates can decide whether to submit articles for publication in Graterfriends in light of that threat.
97. The Prison Society cannot afford to devote resources to defending against Silencing Act lawsuits or to paying awards of attorneys' fees, court costs, or damages under the Act.
-26-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 27 of 57
Solitary Watch 98. Plaintiff Solitary Watch is a nonprofit web-based project aimed at bringing the widespread use of solitary confinement out of the shadows and into the light of the public square. It is the first centralized source of unfolding news, original reporting, first-hand accounts, and background research on solitary confinement in the United States. 99. The first-hand accounts of solitary confinement that Solitary Watch publishes are drawn from inmate letters. 100. Solitary Watch has received letters with first-hand accounts of solitary confinement from Pennsylvania inmates who have been convicted of personal injury crimes, and it has published some of those first-hand accounts. 101. Solitary \Vatch cannot know in advance if a first-hand account of solitary confinement by a person convicted of a personal injury crime will be held to "perpetuate[] the continuing effect of the crime on the victim," such as by "caus[ing] a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish." See 18 Pa. C.S. § 11. 1304. It all depends on the reaction of the particular "victim" to the particular account. 102. But given the broad definition of personal injury crime "victim" for Silencing Act purposes, and given the natural sensitivity of many such victims to learning of speech by a person convicted of the crime, Solitary Watch reasonably
-27-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 28 of 57
believes that at least some of the first-hand accounts of solitary confinement it wants to publish will fall within the Act's scope.
103. Solitary Watch intends to continue to publish first-hand accounts of solitary confinement by Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes, but reasonably fears that the Silencing Act will be used in an effort to enjoin it from, or penalize it for, publishing such accounts.
104. Solitary Watch also reasonably fears that Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes will be chilled from submitting accounts of their experiences in solitary confinement for publication due to the risk that the Silencing Act would be used to enjoin or penalize their speech.
105. Solitary Watch cannot afford to devote resources to defending against Silencing Act lawsuits or to paying awards of attorneys' fees, court costs, or damages under the Act.
Professor Regina A ustin 106. Plaintiff Regina Austin is the \Villiam A. Schnader Professor of Law at the University ofPennsylvania School of Law, where she directs a program called the Penn Program on Documentaries and the Law. 107. As part of the Documentaries and the Law program, Professor Austin and her students create videos to support the clemency applications of Pennsylvania inmates, including inmates convicted of personal injury crimes.
-28-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 29 of 57
Clemency includes both pardons and commutations of sentences. A request for clemency is basically a plea for mercy.
108. Because Pennsylvania's clemency standards require the demonstration of remorse and rehabilitation, the videos that Professor Austin and her students help create generally include oral or written testimonials by applicants describing the details and circumstances oftheir crimes, describing the positive changes they have made in their lives since the time of their crimes, acknowledging responsibility for their crimes, and apologizing to the victims and survivors.
I09. Indeed, Pennsylvania's clemency application requires applicants to "[s]tate the details of the crime(s) for which you are requesting a Pardon or Commutation," including by answering the questions "[w]here were you, what exactly did you do, and how were you apprehended?" The application emphasizes that "Applicant must complete in his/her own words!" Moreover, Pennsylvania requires that victims or next of kin be notified of clemency applications and given the opportunity to appear at the applicant's hearing.
110. Professor Austin cannot know in advance if a clemency video wi II be held to "perpetuate[] the continuing effect of the crime on the victim," such as by "caus[ing) a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish." See 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304. It all depends on the reaction of the particular "victim" to the particular video.
-29-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 30 of 57
111. But given the broad definition of personal injury crime "victim, for Si lencing Act purposes, and given the natural sensitivity of many such victims to learning of spee~h by a person convicted of the crime, Professor Austin reasonably believes that at least some of the clemency videos she wants to create and disseminate will fall within the Act's scope.
112. Professor Austin intends to continue working with her students to create videos featuring testimonials by Pennsylvania inmates seeking clemency who have been convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia or elsewhere in Pennsylvania, but she reasonably fears that the Silencing Act will be used in an effort to enjoin her from, or penalize her for, creating or disseminating such videos.
l 13. Professor Austin also reasonably fears that Pennsylvania inmates convicted of personal injury crimes in Philadelphia or elsewhere in Pennsylvania will be chilled from speaking with her and using her video services in connection with their clemency applications, due to the risk that the Silencing Act would be used to enjoin or penalize their speech.
114. Professor Austin cannot afford to devote resources to defending against Silencing Act lawsuits or to paying awards of attorneys' fees, court costs, or damages under the Act.
-30-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 31 of 57
Steven Blackburn 115. In 1978, Plaintiff Steven B lackburn was convicted of first-degree murder in Philadelphia-a personal injury crime for purposes of the Silencing Act- and sentenced to life in prison. 116. Blackburn was pardoned by Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey in 1991 , after serving sixteen years in prison. 117. In 2000, Blackburn co-founded X-Offenders for Community Empowerment, a nonprofit organization in Philadelphia with a mission to empower formerly incarcerated people to become change agents in mobilizing the community to reduce recidivism and address issues threatening healthy family and community life. Blackburn is currently the organization's board president. 118. As X-Offenders for Community Empowerment's co-founder and board president and as an individual who himself was incarcerated, Blackburn has frequently engaged in public speaking about prisoner reentry and other criminaJ justice issues. He has testified before the Pennsylvania legislature, is often invited to speak at universities, and has been interviewed by the Philadelphia Daily News and Philadelphia City Paper. 119. Blackburn cannot know in advance if an interview, legislative testimony, or other form of public speaking will be held to "perpetuate[] the continuing effect of the crime on the vjctim," such as by "caus[ing] a temporary or
-31-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 32 of 57
permanent state of mental anguish." See 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304. It all depends on the reaction of the particular "victim'' to the particular speech.
120. But given the broad definition of personal injury crime "victim" for Silencing Act purposes, and given the natural sensitivity of many such victims to learning of speech by a person convicted of the crime, Bl~ckburn reasonably believes that at least some of the public speaking in which he wants to engage will fall within the Act's scope.
121. Blackburn intends to continue to give media interviews, provide legislative testimony, and engage in other public speaking that furthers the mission of X-Offenders for Community Empowerment, but reasonably fears that the Silencing Act will be used in an effort to enjoin him from, or penalize him for, doing so
122. Blackburn cannot afford to devote resources to defending against Silencing Act lawsuits or to paying awards of attorneys' fees, court costs, or damages under the Act.
Wayne Jacobs 123. In 1995, Plaintiff Wayne Jacobs was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Philadelphia- a personal injury crime for purposes of the Silencing Act- and sentenced to eleven to twenty-three months in prison.
124. Jacobs was released from prison in 1997.
-32-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 33 of 57
125. In 2000, Jacobs co-founded X-Offenders for Community Empowerment with Plaintiff Blackburn, the mission of which is described at Paragraph 117 above. He is currently the organization's executive director.
126. As X-Offenders for Community Empowerment's co-founder and executive director and as an individual who himself was incarcerated, Jacobs has frequently engaged in public speaking about issues related to crime, prisoner reentry, and recidivism. He has been intervie,~ed by many Philadelphia-area media outlets, including the Philadelphia Daily News and Philadelphia City Paper.
127. Jacobs wants to run for the position of Philadelphia City Commissioner in 20 15.
128. Jacobs cannot know in advance if an interview, campaign address, or other form of public speaking, or even the mere existence ofhis campaign for office, will be heid to "perpetuate[] the continuing effect of the crime on the victim,'' such as by "caus[ing] a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish." See 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304. It all depends on the reaction of the particular "victim" to the particular speech or other conduct.
129. But given the broad definition of personal injury crime "victim" for Silencing Act purposes, and given the natural sensitivity of many such victims to learning of speech or other conduct by a person convicted of the crime, Jacobs
-33-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 34 of 57
reasonably believes that at least some of the public speaking or conduct in which he wants to engage will fall within the Act's scope.
130. Jacobs intends to continue to give media interviews and engage in other public speaking that furthers the mission ofX-Offenders for Community Empowerment and intends to run for public office in 2015, but reasonably fears that the Silencing Act will be used in an effort to enjoin him from, or penalize him for, doing so.
131. Jacobs cannot afford to devote resources to defending against Silencing Act lawsuits or to paying awards of attorneys' fees, court costs, or damages under the Act.
Edwin Desamour 132. In 1991, when he was sixteen years old, PlaintiffEdwin Desamour was convicted of third-degree murder in Philadelphia-a personal injury crime for purposes of the Silencing Act- and sentenced to seven to twenty years in prison. 133. Desamour was released from prison in 1997. 134. In 2007, Desamour founded Men in Motion in the Community ("MIMIC"), a nonprofit organization in Philadelphia with a mission to help highrisk youth, young adults, and formerly incarcerated men through mentoring, community engagement, and educational enrichment. Desamour is the organization's executive director.
-34-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 35 of 57
135. As MllVHC's founder and executive director and as an individual who himself was convicted and incarcerated as a juvenile, Desamour has frequently engaged in public speaking about juvenile justice issues. He has been interviewed by national media, including CN'N, ABC News, The Washington Post, and USA Today; has testified before the Pennsylvania legislature; and is featured in a documentary about juvenile justice to be released in 2016.
136. Desamour cannot know in advance if an interview, legislative testimony, or other form of publ ic speaking will be held to "perpetuate[] the continuing effect of the crime on the victim," such as by "caus(ing] a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish." See 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304. It all depends on the reaction of the particular "victim" to the particular speech.
137. But given the broad definition of personal injury crime "victim" for Silencing Act purposes, and given the natural sensitivity of many such victims to learning of speech by a person convicted of the crime, Desamour reasonably believes that at least some ofthe public speaking in which he wants to engage will fall within the Act's scope.
138. Desamour intends to continue to give media interviews, provide legislative testimony, and engage in other public speaking that furthers MIMlC's mission and intends to appear in the upcoming documentary, but reasonably fears
-35-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 36 of 57
that the Silencing Act will be used in an effort to enjoin him from, or penalize him for, doing so.
J39. Desamour cannot afford to devote resources to defending against Silencing Act lawsuits or to paying awards of attorneys' fees , court costs, or damages under the Act.
~Villiam Cobb 140. In 1994, Plaintiff William Cobb was convicted of robbery and kidnapping in Philadelphia- personal injury crimes for purposes of the Silencing Act--anq sentenced to six-to-twelve years in prison. 141. Cobb was released from prison in 2000. 142. Over the past ten years, Cobb has frequently engaged in public speaking about his crime, his years in prison, and the hardships that he has faced and tried to overcome as an individual with a criminal record. 143. Through this public speaking-at venues including schools~ churches, prisons, and community-based organizations-Cobb has encouraged at risk youth and formerly incarcerated individuals to turn away from crime and violence and has advocated for the easing of employment barriers for people with criminal records. 144. For the past two years, Cobb has been writing a book about his crime, his years in prison, and the hardships that he has faced and tried to overcome as an
-36-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 37 of 57
individual a criminal record. He is currently looking for an agent and shopping the book to publishers.
1'45. In addition, Cobb is launching a nonprofit organization called "Redeemed," the mission of which is to eliminate- through education, advocacy, and activism- systemic employment discrimination practices aimed at people living with arrests and convictions: Redeemed's success depends on Cobb sharing his own personal experiences with crime and the employment obstacles that a criminal record often brings with it.
146. Cobb cannot know in advance if a public speaking engagement or a part of his book will be held to "perpetuate[] the continuing effect of the crime on the victim," such as by "caus[ing] a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish." See 18 Pa. C.S. § 11. 1304. It all depends on the reaction of the particular "victim" to the particular speech or part of his book.
147. But given the broad definition of personal injury crime "victim" for Silencing Act purposes, and given the natural sensitivity of many such victims to learning of speech by a person convicted of the crime, Cobb reasonably believes that at least some of the public speaking in which he wants to engage and at least some ofhis book will fall within the Act's scope.
148. Cobb intends to continue to engage in public speaking that furthers
Redeemed's mission and that encourages others to turn away from crime and
-37-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 38 of 57
violence, but reasonably fears that the Silencing Act will be used in an effort to enjoin him from, or penalize him for, doing so.
149. In addition, Cobb intends to continue to work on his book about his personal experiences, but reasonably fears that the Silencing Act will be used to enjoin him from, or penalize him for, publishing it. ·
150. Cobb cannot afford to devote resources to defending against Silencing Act lawsuits or to paying awards of attorneys' fees, court costs, or damages under the Act.
CLAIMS Count 1: Impermissible Vagueness, in Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteen Amendment to the United States Constitution and in Violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
(42 u.s.c. § 1983)
151. All preceding paragraphs in this Complaint are incorporated here. 152. The Silencing Act is impermissibly vague, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the First Amendment, because it raises and leaves unanswered crucial questions about what speech and other conduct- and even whose conduct- it actu~lly reaches. 153. First, it is impossible for those subject to the Silencing Act to know before engaging in speech or other conduct whether the statute would proscribe or
penalize it. What will cause a "victim"-broadly defined for Silencing Act
-38-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 39 of 57
purposes- mental anguish all depends on that particular victim's sensibilities. Further, the Silencing Act provides that '"conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim' includes 'conduct which causes a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish,"' 18 P.S. § 11.1304(d) (emphasis added), but gives no guidance about what else "conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim" includes.
154. Second, the Silencing Act does not define "offender." Nor does any other section of the Crime Victims Act-.- the statute to which the Silencing Act is an amendment. Therefore, it is unclear whether "offender" status for Silencing Act purposes requires conviction, incarceration, or merely proof of criminal conduct by a preponderance of the evidence in a civil action unde~ the Jaw.
is 155. Third, it also unclear whether the Silencing Act permits the
injunction of a third party's publication of offender speech. The statute itself only speaks explicitly. of an action against an offender, but, as discussed above, at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the law, the Committee Counsel stated that "the court would have broad power to stop a third party who is the vessel of that .. . conduct or speech from delivering or publishing that information." Indeed, it was a third party that pre-recorded Abu-Jamal's commencement address--even before Goddard announced that Abu-Jamal would be the commencement speaker-and then broadcast it to the students at Goddard.
-39-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 40 of 57
156. The Silencing Act and the threat of Defendants' enforcement of it, under color of state law, are therefore depriving Plaintiffs of rights secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and by the First Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
157. This constitutional violation is causing Plaintiffs irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
Count II: Impermissible Content-Based Speech Restriction, in Violation of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution
(42 u.s.c. § 1983)
158. All preceding paragraphs in this Complaint are incorporated here. 159. Because the Silencing Act provides for injunctions and monetary relief based upon the reactions of victims and their families to offenders' speech, the statute's regulation of speech is content-based. 160. No compelling interest justifies the Silencing Act's content-based regulation of speech- let alone a compelling interest that the Act is narrowly tailored to serve. 16 1. The Silencing Act thus fails under a strict scrutiny analysis and violates the First Amendment. 162. The Silencing Act and the threat of Defendants' enforcement of it, under color of state law, are therefore depriving Plaintiffs of rights secured by the First Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
-40-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 41 of 57

163. This constitutional violation is causing Plaintiffs irreparable harm for

which there is no adequate remedy at law.

Count III: Impermissible Overbreadth, in Violation of the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution
(42 u.s.c. § 1983)

164. All preceding paragraphs in this Complaint are incorporated here. 165. The Silencing Act is impermissibly overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment, because a substantial number of its applications prohibit or penalize constitutionally protected speech, judged in relation to its non-existent legitimate

sweep.

· 166. In fact, because of the extraordinary range of offender speech that

coul.d

cause.

a

victim

mental

anguish,

the

Silencing

Act

could

be

used

to

prohibit
.

or

penalize any of the following-by an offender·him- or herself, or by an offender

via a third party: a. Filing a direct appeal from a conviction or sentence;

b. Filing a habeas petition or pardon application;

c. Publicly claiming to be innocent; d. Confessing or apologizing to a victim or doing so publicly to

society in general;

-41 -

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 42 of 57
e. Advocating for improved prison conditions, criminal or juvenile justice reform, or the easing of employment barriers for people with criminal records;
f. Sharing the offender's story with at-risk youth to encourage them to stay in school and avoid a life of crime; or
g. Giving a public speech or publishing a poem, book, or articleabout any topic whatsoever.
167. The Silencing Act and the. threat of Defen dants' enforcement of it, under color of state law, are therefore depriving Plaintiffs of rights secured by the First Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
168. This constitutional violation is causing Plaintiffs irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
Count IV: Impermissible Authorization of Prior Restraints, in Violation of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution
(42 u.s.c. § 1983)
169. All preceding paragraphs in this Complaint are incorporated here. 170. The Silencing Act authorizes courts to impose prior restraints on offender speech. 171. No sufficiently weighty justification supports the Silencing Act's authorization of prior restraints.
-42- '

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 43 of 57
172. The Silencing Act's authorization of prior restraints thus violates the First Amendment.
173. The Silencing Act and the threat of Defendants' enforcement of it, under color of state law, are therefore depriving Plaintiffs of rights secured by the First Amendment, as applied to the states by the _Fourteenth Amendment.
174. This constitutional violation is causing Plaintiffs irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: 1. Enter a declaratory judgment that 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, because it is impermissibly vague; 2. Enter a declaratory judgment that 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304 violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, because it restricts speech based on content and is not justified by any compelling government interest that it is narrowly tailored to serve;
-43-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 44 of 57

3. Enter a declaratory judgment that 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304 violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states by the

Fourteenth Amendment, because it is impermissibly overbroad; 4. Enter a declaratory judgment that 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304 violates the

First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, because it is impermissibly authorizes the imposition of

prior restraints; 5. Enter injunctive relief-preliminary and permanent thereafter-

enjoining Defendants from enforcing 18 Pa. C.S. § 11. 1304; 6. Award costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees under 42

U.S.C. § 1988; and

7. Enter all further relief to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.

Date: January 8, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

Amy B. Ginensky (PA 26233)* Eli Segal (PA 205845)* PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 3000 Two Logan Square 18th & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 981 -4000 Attorneysfor PlaintiffS

-44-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 45 of 57
Thomas B. Schmidt, III (PA 19196) Tucker R. Hull (PA 306426) PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 100 Market Street, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1 181 (717) 255-1155 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Witold J. Walczak (PA 62976) Sara J. Rose (PA 204936) At\t1ERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES FOUNDATION OF PENNSYLVANIA 313 Atwood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 681-7864 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Seth F. Kreimer (PA 26102) 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 191 04 (215) 898-7447 Attorneyfor Plaintiffs
Lance Weber (FL 104550)* Sabarish Neelakanta (FL 26623)* HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER PO Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 (561) 360-2523 Attorneys for PlaintiffPrison Legal News
*pro hac vice application to be submitted
-45-

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 46 of 57
VERIFICATION I, Paul Wright, am the Editor of Prison Legal News and am authorized to execute
this Verification on its behalf. I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1746, verify under penalty of perjury that the facts stated therein that relate to Prison Legal News specifically or that relate to 18 Pa. C.S. § 11 .1304 in general are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Executed on January 6, 2015
Paul Wright

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 47 of 57

VERIFICATION

I, Daniel Denvir, have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and, pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1746, verify under penalty ofpetjury that the facts stated therein that relate to me specifically or that relate to 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304 in general are true and correct to the best of

my knowledge, information, and belief.
/-0- {) Executed on

~~ ~'--..;P\
Daniel Denvir

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 48 of 57

VERIFICATION

I, Lillian Swanson, am Editor in Chiefofthe Philadelphia City Paper and am

authorized to execute this Vcrification on its behalf. I have read the foregoing Verified

Complaint and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1'746, verifY under penalty of perjury that the facts stated

therein that relate to the Philadelphia City Paper specifically or that relate to 18 Pa. C.S. §

11. 1304 in general are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Executed on --LJ 1 (Is'"

(iJJ.ik,. ~{O;WI<.~

Lillian Swanson

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 49 of 57

VERIFICATION

I, Christopher Moraff, have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § specifically or

1746, verify under penalty that relate to 18 Pa. C.S. §

of peijury that the 11.1304 in general

facts stated therein that relate to me are true and correct to the best of

h I my knowledge, information, and belief. Executed on I ( Js-'

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 50 of 57

VERJFICATION

I, Ann Schwartzman, am the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Pdson Society and am authorized to execute this Verification on its behalf. I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, verify under penalty ofperjury that the facts stated therein that relate to the Pe.rJlsylvania Prison Society specifically orthat relate to 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304 in general are true and con·ect to the best ofmy knowledge, information, and

belief.

Executed o n *

m~
Ann Schwartzman

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 51 of 57
VERIFICATION
I, Jean Casella, am Co-Director of Solitary Watch and am authorized to execute this Verification on its behalf. 1 have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, verify under penalty of perjury that the facts stated therein that relate to Solitary
Watch specifically or that relate to 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304 in general are true and correct to the
hest of my knowledge, infotmation, and belief.

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 52 of 57

VERIFICATION

I, Professor Regina Austin, have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, verify under penalty of perjury that the facts stated therein that relate to me specifically or that relate to 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304 in general are true a.'1d correct to

the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

I c. Executed on Ir

/;;or.5-
1

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 53 of 57
VERIFICATION
I, Steven Blackburn, have read ti-Ie foregoing Verified Complaint and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, verify under penalty of perjury that the facts stated therein that relate to me specifically or that relate to 18 Pa. C.S. § ! 1. t 304 in general are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
Executed on ---/T-/· ~7 Ucf

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 54 of 57

~RI-F.I.-_CA;.;;.T.;._IO;;:;.;N;..;.

I, Wayne Jacobs, have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, verify under penalty ofpetjury that the facts stated therein that relate to me
specifically or that relate to 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304 in general arc true and correct to the best of

my knowledge, information, and belief.

Executed on January 6, 20 15

Is/ Wayne Jacobs
Wayne Jacobs

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 55 of 57

VERIFICATION

I, Edwin Desamour, have read the foregoing Verified Complain and, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1746, verify under penalty of perjury that the facts stated therein that relate to me specifically or that relate to 18 Pa. C.S. § 11 .1304 in general are true and correct to the best of

my knowledge, infonnatiou, and belief.

Executed on January 6, 2015

/s/ Edwin Desamour Edwin Desamour

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 56 of 57
VERIFlCATlON
I, William Cobb, have read the foregoing Verified Complai.-1t and, pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 1746, verify under penalty of perjury that the facts stated therein that relate to me specificaily or that relate to 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304 in gener<>J are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
s Executed o,~YJU0A ~(c, I rto \. .
~~~

Case 1:15-cv-00045-CCC Document 1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 57 of 57

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit
2 3 4

Goddard College September 29, 2014 press release entitled, Mumia Abu-Jamal to Give Commencement Speech at Goddard College
Transcript from Fox News "Kelly File," September 30,2014 airing of Widow. college react to convicted cop killer giving commencement speech
Memorandum from Representative Mike Vereb to All House members, dated October 2, 2014, regarding Cosponsor Request - Rcvictimization Relief Act
Transcript ofMumia Abu-Jamal's Goddard College Commencement Speech recorded by Prison Radio, dated October 51h, 2014

Prison Legal News et al v. Kane et al, Docket No. 1:15-cv-00045 (M.D. Pa. Jan 08, 2015), Court Docket
General Information

Court
Federal Nature of Suit Docket Number Status

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Constitutionality of State Statutes[950]
1:15-cv-00045
Closed

© 2015 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 58

 
 Case: 1:14-cv-2148 As of: 11/04/2018 04:33 PM EST 1 of 11
CASREF,CLOSED,HBG,SPADFORM
United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14−cv−02148−CCC−MCC

Jamal et al v. Kane et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner Referred to: Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson Related Case: 1:15−cv−00045−CCC−MCC Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/10/2014 Date Terminated: 04/30/2015 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Mumia Abu Jamal

represented by Ashley K Henderson Amistad Law Project PO Box 9148 Philadelphia, PA 19139 267−225−5884 Email: ashley@amistadlaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bret D. Grote Abolitionist Law Center PO Box 8654 Pittsburgh, PA 15221 412−654−9070 Email: bretgrote@abolitionistlawcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Shapiro Northwestern Univ School of Law 375 E. Chicago Ave Chicago, IL 60611 312−503−0711 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deneekie Grant Amistad Law Project PO Box 9148 Philadelphia, PA 19139 267−225−5884 Email: nikki@amistadlaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dustin McDaniel Abolitionist Law Center PO Box 8654 Pittsburgh, PA 15221 412−651−7485 Email: exec@alcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jules L Lobel Abolitionsit Law Center PO Box 8654 Pittsburgh, PA 15260 412−648−1375 Email: jll4@pitt.edu

Case: 1:14-cv-2148 As of: 11/04/2018 04:33 PM EST 2 of 11

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David M Shapiro Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center Northwestern University School of Law 375 East Chicago Avenue 8th Floor Chicago, IL 60611 312−503−0711 Email: david.shapiro@law.northwestern.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Robert L. Holbrook

represented by Ashley K Henderson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bret D. Grote (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deneekie Grant (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dustin McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jules L Lobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David M Shapiro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kerry Shakaboona TERMINATED: 12/01/2014

represented by Ashley K Henderson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bret D. Grote (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:14-cv-2148 As of: 11/04/2018 04:33 PM EST 3 of 11

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deneekie Grant (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dustin McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jules L Lobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David M Shapiro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marshall Prison Radio TERMINATED: 12/01/2014

represented by Ashley K Henderson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bret D. Grote (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deneekie Grant (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dustin McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jules L Lobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David M Shapiro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Human Rights Coalition

represented by Ashley K Henderson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-2148 As of: 11/04/2018 04:33 PM EST 4 of 11

Bret D. Grote (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deneekie Grant (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dustin McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jules L Lobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David M Shapiro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal

represented by Ashley K Henderson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bret D. Grote (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Deneekie Grant (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dustin McDaniel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jules L Lobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David M Shapiro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-2148 As of: 11/04/2018 04:33 PM EST 5 of 11

Plaintiff Donnell Palmer
Plaintiff Anthony Chance
Plaintiff Kerry Shakaboona Marshall
Plaintiff Prison Radio

represented by Bret D. Grote (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David M Shapiro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bret D. Grote (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David M Shapiro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bret D. Grote (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David M Shapiro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bret D. Grote (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David M Shapiro (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Kathleen Kane Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Defendant

represented by Kenneth L. Joel Office of General Counsel 333 Market Street 17th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 717−787−9348 Fax: 717−787−1788 Email: kennjoel@pa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M. Abbegael Giunta PA Governor's Office of General Counsel 333 Market Street 17th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 717−7879350 Email: magiunta@pa.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 1:14-cv-2148 As of: 11/04/2018 04:33 PM EST 6 of 11

R. Seth Williams District Attorney of Philadelphia County TERMINATED: 03/06/2015

Bryan C. Hughes PA Office of Attorney General 1600 Arch Street Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 267−940−6713 Email: bhughes@attorneygeneral.gov TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael R Scalera Philadelphia District Attorney's Office Civil Litigation, 13th Floor Three South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 215−686−5688 Email: michael.scalera@phila.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/10/2014 11/10/2014
11/10/2014 11/12/2014 11/13/2014 11/13/2014 11/13/2014 11/14/2014 11/17/2014 11/17/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $400, Receipt Number 0314−3271487), filed by Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Kerry Shakaboona, Robert L. Holbrook, Marshall Prison Radio, Mumia Abu Jamal, Human Rights Coalition. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit(s))(aaa) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
2 Summons Issued as to All Defendants and provided TO ATTORNEY ELECTRONICALLY VIA ECF for service on Defendant(s)in the manner prescribed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (NOTICE TO ATTORNEYS RECEIVING THE SUMMONS ELECTRONICALLY: You must print the summons and the attachment when you receive it in your e−mail and serve them with the complaint on all defendants in the manner prescribed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). (Attachments: # 1 Summons Packet) (aaa) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
3 ORDER Re: Case Assignment and Procedures Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 11/10/14. (ma) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
SPECIAL ADMISSION FORMS SENT to Attorneys Henderson, Grote, Shapiro, Grant, McDaniel and Lobel (lg) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
4 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Attorney Ashley Henderson is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3275724. by Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Human Rights Coalition, Mumia Abu Jamal, Marshall Prison Radio, Kerry Shakaboona.(Grote, Bret) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
5 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Attorney Deneekie Grant is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3275735. by Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Human Rights Coalition, Mumia Abu Jamal, Marshall Prison Radio, Kerry Shakaboona.(Grote, Bret) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Petitioning attorneys and associate counsel's bar status verified. (aaa) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Counsel is advised to file Supplements to their Motions for Pro Hac Vice. Signed Codes of Professional Conduct as missing from original submission. (aaa) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
6 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Attorney David Shapiro is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3279106. by Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Human Rights Coalition, Mumia Abu Jamal, Marshall Prison Radio, Kerry Shakaboona.(Grote, Bret) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
7 Supplement by Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Human Rights Coalition, Mumia Abu Jamal, Marshall Prison Radio, Kerry Shakaboona. to 4 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Attorney Ashley Henderson is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3275724. . (Grote, Bret) (Entered:

Case: 1:14-cv-2148 As of: 11/04/2018 04:33 PM EST 7 of 11

11/17/2014
11/18/2014 11/19/2014 11/19/2014 11/19/2014 12/01/2014 12/15/2014
12/16/2014 12/29/2014
12/30/2014 01/07/2015 01/07/2015 01/08/2015 01/08/2015

11/17/2014)
8 Supplement by Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Human Rights Coalition, Mumia Abu Jamal, Marshall Prison Radio, Kerry Shakaboona. to 5 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Attorney Deneekie Grant is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3275735. . (Grote, Bret) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Petitioning attorney's bar status verified. (aaa) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
9 ORDER granting Ashley Henderson, Esquire's application 4 for pro hac vice admission. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 11/19/14. (ki) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
10 ORDER granting Deneekie Grant, Esquire's application 5 for pro hac vice admission. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 11/19/14. (ki) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
11 ORDER granting David M. Shapiro, Esquire's application 6 for pro hac vice admission. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 11/19/14. (ki) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
12 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Kerry Shakaboona, Robert L. Holbrook, Marshall Prison Radio, Mumia Abu Jamal, Human Rights Coalition. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s))(Grote, Bret) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
13 DELETED − MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Attorney Jules Lobel is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3304183. by Anthony Chance, Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Human Rights Coalition, Mumia Abu Jamal, Kerry Shakaboona Marshall, Marshall Prison Radio, Donnell Palmer, Prison Radio, Kerry Shakaboona.(Grote, Bret) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Counsel is advised to refile 13 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Jules Lobel. The sponsor's statement is moving for the admission of the wrong party. The local rule referenced is incorrect. (pw) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
14 MOTION to Amend/Correct 13 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Attorney Jules Lobel is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3304183. by Anthony Chance, Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Human Rights Coalition, Mumia Abu Jamal, Kerry Shakaboona Marshall, Marshall Prison Radio, Donnell Palmer, Prison Radio, Kerry Shakaboona.(Grote, Bret) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
15 ORDER granting application of Jules Lobel, Esquire 14 to appear pro hac vice. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/29/14. (ki) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by M. Abbegael Giunta on behalf of Kathleen Kane (Giunta, M.) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
17 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to of Time to File Response to Amended Complaint by Kathleen Kane. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Extending Response Deadline for All Defendants By Two Weeks, until January 23, 2015)(Giunta, M.) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Anthony Chance, Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Human Rights Coalition, Mumia Abu Jamal, Kerry Shakaboona Marshall, Marshall Prison Radio, Donnell Palmer, Prison Radio, Kerry Shakaboona.(Grote, Bret) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
19 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Anthony Chance, Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Human Rights Coalition, Mumia Abu Jamal, Kerry Shakaboona Marshall, Marshall Prison Radio, Donnell Palmer, Prison Radio, Kerry Shakaboona. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Declaration, # 6 Declaration, # 7 Declaration, # 8 Declaration, # 9 Declaration, # 10 Declaration)(Grote, Bret) (Entered:

Case: 1:14-cv-2148 As of: 11/04/2018 04:33 PM EST 8 of 11

01/08/2015 01/09/2015 01/13/2015
01/13/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015
01/23/2015 01/23/2015 02/04/2015 02/05/2015 02/05/2015 02/06/2015

01/08/2015)
20 ORDER: Dfts shall file and serve any papers in response to pltfs mtn for Preliminary Injunction 18 by 1/20/2015Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 01/08/15. (ma) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
21 ORDER granting deft's motion 17 to extend ddl for response to amended complaint until 1/23/15. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/9/15. (ki) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
23 SCHEDULING ORDER directing parties to meet & confer re: br'ing schedule for motions for PI & any addt'l anticipated filings & to submit jt prop schedule to ct by 1/16/15..., & setting Oral Argument re: both motions for 2/26/2015 @ 10:00 AM in Harrisburg − Courtroom 2 before Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner. (See order for complete details.)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/13/15. (ki) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
24 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Attorney Bryan Hughes is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3325757. by R. Seth Williams.(Hughes, Bryan) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Counsel is advised that Doc. 24 filed 1/13/15 is required to have the CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT attached. The Code may be filed separately as a "Document Filed." (gls) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
25 Code of Professional Conduct form by R. Seth Williams. 24 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Attorney Bryan Hughes is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3325757. . (Hughes, Bryan) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
26 ORDER granting motion to appear pro hac vice 24 by Bryan C. Hughes, Esquire (SPAD approved). (Original: SCR Registry) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/14/15. (ki) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
27 APPROVED (per 1/15/15 order 29 of court) − STIPULATION re 23 Scheduling Order, Jointly By All Parties by Kathleen Kane. (Giunta, M.) Modified on 1/15/2015 (ki). (Entered: 01/14/2015)
28 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth L. Joel on behalf of Kathleen Kane (Joel, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
29 ORDER approving stipulated proposed schedule 27 , inc. deft Kane & Williams' MTDs due 1/23/15, brs in supp of MTDs & brs in opp of motions for prelim inj due 2/6/15, pltfs' combined br in opp to MTDs & reply in supp of mots for prelim inj due 2/17/15 & defts' reply brs in supp of MTDs due 2/23/15. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/15/15. (ki) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
30 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by R. Seth Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hughes, Bryan) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
31 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Kathleen Kane. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Defendant Kane's Motion to Dismiss the Claims Against Her)(Giunta, M.) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
32 MOTION to Exceed Page Limitation by Kathleen Kane. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Defendant Kane Leave to File a Brief up to 35 Pages in Length)(Giunta, M.) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
33 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Attorney Michael Scalera is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3346928. by R. Seth Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Scalera, Michael) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
34 ORDER granting dft Kane's MOTION to Exceed Page Limitation 32 . Dft Kane may file a combined brsup of the mtns to dismiss and in opposition to the mtns for PI not to exceed 35 pages.Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 02/05/15. (ma) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
35 SPECIAL ADMISSIONS FORM 33 APPROVED as to Michael Scalera, Esq. on behalf of R. Seth Williams, Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3346928. Signed by

Case: 1:14-cv-2148 As of: 11/04/2018 04:33 PM EST 9 of 11

02/06/2015 02/06/2015 02/12/2015 02/13/2015 02/17/2015
02/20/2015 02/23/2015 02/23/2015 02/23/2015 02/26/2015
03/06/2015 03/06/2015
03/06/2015

Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 02/06/15. (ma) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
36 BRIEF IN SUPPORT Combined Brief in Opposition re 31 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Kathleen Kane.(Giunta, M.) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
37 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 30 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by R. Seth Williams.(Scalera, Michael) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
38 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Brief Up to 25 Pages by Anthony Chance, Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Human Rights Coalition, Mumia Abu Jamal, Kerry Shakaboona Marshall, Marshall Prison Radio, Donnell Palmer, Prison Radio, Kerry Shakaboona. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Shapiro, David) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
39 ORDER granting pltfs' unopposed motion 38 for leave to file combined brief in opp to defts' MTD & in supp of pltfs' motion for prelim inj up to 25 pp in length. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/13/15. (ki) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
40 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION re 30 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 31 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM and REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Anthony Chance, Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Human Rights Coalition, Mumia Abu Jamal, Kerry Shakaboona Marshall, Marshall Prison Radio, Donnell Palmer, Prison Radio, Kerry Shakaboona.(Shapiro, David) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
41 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by R. Seth Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hughes, Bryan) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
42 ORDER granting Assistant District Attorney Bryan C. Hughes' motion 41 for leave to w/draw as cnsl for deft R. Seth Williams. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/23/15. (ki) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
43 REPLY BRIEF re 31 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Kathleen Kane.(Giunta, M.) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
44 REPLY BRIEF re 30 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by R. Seth Williams.(Scalera, Michael) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
45 COURT REPORTER NOTES OF PROCEEDINGS, filed by Wesley J. Armstrong, of oral argument hearing held before Chief Judge Conner on 26 February 2015. In accordance with 28 U.S.C., Section 753(b), I certify that these original notes are a true and correct record of proceedings in the United States District Court for the Middle District of PA before Chief Judge Conner on 26 February 2015. By: s/ Wesley J. Armstrong, RMR. (Court Reporter Notes are viewable by court staff only.) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
47 MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re: 30 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by R. Seth Williams & 31 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Kathleen Kane. (See memo for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/6/15. (ki) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
48 ORDER (Memorandum 47 filed previously as separate docket entry) GRANTING MTD by Williams 30 & dismissing all claims vs same, DENYING MTD by Kane 31 , setting trial on merits for 3/30/15 @ 10:00 a.m. in Ctrm #2 and attaching all cnsl, directing parties to meet & confer to develop jt stip of facts necessary for resolution of pltfs' constitutional challenges, etc., & to file same by 3/23/15, & if parties unable to agree on stip of facts by 3/23/15 they shall separately notify ct of same by letter on docket. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/6/15. (ki) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
Set/Reset Hearings: Trial set for 3/30/2015 10:00 AM in Harrisburg − Courtroom 2 before Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner. (ki) (Entered: 03/06/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-2148 As of: 11/04/2018 04:33 PM EST 10 of 11

03/23/2015 03/27/2015 03/30/2015
03/31/2015 04/28/2015 04/28/2015
04/30/2015
05/07/2015 05/11/2015 06/29/2015 06/30/2015 07/22/2015

49 STIPULATION OF FACTS by Anthony Chance, Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Human Rights Coalition, Mumia Abu Jamal, Kerry Shakaboona Marshall, Marshall Prison Radio, Donnell Palmer, Prison Radio, Kerry Shakaboona. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(Shapiro, David) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
50 DVD referenced in Joint Stipulation of Facts filed and forwarded to Chambers. (pjr) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
51 COURT REPORTER NOTES OF PROCEEDINGS, filed by Wesley J. Armstrong, of bench trial on merits, held before Chief Judge Conner on 30 March 2015. In accordance with 28 U.S.C., Section 753(b), I certify that these original notes are a true and correct record of proceedings in the United States District Court for the Middle District of PA before Chief Judge Conner on 20 March 2015. By: s/ Wesley J. Armstrong, RMR. (Court Reporter Notes are viewable by court staff only.) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
53 EXHIBIT 17 (CORRECTED) by Anthony Chance, Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Human Rights Coalition, Mumia Abu Jamal, Kerry Shakaboona Marshall, Donnell Palmer, Prison Radio. (Shapiro, David) (Entered: 03/31/2015)
54 MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re: 18 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Prison Radio, Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Donnell Palmer, Mumia Abu Jamal, Marshall Prison Radio, Robert L. Holbrook, Kerry Shakaboona, Human Rights Coalition, Kerry Shakaboona Marshall, Anthony Chance. (See memo for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 4/28/15. (ki) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
55 ORDER (Memorandum 54 filed previously as separate docket entry) − It is ORDERED that plfts' motions 18 are CONSTRUED as MSJs & permanent injunctive relief & are GRANTED as so construed.. FURTHER ORDERED & DECLARED that Commonwealth's Revictimization Act... is unconstitutional in violation of 1st & 5th Amends to US Constitution & enforcement thereof hereby & permanently ENJOINED. Clrk of Ct shall enter declaratory jdgmt in favor of pltfs & against deft & thereafter close case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 4/28/15. (ki) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
56 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ENTERED in favor of plaintiffs Mumia Abu Jamal, et al., & against defendants Kathleen Kane, et al., as follows; It is ORDERED & DECLARED that the Commonwealth's Revictimization Relief Act, 18 PA. CONS. STAT. Section 11.1304 is unconstitutional in violation of the 1st & 5th Amends to the US Constitution, & the enforcement thereof is hereby & permanently ENJOINED, in acc w/ this court's order 55 dated 4/28/15. (See jdgmt for complete details.) Signed by Deputy Clerk on 4/30/15. (ki) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
57 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Move for an Award of Attorneys' Fees by Anthony Chance, Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Human Rights Coalition, Mumia Abu Jamal, Kerry Shakaboona Marshall, Marshall Prison Radio, Donnell Palmer, Prison Radio, Kerry Shakaboona.(Shapiro, David) (Entered: 05/07/2015)
58 ORDER granting pltfs' motion to postpone ddl 57 for moving for award of atty's fees until 30 days after any appeal by deft Kane is resolved or 30 days after ddl of deft Kane to file appeal has passed if she does not appeal. (See order for complete details.)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 5/11/15. (ki) (Entered: 05/11/2015)
59 MOTION for Extension of Time to to file Motion for Fees and Costs by Anthony Chance, Educators for Mumia Abu−Jamal, Robert L. Holbrook, Human Rights Coalition, Mumia Abu Jamal, Kerry Shakaboona Marshall, Marshall Prison Radio, Donnell Palmer, Prison Radio, Kerry Shakaboona.(Shapiro, David) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
60 ORDER granting pltfs' motion 59 to postpone deadline for moving for award of atty's fees until 8/17/15. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 6/30/15. (ki) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
61 ORDER granting pltfs' motion (Doc. 64 in 1:15−CV−0045) & suspending ddl for pltfs to submit fee petitions in captioned cases pending further order of court AND

Case: 1:14-cv-2148 As of: 11/04/2018 04:33 PM EST 11 of 11
REFERRING matter to the Honorable Martin C. Carlson for the purpose of mediation of appropriate attorneys' fees. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 7/22/15. (ki) (Entered: 07/22/2015)

 
 Case: 1:15-cv-45 As of: 06/19/2015 12:17 PM EDT 1 of 14
CLOSED,HBG,SPADFORM
United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15−cv−00045−CCC

Prison Legal News et al v. Kane et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner Related Case: 1:14−cv−02148−CCC Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/08/2015 Date Terminated: 04/30/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 950 Constitutional − State Statute Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Prison Legal News

represented by Amy B. Ginensky Pepper Hamilton LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth &Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 215−981−4315 Fax: 215−827−5415 Email: ginenskya@pepperlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eli Segal Pepper Hamilton LLP 3000 Two Logan Square 18th &Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 215−981−4000 Email: segale@pepperlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lance T Weber Human Rights Defense Center P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−360−2523 Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sabarish P Neelakanta Human Rights Defense Center P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−360−2523 Email: sneelakanta@humanrightsdefensecenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara J. Rose American Civil Liberties Foundation of Pennsylvania 313 Atwood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 681−7864 Email: srose@aclupa.org LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:15-cv-45 As of: 06/19/2015 12:17 PM EDT 2 of 14

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seth F. Kreimer 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19144 215−898−7447 Email: skreimer@law.upenn.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas B. Schmidt , III Pepper Hamilton, LLP Suite 200, 100 Market Streets P.O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, PA 17108−1181 717−255−1164 Fax: 717−238−0575 Email: schmidtt@pepperlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tucker R. Hull Pepper Hamilton LLP Suite 200 100 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17108−1181 717−255−1165 Email: hullt@pepperlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Witold J. Walczak American Civil Liberties Union of PA 313 Atwood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 681−7864 Email: vwalczak@aclupa.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Daniel Denvir

represented by Amy B. Ginensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eli Segal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara J. Rose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seth F. Kreimer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas B. Schmidt , III (See above for address)

Case: 1:15-cv-45 As of: 06/19/2015 12:17 PM EDT 3 of 14

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tucker R. Hull (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Witold J. Walczak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Philadelphia City Paper

represented by Amy B. Ginensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eli Segal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara J. Rose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seth F. Kreimer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas B. Schmidt , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tucker R. Hull (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Witold J. Walczak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Christopher Moraff

represented by Amy B. Ginensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eli Segal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara J. Rose (See above for address)

Case: 1:15-cv-45 As of: 06/19/2015 12:17 PM EDT 4 of 14

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seth F. Kreimer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas B. Schmidt , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tucker R. Hull (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Witold J. Walczak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Pennsylvania Prison Society

represented by Amy B. Ginensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eli Segal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara J. Rose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seth F. Kreimer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas B. Schmidt , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tucker R. Hull (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Witold J. Walczak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Solitary Watch

represented by Amy B. Ginensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:15-cv-45 As of: 06/19/2015 12:17 PM EDT 5 of 14

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eli Segal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara J. Rose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seth F. Kreimer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas B. Schmidt , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tucker R. Hull (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Witold J. Walczak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Professor Regina Austin

represented by Amy B. Ginensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eli Segal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara J. Rose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seth F. Kreimer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas B. Schmidt , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tucker R. Hull (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:15-cv-45 As of: 06/19/2015 12:17 PM EDT 6 of 14

Plaintiff Steven Blackburn
Plaintiff Wayne Jacobs

Witold J. Walczak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy B. Ginensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eli Segal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara J. Rose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth F. Kreimer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Schmidt , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tucker R. Hull (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Witold J. Walczak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy B. Ginensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eli Segal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara J. Rose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth F. Kreimer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:15-cv-45 As of: 06/19/2015 12:17 PM EDT 7 of 14

Plaintiff Edwin Desamour
Plaintiff William Cobb

Thomas B. Schmidt , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tucker R. Hull (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Witold J. Walczak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy B. Ginensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eli Segal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara J. Rose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth F. Kreimer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Schmidt , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tucker R. Hull (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Witold J. Walczak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amy B. Ginensky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eli Segal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:15-cv-45 As of: 06/19/2015 12:17 PM EDT 8 of 14

Sara J. Rose (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth F. Kreimer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas B. Schmidt , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tucker R. Hull (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Witold J. Walczak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Kathleen Kane In her capacity as Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Defendant R. Seth Williams in his capacity as District Attorney of Philadelphia County TERMINATED: 03/06/2015

represented by Kenneth L. Joel Office of the Attorney General Civil Litigation 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717−787−8106 Fax: 717−772−4526 Email: kjoel@attorneygeneral.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M. Abbegael Giunta Office of Attorney General 15th Floor Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717−787−1179 Email: mgiunta@attorneygeneral.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bryan C. Hughes Philadelphia District Attorney's Office Civil Litigation, 13th Floor Three South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 215−686−5775 Email: bryan.hughes@phila.gov TERMINATED: 02/23/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael R Scalera Philadelphia District Attorney's Office Civil Litigation, 13th Floor Three South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107

Case: 1:15-cv-45 As of: 06/19/2015 12:17 PM EDT 9 of 14

215−686−5688 Email: michael.scalera@phila.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Amy B Ginensky

Amicus
Eli M. Segal Eli M. Segal

Amicus
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press c/o Craig J. Staudenmaier 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor P. O. Box 840 Harrisburg, PA 17108−0840

represented by Craig J. Staudenmaier Nauman, Smith, Shissler &Hall, LLP 200 North Third Street 18th Floor P.O. Box 840 Harrisburg, PA 17108−0840 717−236−3010 Fax: 17172341925 Email: cjstaud@nssh.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
American Booksellers for Free Expression 1156 15th Street NW, Suite 1250 Washington, DC 20005

represented by Craig J. Staudenmaier (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Freedom to Read Foundation 1156 15th Street NW Suite 1250 Washington, DC 20005 202−795−9300

represented by Craig J. Staudenmaier (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association 3899 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717−703−3048

represented by Craig J. Staudenmaier (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/08/2015
01/08/2015 01/08/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $400, Receipt Number 111016436) filed by Daniel Denvir, Philadelphia City Paper, Steven Blackburn, Regina Austin, Solitary Watch, Edwin Desamour, Pennsylvania Prison Society, Wayne Jacobs, Prison Legal News, William Cobb, Christopher Moraff. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4)(pjr) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Regina Austin, Steven Blackburn, William Cobb, Daniel Denvir, Edwin Desamour, Wayne Jacobs, Christopher Moraff, Pennsylvania Prison Society, Philadelphia City Paper, Prison Legal News, Solitary Watch. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(pjr) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
3 MOTION to Exceed Page Limitation filed by Regina Austin, Steven Blackburn, William Cobb, Daniel Denvir, Edwin Desamour, Wayne Jacobs, Christopher Moraff, Pennsylvania Prison Society, Philadelphia City Paper, Prison Legal News, Solitary Watch. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(pjr) (Entered: 01/08/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-45 As of: 06/19/2015 12:17 PM EDT 10 of 14

01/08/2015
01/08/2015 01/08/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/12/2015 01/12/2015 01/13/2015 01/13/2015 01/13/2015
01/13/2015 01/13/2015 01/13/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015

4 Summons Issued as to All Defendants and provided TO ATTORNEY ELECTRONICALLY VIA ECF for service on Defendant(s)in the manner prescribed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (NOTICE TO ATTORNEYS RECEIVING THE SUMMONS ELECTRONICALLY: You must print the summons and the attachment when you receive it in your e−mail and serve them with the complaint on all defendants in the manner prescribed by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). (Attachments: # 1 Summons Packet) (pjr) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
SPECIAL ADMISSION FORMS SENT to Amy Ginensky, Eli Segal, Seth Kreimer, Lance Weber and Sabarish Neelakanta. (pjr) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
5 ORDER granting pltfs' MOTION to Exceed Page Limitation 3 . Pltfs are authorized to file the brief attached to their motion as Exhibit A and titled Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction.Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 01/08/15. (ma) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
6 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Regina Austin, Steven Blackburn, William Cobb, Daniel Denvir, Edwin Desamour, Wayne Jacobs, Christopher Moraff, Pennsylvania Prison Society, Philadelphia City Paper, Prison Legal News, Solitary Watch.(Hull, Tucker) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
Receipt of payment from PEPPER HAMILTON LLP in the amount of $400.00 for CIVIL FILING FEE. Transaction posted on 1/8/2015. Receipt number 111016436 processed by bdanilow. (jjs, ) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
7 PETITION FOR SPECIAL ADMISSION (PRO HAC VICE) by Tucker R. Hull on behalf of Amy B Ginensky Attorney Amy Ginensky is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3323919.. (Hull, Tucker) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
8 PETITION FOR SPECIAL ADMISSION (PRO HAC VICE) by Tucker R. Hull on behalf of All Plaintiffs Attorney Eli Segal is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3324042.. (Hull, Tucker) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Search of the PA Bar Directory shows Amy Ginensky and Eli Segal as 'ACTIVE'. (pjr) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Counsel is advised that Docs. 7 and 8 are required to have the CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT attached. The Code may be filed separately as a Document Filed. (gls) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
10 SCHEDULING ORDER directing parties to meet &confer re: br'ng schedule for motion for PI &any addt'l anticipated filings &to submit jt prop schedule to ct by 1/16/15..., &setting Oral Argument re: both motions for 2/26/2015 @ 10:00 AM in Harrisburg − Courtroom 2 before Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/13/15. (ki) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
11 Code of Professional Conduct by Amy B Ginensky. 7 Petition for Special Admission − Pro Hac Vice . (Hull, Tucker) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
12 Code of Professional Conduct by Eli M. Segal. 8 Petition for Special Admission − Pro Hac Vice . (Hull, Tucker) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
13 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Attorney Bryan Hughes is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3325816. by R. Seth Williams.(Hughes, Bryan) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Counsel is advised that Doc. 13 filed 1/13/15 is required to have the CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT attached. The Code may be filed separately as a "Document Filed." (gls) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Counsel is advised to file a signed Code of Conduct form for Doc. 13. (pjr) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
14 Code of Professional Conduct form by R. Seth Williams. 13 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Attorney Bryan Hughes is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3325816. . (Hughes, Bryan) (Entered: 01/14/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-45 As of: 06/19/2015 12:17 PM EDT 11 of 14

01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/15/2015 01/15/2015
01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/26/2015 01/26/2015 02/03/2015
02/04/2015 02/05/2015

15 SPECIAL ADMISSIONS FORM APPROVED as to Eli Segal, Esquire. (Original: SCR Registry)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/14/15. (ki) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
16 SPECIAL ADMISSIONS FORM APPROVED as to Amy B. Ginensky, Esquire. (Original: SCR Registry)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/14/15. (ki) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
17 ORDER granting motion to appear pro hac vice 13 by Bryan C. Hughes, Esquire. (SPAD approved) (Original: SCR Registry) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/14/15. (ki) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by M. Abbegael Giunta on behalf of Kathleen Kane (Giunta, M.) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
19 APPROVED (per 1/15/15 order 21 of court) − STIPULATION re 10 Scheduling Order, Jointly By All Parties by Kathleen Kane. (Giunta, M.) Modified on 1/15/2015 (ki). (Entered: 01/14/2015)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth L. Joel on behalf of Kathleen Kane (Joel, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
21 ORDER approving stipulated joint schedule 19 , inc. − Defts Kane &Williams' MTDs due 1/23/15, defts Kane &Williams' brs in supp of MTDs w/ brs in opp to motions for prelim inj due 2/6/15, pltfs' combined br in opp to defts' MTDs w/ reply in supp of pltfs' motions for prelim inj due 2/17/15, &defts' reply brs in supp of MTDs due 2/23/15. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/15/15. (ki) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
22 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Attorney Sabarish Neelakanta is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3335465. by Prison Legal News.(Neelakanta, Sabarish) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
23 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Attorney Lance Weber is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3335491. by Prison Legal News.(Weber, Lance) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
24 MOTION to Appoint Expert , MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by R. Seth Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hughes, Bryan) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Petitioning attorneys and associate counsel's bar status verified. (aaa) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
25 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Kathleen Kane. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Defendant Kane's Motion to Dismiss the Claims Against Her)(Giunta, M.) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
26 SPECIAL ADMISSIONS FORM APPROVED as to Sabarish Neelakanta, Esquire. (Original: SCR Registry)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/26/15. (ki) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
27 SPECIAL ADMISSIONS FORM APPROVED as to Lance Weber, Esquire. (Original: SCR Registry) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/26/15. (ki) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
28 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned by Daniel Denvir, Philadelphia City Paper, Steven Blackburn, Regina Austin, Solitary Watch, Edwin Desamour, Pennsylvania Prison Society, Wayne Jacobs, Prison Legal News, William Cobb, Christopher Moraff. Kathleen Kane waiver sent on 1/9/2015, answer due 3/10/2015. (Hull, Tucker) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
29 MOTION to Exceed Page Limitation by Kathleen Kane. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Defendant Kane Leave to File a Brief Up to 35 Pages in Length)(Giunta, M.) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
30 ORDER granting dft Kane's MOTION to Exceed Page Limitation 29 . Dft Kane may file a combined brsup of the mtns to dismiss and in opposition to the mtns for pi that does not exceed 35 pages.Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on

Case: 1:15-cv-45 As of: 06/19/2015 12:17 PM EDT 12 of 14

02/05/2015 02/06/2015 02/06/2015 02/06/2015 02/09/2015 02/12/2015
02/13/2015 02/17/2015 02/17/2015 02/17/2015
02/17/2015
02/18/2015 02/20/2015 02/23/2015

02/05/15. (ma) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
31 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Attorney Michael Scalera is seeking special admission. Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3347088. by R. Seth Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Scalera, Michael) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
32 SPECIAL ADMISSIONS FORM 31 APPROVED as to Michael Scalera, Esq. on behalf of R. Seth Williams, Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0314−3347088. Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 02/06/15. (ma) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
33 BRIEF IN SUPPORT Combined Brief in Opposition re 25 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Kathleen Kane.(Giunta, M.) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
34 BRIEF IN SUPPORT re 24 MOTION to Appoint Expert MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by R. Seth Williams.(Scalera, Michael) (Entered: 02/06/2015)
35 AMENDED DOCUMENT by R. Seth Williams. Amendment to 34 Brief in Support to correct case number on cover page. (Scalera, Michael) (Entered: 02/09/2015)
36 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File a Brief Up to 25 Pages by Regina Austin, Steven Blackburn, William Cobb, Daniel Denvir, Edwin Desamour, Wayne Jacobs, Christopher Moraff, Pennsylvania Prison Society, Philadelphia City Paper, Prison Legal News, Solitary Watch. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hull, Tucker) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
37 ORDER granting pltf's unopposed motion 36 for leave to file combined brief in opp to defts' MTD &in supp of pltfs' motion for prelim injunction up to 25 pp in length. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/13/15. (ki) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
39 NOTICE of Appearance by Craig J. Staudenmaier on behalf of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, American Booksellers for Free Expression, Freedom to Read Foundation, Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association. (Staudenmaier, Craig) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
40 MOTION for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Staudenmaier, Craig) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
41 AMICUS CURIAE (per 2/24/15 order 47 of court)− BRIEF IN SUPPORT of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 40 MOTION for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae filed by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.(Staudenmaier, Craig) Modified on 2/24/2015 (ki). (Entered: 02/17/2015)
42 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION re 24 MOTION to Appoint Expert MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 25 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLN PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Regina Austin, Steven Blackburn, William Cobb, Daniel Denvir, Edwin Desamour, Wayne Jacobs, Christopher Moraff, Pennsylvania Prison Society, Philadelphia City Paper, Prison Legal News, Solitary Watch.(Segal, Eli) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Document #38 "Brief in Opposition" deleted, re−filed as Doc. #42 "Brief in Opposition", per attorney. (ga) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
43 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by R. Seth Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hughes, Bryan) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
44 ORDER granting Assistant District Attorney Bryan C. Hughes' motion 43 for leave to w/draw as cnsl for deft R. Seth Williams. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/23/15. (ki) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

Case: 1:15-cv-45 As of: 06/19/2015 12:17 PM EDT 13 of 14

02/23/2015 02/23/2015 02/24/2015 02/26/2015
03/06/2015 03/06/2015
03/23/2015 03/27/2015 03/30/2015
03/31/2015 04/28/2015
04/28/2015

45 REPLY BRIEF re 25 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Kathleen Kane.(Giunta, M.) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
46 REPLY BRIEF re 24 MOTION to Appoint Expert MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by R. Seth Williams.(Scalera, Michael) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
47 ORDER granting motion 40 of Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press for leave to file brief as amicus curiae, noting Clrk of Ct shall accept Reporters Committee brief as amicus curiae &distribute copy of this order to all cnsl of record. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/24/15. (ki) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
48 COURT REPORTER NOTES OF PROCEEDINGS, filed by Wesley J. Armstrong, of oral argument hearing held before Chief Judge Conner on 26 February 2015. In accordance with 28 U.S.C., Section 753(b), I certify that these original notes are a true and correct record of proceedings in the United States District Court for the Middle District of PA before Chief Judge Conner on 26 February 2015. By: s/ Wesley J. Armstrong, RMR. (Court Reporter Notes are viewable by court staff only.) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
50 MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re: 24 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by R. Seth Williams and 25 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Kathleen Kane. (See memo for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/6/15. (ki) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
51 ORDER (Memorandum 50 filed previously as separate docket entry) GRANTING MTD by Williams 24 &dismissing all claims vs same, DENYING MTD by Kane 25 , setting trial on merits for 3/30/15 @ 10:00 a.m. in Ctrm #3 and attaching all cnsl, directing parties to meet &confer to develop jt stip of facts necessary for resolution of pltfs' constitutional challenges, etc., &to file same by 3/23/15, &if parties unable to agree on stip of facts by 3/23/15 they shall separately notify ct of same by letter on docket. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/6/15. (ki) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
52 STIPULATION OF FACTS by Regina Austin, Steven Blackburn, William Cobb, Daniel Denvir, Edwin Desamour, Wayne Jacobs, Christopher Moraff, Pennsylvania Prison Society, Philadelphia City Paper, Prison Legal News, Solitary Watch. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(Segal, Eli) (Entered: 03/23/2015)
53 DVD referenced in Joint Stipulation of Facts filed and forwarded to Chambers. (pjr) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
54 COURT REPORTER NOTES OF PROCEEDINGS, filed by Wesley J. Armstrong, of bench trial on merits, held before Chief Judge Conner on 30 March 2015. In accordance with 28 U.S.C., Section 753(b), I certify that these original notes are a true and correct record of proceedings in the United States District Court for the Middle District of PA before Chief Judge Conner on 20 March 2015. By: s/ Wesley J. Armstrong, RMR. (Court Reporter Notes are viewable by court staff only.) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
56 EXHIBIT 17 (CORRECTED) by Regina Austin, Steven Blackburn, William Cobb, Daniel Denvir, Edwin Desamour, Wayne Jacobs, Christopher Moraff, Pennsylvania Prison Society, Philadelphia City Paper, Prison Legal News, Solitary Watch. (Segal, Eli) (Entered: 03/31/2015)
57 MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re: 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Daniel Denvir, Wayne Jacobs, William Cobb, Philadelphia City Paper, Steven Blackburn, Solitary Watch, Christopher Moraff, Pennsylvania Prison Society, Prison Legal News, Regina Austin, Edwin Desamour. (See memo for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 4/28/15. (ki) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
58 ORDER (Memorandum 57 filed previously as separate docket entry) − It is ORDERED that plfts' motions 2 are CONSTRUED as MSJs &permanent injunctive relief &are GRANTED as so construed.. FURTHER ORDERED &DECLARED that Commonwealth's Revictimization Act... is unconstitutional in

Case: 1:15-cv-45 As of: 06/19/2015 12:17 PM EDT 14 of 14

04/30/2015 05/07/2015 05/11/2015

violation of 1st &5th Amends to US Constitution &enforcement thereof hereby &permanently ENJOINED. Clrk of Ct shall enter declaratory jdgmt in favor of pltfs &against deft &thereafter close case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 4/28/15. (ki) (Entered: 04/28/2015)
59 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ENTERED in favor of plaintiffs Prison Legal News, et al., &against defendants, Kathleen Kane, et al., as follows: It is ORDERED &DECLARED that the Commonwealth's Revictimization Relief Act, 18 PA. CONS. STAT. Section 11.1304 is unconstitutional in violation of 1st &5th Amends to the US Constitution, &the enforcement thereof is hereby &permanently ENJOINED, in acc w/ this court's order 58 dated 4/28/15. (See jdgmt for complete details.) Signed by Deputy Clerk on 4/30/15. (ki) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
60 Unopposed MOTION TO POSTPONE DEADLINE FOR MOVING FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES by Regina Austin, Steven Blackburn, William Cobb, Daniel Denvir, Edwin Desamour, Christopher Moraff, Pennsylvania Prison Society, Philadelphia City Paper, Prison Legal News, Solitary Watch.(Segal, Eli) (Entered: 05/07/2015)
61 ORDER granting pltfs' motion 60 to postpone ddl for moving for award of atty's fees until 30 days after any appeal by deft Kane resolved or 30 days after ddl for deft Kane to file appeal has passed if she does not appeal. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 5/11/15. (ki) (Entered: 05/11/2015)