Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 1 of 16
ACCO,(ASx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:17−cv−04883−R−AS

Human Rights Defense Center v. County of Los Angeles et al Assigned to: Judge Manuel L. Real Referred to: Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar Case in other court: Ninth CCA, 17−56470 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/03/2017 Date Terminated: 04/17/2018 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Human Rights Defense Center

represented by Jeffrey L Bornstein Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP 50 Fremont Street 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: jbornstein@rbgg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian Arnold Vogel Brian A Vogel Law Offices PC 770 County Square Drive Suite 104 Ventura, CA 93003 805−654−0400 Fax: 805−654−0326 Email: brian@bvogel.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher David Hu Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP 50 Fremont Street 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: chu@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel L Marshall Human Rights Defense Center PO Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−360−2523 Fax: 866−735−7136 Email: dmarshall@hrdc−law.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Masimba Mutamba Human Rights Defense Center P O Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−360−2523 Fax: 866−735−7136 Email: mmutamba@humanrightsdefensecenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sabarish P Neelakanta Human Rights Defense Center P O Box 1151

Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 2 of 16
Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−360−2523 Fax: 866−735−7136 Email: sneelakanta@hrdc−law.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sanford Jay Rosen Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP 50 Fremont Street 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: srosen@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant County of Los Angeles
Defendant Jim McDonnell He is sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017
Defendant

represented by Ryan David Schiedermayer Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−228−3700 Fax: 310−228−3701 Email: rschiedermayer@sheppardmullin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Valerie Elizabeth Alter Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067−6055 310−288−3700 Fax: 310−228−3701 Email: valter@sheppardmullin.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kent R Raygor Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310−228−3700 Fax: 310−228−3701 Email: kraygor@sheppardmullin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Valerie Elizabeth Alter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 3 of 16

Neal Tyler He is sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Elizabeth Alter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Kelly Harrington He is sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Elizabeth Alter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Joanne Sharp She is sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Kevin Hebert He is sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Elizabeth Alter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Roosevelt Johnson He is sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Elizabeth Alter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

represented by

Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 4 of 16

Kevin Kuykendall He is sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Eric Parra He is sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Elizabeth Alter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Elier Morejon He is sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Daniel Dyer He is sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Elizabeth Alter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ana Brackpool She is sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Agustin Del Valle He is sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Elizabeth Alter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer

Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 5 of 16

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Terri McDonald She is sued in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Elizabeth Alter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jim McDonnell Sheriff, Los Angeles County, official capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Neal Tyler Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Kelly Harrington Assistant Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Joanne Sharp Custody Services Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Valerie Elizabeth Alter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Kevin Hebert Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 6 of 16

TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Roosevelt Johnson Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Kevin Kuykendall Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Valerie Elizabeth Alter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Eric Parra Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Elier Morejon Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Valerie Elizabeth Alter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Daniel Dyer Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ana Brackpool Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 7 of 16

TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

Valerie Elizabeth Alter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Agustin Del Valle Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity TERMINATED: 11/14/2017

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan David Schiedermayer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Does 1−10, in their individual capacities

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/15/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Does 1−10, in their official capacities

represented by Kent R Raygor (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/15/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/03/2017 07/03/2017 07/03/2017 07/03/2017 07/05/2017 07/05/2017
07/05/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973−20119525 − Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center. (Attorney Jeffrey L Bornstein added to party Human Rights Defense Center(pty:pla))(Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment to Civil Cover Sheet)(Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
3 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 filed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, (Attachments: # 1 Attachment to Certification and Notice of Interested Parties)(Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Manuel L. Real and Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. (ghap) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
6 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Summons Request 3 . The following error(s) was found: The caption of the summons must match the caption of the complaint verbatim. If the caption is too large to fit in the space provided, enter the name of the first party and then write see attached.Next, attach a face page of the complaint or a second page addendum to the Summons. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re−file your request. (ghap) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
7 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non−Resident Attorney Sabarish Neelakanta. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out−of−state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of

Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 8 of 16

07/05/2017 07/05/2017 07/05/2017 07/05/2017
07/07/2017

the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G−64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (ghap) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
8 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non−Resident Attorney Masimba Mutamba. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out−of−state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G−64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (ghap) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
9 NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non−Resident Attorney Daniel Marshall. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out−of−state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G−64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (ghap) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
10 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 , Notice of Deficiency in Request to Issue Summons,, 6 filed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
11 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 as to Defendants Ana Brackpool(She is sued in his individual capacity), Ana Brackpool(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), County of Los Angeles, Agustin Del Valle(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Agustin Del Valle(He is sued in his individual capacity), Daniel Dyer(He is sued in his individual capacity), Daniel Dyer(Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Kelly Harrington(Assistant Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Kelly Harrington(He is sued in his individual capacity), Kevin Hebert(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Kevin Hebert(He is sued in his individual capacity), Roosevelt Johnson(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Roosevelt Johnson(He is sued in his individual capacity), Kevin Kuykendall(He is sued in his individual capacity), Kevin Kuykendall(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Terri McDonald, Jim McDonnell(Sheriff, Los Angeles County, official capacity), Jim McDonnell(He is sued in his individual capacity), Elier Morejon(He is sued in his individual capacity), Elier Morejon(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Eric Parra(Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Eric Parra(He is sued in his individual capacity), Joanne Sharp(She is sued in his individual capacity), Joanne Sharp(Custody Services Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Neal Tyler(Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Neal Tyler(He is sued in his individual capacity). (ghap) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
12 ORDER RE: NOTICE TO COUNSEL upon filing of the complaint by Judge Manuel L. Real. READ CAREFULLY − FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY LEAD TO SANCTIONS. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (iv) (Entered: 07/07/2017)

Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 9 of 16

07/10/2017 07/10/2017
07/10/2017 07/10/2017 07/10/2017 07/10/2017 07/12/2017 07/12/2017 07/12/2017 07/13/2017
07/13/2017

13 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, served on 07/07/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Proof of Service re Order re Notice to Counsel)(Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, upon Defendant County of Los Angeles served on 7/6/2017, answer due 7/27/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Bruce Crouchet, Customer Service Center Operations, Authorized Agent in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity.Original Summons NOT returned. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, upon Defendant Jim McDonnell(Sheriff, Los Angeles County, official capacity) served on 7/6/2017, answer due 7/27/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Kathleen Comacho, Operations Assistant III, Authorized Agent in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
16 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Masimba M. Mutamba to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center (Pro Hac Vice Fee − Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−20152187) filed by plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center. (Attac hments: # 1 Unredacted Document Certificate of Good Standing from The Florida Bar, # 2 Proposed Order) (Vogel, Brian) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
17 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Daniel L. Marshall to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center (Pro Hac Vice Fee − Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−20154629) filed by plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center. (Attac hments: # 1 Unredacted Document Certificate of Good Standing from The Florida Bar, # 2 Proposed Order) (Vogel, Brian) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
18 APPLICATION of Non−Resident Attorney Sabarish P. Neelakanta to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center (Pro Hac Vice Fee − Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−20154866) filed by plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center. (A ttachments: # 1 Unredacted Document Certificate of Good Standing from The Florida Bar, # 2 Proposed Order) (Vogel, Brian) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
19 ORDER by Judge Manuel L. Real: Granting Application of Non−Resident Attorney Masimba M. Mutamba to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, designating Brian A. Vogel as local counsel 16 . (iv) (Entered: 07/12/2017)
20 ORDER by Judge Manuel L. Real: Granting Application of Non−Resident Attorney Daniel L. Marshall to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, designating Brian A. Vogel as local counsel 17 . (iv) (Entered: 07/12/2017)
21 ORDER by Judge Manuel L. Real: Granting Application of Non−Resident Attorney Sabarish P. Neelakanta to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, designating Brian A. Vogel as local counsel 18 . (iv) (Entered: 07/12/2017)
22 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, upon Defendant Kelly Harrington(Assistant Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) served on 7/11/2017, answer due 8/1/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Kathleen Comacho, Operations Assistant III, Authorized Agent in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
23 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, upon Defendant Neal Tyler(Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) served on 7/11/2017, answer due 8/1/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Kathleen Comacho, Operations Assistant III, Authorized Agent in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 10 of 16

07/13/2017 07/14/2017 07/14/2017 07/14/2017 07/14/2017 07/14/2017 07/14/2017 07/14/2017 07/14/2017

24 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, upon Defendant Terri McDonald served on 7/11/2017, answer due 8/1/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Debbie Craig, Management Analyst, Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
25 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, upon Defendant Joanne Sharp(Custody Services Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) served on 7/12/2017, answer due 8/2/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Vincent Grant, Sergeant, Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
26 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, upon Defendant Kevin Hebert(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) served on 7/12/2017, answer due 8/2/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Sean Walters, Sergeant, Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
27 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, upon Defendant Roosevelt Johnson(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) served on 7/12/2017, answer due 8/2/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon C. Caldwell, Custody Assistant, Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
28 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, upon Defendant Kevin Kuykendall(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) served on 7/12/2017, answer due 8/2/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Vincent Grant, Sergeant, Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
29 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, upon Defendant Eric Parra(Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) served on 7/12/2017, answer due 8/2/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon M. Avola, Sergeant, Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
30 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, upon Defendant Elier Morejon(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) served on 7/12/2017, answer due 8/2/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Officer David Vaca, Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
31 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, upon Defendant Daniel Dyer(Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) served on 7/12/2017, answer due 8/2/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Vincent Grant, Sergeant, Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
32 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, upon Defendant Ana Brackpool(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) served on 7/12/2017, answer due 8/2/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Vincent Grant, Sergeant, Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/14/2017)

Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 11 of 16

07/14/2017 07/17/2017 07/17/2017
07/21/2017 08/02/2017

33 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, upon Defendant Agustin Del Valle(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) served on 7/12/2017, answer due 8/2/2017. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon C. Caldwell, Custody Assistant, Authorized to Accept Service in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service.Original Summons NOT returned. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
34 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center, Plaintiff's Proof of Service re Order re Notice to Counsel served on 07/17/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Order re Notice to Counsel)(Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
35 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Defendants' censorship of Plaintiff's publications and correspondence and denial of Plaintiff's due process rights . Motion filed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center. Motion set for hearing on 9/5/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Manuel L. Real. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Pl's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Declaration of Paul Wright ISO Pl's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 3 Exhibit A to Wright Decl, # 4 Exhibit B to Wright Decl, # 5 Exhibit C to Wright Decl, # 6 Exhibit D to Wright Decl, # 7 Exhibit E to Wright Decl, # 8 Exhibit F to Wright Decl, # 9 Exhibit G to Wright Decl, # 10 Exhibit H to Wright Decl, # 11 Exhibit I to Wright Decl, # 12 Proposed Order, # 13 Proof of Service) (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
36 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to County of Los Angeles answer now due 8/25/2017, filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles.(Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party County of Los Angeles(pty:dft))(Raygor, Kent) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
37 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Eric Parra(Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Elier Morejon(He is sued in his individual capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Roosevelt Johnson(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Kevin Hebert(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Kevin Hebert(He is sued in his individual capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Kelly Harrington(Assistant Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Ana Brackpool(She is sued in his individual capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Neal Tyler(Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Joanne Sharp(She is sued in his individual capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Agustin Del Valle(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Jim McDonnell(Sheriff, Los Angeles County, official capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Elier Morejon(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Jim McDonnell(He is sued in his individual capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Kevin Kuykendall(He is sued in his individual capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Daniel Dyer(He is sued in his individual capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Agustin Del Valle(He is sued in his individual capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Terri McDonald answer now due 8/25/2017; Ana Brackpool(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Roosevelt Johnson(He is sued in his individual capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Neal Tyler(He is sued in his individual capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Kevin Kuykendall(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Daniel Dyer(Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Eric Parra(He is sued in his individual capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Joanne Sharp(Custody Services Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017; Kelly Harrington(He is sued in his individual capacity) answer now due 8/25/2017, filed by Remaining Defendants Eric Parra(Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity); Elier Morejon(He is sued in his individual capacity); Roosevelt Johnson(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity); Kevin Hebert(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity); Kevin Hebert(He is sued in his individual capacity); Kelly Harrington(Assistant Sheriff, Los Angeles County

Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 12 of 16

08/15/2017

Sheriff's Department, official capacity); Ana Brackpool(She is sued in his individual capacity); Neal Tyler(Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity); Joanne Sharp(She is sued in his individual capacity); Agustin Del Valle(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity); Jim McDonnell(Sheriff, Los Angeles County, official capacity); Elier Morejon(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity); Jim McDonnell(He is sued in his individual capacity); Kevin Kuykendall(He is sued in his individual capacity); Daniel Dyer(He is sued in his individual capacity); Agustin Del Valle(He is sued in his individual capacity); Terri McDonald; Ana Brackpool(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity); Roosevelt Johnson(He is sued in his individual capacity); Neal Tyler(He is sued in his individual capacity); Kevin Kuykendall(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity); Daniel Dyer(Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity); Eric Parra(He is sued in his individual capacity); Joanne Sharp(Custody Services Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity); Kelly Harrington(He is sued in his individual capacity).(Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Ana Brackpool(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Ana Brackpool(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Agustin Del Valle(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Agustin Del Valle(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Daniel Dyer(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Daniel Dyer(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Kelly Harrington(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Kelly Harrington(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Kevin Hebert(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Kevin Hebert(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Roosevelt Johnson(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Roosevelt Johnson(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Kevin Kuykendall(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Kevin Kuykendall(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Terri McDonald(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Jim McDonnell(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Jim McDonnell(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Elier Morejon(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Elier Morejon(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Eric Parra(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Eric Parra(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Joanne Sharp(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Joanne Sharp(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Neal Tyler(pty:dft), Attorney Ryan David Schiedermayer added to party Neal Tyler(pty:dft))(Schiedermayer, Ryan) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
38 Opposition re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Defendants' censorship of Plaintiff's publications and correspondence and denial of Plaintiff's due process rights . Motion 35 filed by Defendants Ana Brackpool, Ana Brackpool, County of Los Angeles, Agustin Del Valle, Agustin Del Valle, Does, Does, Daniel Dyer, Daniel Dyer, Kelly Harrington, Kelly Harrington, Kevin Hebert, Kevin Hebert, Roosevelt Johnson, Roosevelt Johnson, Kevin Kuykendall, Kevin Kuykendall, Terri McDonald, Jim McDonnell, Jim McDonnell, Elier Morejon, Elier Morejon, Eric Parra, Eric Parra, Joanne Sharp, Joanne Sharp, Neal Tyler, Neal Tyler. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sergeant John Glynn, # 2 Declaration of Deborah Leslie)(Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Ana Brackpool(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Ana Brackpool(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Agustin Del Valle(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Agustin Del Valle(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Does(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Does(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Daniel Dyer(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Daniel Dyer(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Kelly Harrington(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Kelly Harrington(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Kevin Hebert(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Kevin Hebert(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Roosevelt Johnson(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Roosevelt Johnson(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Kevin Kuykendall(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Kevin Kuykendall(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Terri McDonald(pty:dft),

Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 13 of 16

08/15/2017 08/22/2017 08/22/2017
08/23/2017

Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Jim McDonnell(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Jim McDonnell(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Elier Morejon(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Elier Morejon(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Eric Parra(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Eric Parra(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Joanne Sharp(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Joanne Sharp(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Neal Tyler(pty:dft), Attorney Kent R Raygor added to party Neal Tyler(pty:dft))(Raygor, Kent) (Entered: 08/15/2017)
39 Objections re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Defendants' censorship of Plaintiff's publications and correspondence and denial of Plaintiff's due process rights . Motion 35 (Declaration of Paul Wright [ECF Docket No. 35−3]) filed by Defendants Ana Brackpool, Ana Brackpool, County of Los Angeles, Agustin Del Valle, Agustin Del Valle, Does, Does, Daniel Dyer, Daniel Dyer, Kelly Harrington, Kelly Harrington, Kevin Hebert, Kevin Hebert, Roosevelt Johnson, Roosevelt Johnson, Kevin Kuykendall, Kevin Kuykendall, Terri McDonald, Jim McDonnell, Jim McDonnell, Elier Morejon, Elier Morejon, Eric Parra, Eric Parra, Joanne Sharp, Joanne Sharp, Neal Tyler, Neal Tyler. (Raygor, Kent) (Entered: 08/15/2017)
40 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Paul Wright re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Defendants' censorship of Plaintiff's publications and correspondence and denial of Plaintiff's due process rights . Motion 35 filed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
41 REPLY NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction re Defendants' censorship of Plaintiff's publications and correspondence and denial of Plaintiff's due process rights . Motion 35 Plaintiff's Reply iso Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Paul Wright iso Plaintiff's Reply iso Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A (Part 1 of 2) to Supp Wright Decl, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit A (Part 2 of 2) to Supp Wright Decl, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit B to Supp Wright Decl, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit C to Supp Wright Decl, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit D to Supp Wright Decl, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit E to Supp Wright Decl, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit F to Supp Wright Decl, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit G to Supp Wright Decl, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit H to Supp Wright Decl, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit I to Supp Wright Decl)(Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
42 REQUEST to Strike Evidence Improperly Withheld and Then Submitted on Reply (Motion related),,, 41 filed by Defendants Ana Brackpool(She is sued in his individual capacity), Ana Brackpool(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), County of Los Angeles, Agustin Del Valle(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Agustin Del Valle(He is sued in his individual capacity), Does(1−10, in their individual capacities), Does(1−10, in their official capacities), Daniel Dyer(He is sued in his individual capacity), Daniel Dyer(Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Kelly Harrington(Assistant Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Kelly Harrington(He is sued in his individual capacity), Kevin Hebert(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Kevin Hebert(He is sued in his individual capacity), Roosevelt Johnson(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Roosevelt Johnson(He is sued in his individual capacity), Kevin Kuykendall(He is sued in his individual capacity), Kevin Kuykendall(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Terri McDonald, Jim McDonnell(Sheriff, Los Angeles County, official capacity), Jim McDonnell(He is sued in his individual capacity), Elier Morejon(He is sued in his individual capacity), Elier Morejon(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Eric Parra(Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Eric Parra(He is sued in his individual capacity), Joanne Sharp(She is sued in his individual capacity), Joanne Sharp(Custody Services Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Neal Tyler(Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Neal Tyler(He is sued in his individual capacity). (Raygor, Kent) (Entered:

Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 14 of 16

08/23/2017 08/25/2017
08/29/2017 09/11/2017 09/15/2017 09/18/2017

08/23/2017)
43 OPPOSITION to REQUEST to Strike Evidence Improperly Withheld and Then Submitted on Reply (Motion related),,, 41 42 Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Request to Strike Evidence filed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
44 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants' Ana Brackpool(She is sued in his individual capacity), Ana Brackpool(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), County of Los Angeles, Agustin Del Valle(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Agustin Del Valle(He is sued in his individual capacity), Does(1−10, in their individual capacities), Does(1−10, in their official capacities), Daniel Dyer(He is sued in his individual capacity), Daniel Dyer(Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Kelly Harrington(Assistant Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Kelly Harrington(He is sued in his individual capacity), Kevin Hebert(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Kevin Hebert(He is sued in his individual capacity), Roosevelt Johnson(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Roosevelt Johnson(He is sued in his individual capacity), Kevin Kuykendall(He is sued in his individual capacity), Kevin Kuykendall(Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Terri McDonald, Jim McDonnell(Sheriff, Los Angeles County, official capacity), Jim McDonnell(He is sued in his individual capacity), Elier Morejon(He is sued in his individual capacity), Elier Morejon(Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Eric Parra(Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Eric Parra(He is sued in his individual capacity), Joanne Sharp(She is sued in his individual capacity), Joanne Sharp(Custody Services Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Neal Tyler(Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, official capacity), Neal Tyler(He is sued in his individual capacity). Motion set for hearing on 10/2/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Manuel L. Real. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Raygor, Kent) (Entered: 08/25/2017)
45 TEXT ONLY SCHEDULING ORDER TAKING MOTION UNDER SUBMISSION ON THE PAPERS WITHOUT NEED OF ORAL ARGUMENT by Judge Manuel L. Real. The Court has determined that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dckt. No. 35 ) set for hearing on September 5, 2017 at 10:00 A.M. is suitable for a decision on the papers as filed by all parties without the need for oral argument. Therefore, the said Motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION on the papers as filed and the hearing date of September 5, 2017 is VACATED and TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. The Court will issue its ruling on the matter in due course. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (clee) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/29/2017)
46 OPPOSITION Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center. (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
47 STIPULATION to Continue Initial Disclosure Meeting to November 1, 2017 filed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order to Continue Initial Disclosure Meeting Between Counsel)(Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
48 REPLY In Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 44 filed by Defendants Ana Brackpool, County of Los Angeles, Agustin Del Valle, Daniel Dyer, Kelly Harrington, Kevin Hebert, Roosevelt Johnson, Kevin Kuykendall, Terri McDonald, Jim McDonnell, Elier Morejon, Eric Parra, Joanne Sharp, Neal Tyler. (Attorney Valerie Elizabeth Alter added to party Ana Brackpool(pty:dft), Attorney Valerie Elizabeth Alter added to party Agustin Del Valle(pty:dft), Attorney Valerie Elizabeth Alter added to party Daniel Dyer(pty:dft), Attorney Valerie Elizabeth Alter added to party Kelly Harrington(pty:dft), Attorney Valerie Elizabeth Alter added to party Kevin Hebert(pty:dft), Attorney Valerie Elizabeth Alter added to party Roosevelt Johnson(pty:dft), Attorney Valerie Elizabeth Alter added to party Kevin Kuykendall(pty:dft), Attorney Valerie Elizabeth Alter added to party Terri McDonald(pty:dft), Attorney Valerie Elizabeth Alter added to party Jim McDonnell(pty:dft), Attorney Valerie Elizabeth Alter added to party Elier

Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 15 of 16

09/20/2017 09/25/2017 09/27/2017 09/27/2017
09/27/2017 09/27/2017 10/25/2017 10/26/2017
11/14/2017 11/28/2017 03/21/2018

Morejon(pty:dft), Attorney Valerie Elizabeth Alter added to party Eric Parra(pty:dft), Attorney Valerie Elizabeth Alter added to party Joanne Sharp(pty:dft), Attorney Valerie Elizabeth Alter added to party Neal Tyler(pty:dft))(Alter, Valerie) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
49 ORDER TO CONTINUE INITIAL DISCLOSURE MEETING BETWEEN COUNSEL by Judge Manuel L. Real: Upon Stipulation 47 , the parties are granted an extension of time to and including 10/12/2017, for the initial disclosure conference to occur. (gk) (Entered: 09/21/2017)
50 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Manuel L. Real: Plaintiff has not met its difficult burden of showing that a preliminary injunction is proper. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 35 is DENIED. (gk) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
51 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center. Appeal of Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 50 . (Appeal Fee − $505 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−20573003.) (Attachments: # 1 Representation Statement Accompanying Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal)(Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
52 TEXT ONLY SCHEDULING ORDER TAKING MOTION UNDER SUBMISSION ON THE PAPERS WITHOUT NEED OF ORAL ARGUMENT by Judge Manuel L. Real. The Court has determined that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Case (Dckt. No. 44 ) set for hearing on October 2, 2017 at 10:00 A.M. is suitable for a decision on the papers as filed by all parties without the need for oral argument. Therefore, the said Motion is taken UNDER SUBMISSION on the papers as filed and the hearing date of October 2, 2017 is VACATED and TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. The Court will issue its ruling on the matter in due course. IT IS SO ORDERED. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (clee) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 09/27/2017)
53 NOTIFICATION from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of case number assigned and briefing schedule. Appeal Docket No. 17−56470 assigned to Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 51 as to Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center. (gk) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
54 ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 51 filed by Human Rights Defense Center. CCA # 17−56470. The appeal filed September 27, 2017 is a preliminary injunction appeal. Accordingly, Ninth Circuit Rule 3−3 shall apply. [See document for complete details.] (mat) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
55 Joint Report on Early Meeting of Counsel (FRCP 26(f)) (Bornstein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
56 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Miscellaneous Document 55 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Joint Report Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 10/26/2017)
57 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Manuel L. Real: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 44 is GRANTED. The Complaint is dismissed as to Sheriff McDonnell and all other individual defendants. Plaintiff's Bane Act claim is dismissed as to the County of Los Angeles. (gk) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
58 ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles.(Raygor, Kent) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
59 ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) SETTING PRE−TRIAL & TRIAL DATES by Judge Manuel L. Real. COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that this action is hereby placed on calendar for FINAL PRE−TRIAL CONFERENCE on AUGUST 13, 2018 AT 11:00 A.M. Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law, Exhibit Lists and Witness Lists

Case: 2:17-cv-4883 As of: 05/30/2018 07:05 AM PDT 16 of 16

04/12/2018 04/17/2018
05/01/2018

shall be filed and served on or before JULY 23, 2018, which date will also serve as the discovery cut−off date in this action. There is no Motion Cut−Off Date set. PRE−TRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER shall be lodged with this Court on or before AUGUST 6, 2018. JURY TRIAL DATE is set as SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 AT 9:00 A.M. IT IS SO ORDERED. (cch) (Entered: 03/21/2018)
60 Joint STIPULATION to Stay Case pending County of Los Angeles' Review of Settlement filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Raygor, Kent) (Entered: 04/12/2018)
61 ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Manuel L. Real: THE COURT having been advised by the counsel for the parties that the action has been settled 60 ; IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is hereby dismissed without costs and without prejudice to the right, upon good cause shown within 240 days, to reopen the action if the settlement is not consummated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all dates set in this action are hereby vacated. The Court reserves its jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the settlement. ( Case Terminated. Made JS−6. ) (gk) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
62 ORDER from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 51 filed by Human Rights Defense Center. CCA # 17−56470. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to reinstatement in the event that the County fails to approve the recommended settlement and/or the United States District Court declines to approve the parties' settlement. A copy of this order shall serve as and for the mandate of this court. (gk) (Entered: 05/02/2018)

 
 Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 1 of 32 Page ID #:1

1 SANFORD JAY ROSEN – 062566

JEFFREY L. BORNSTEIN – 099358

2

CHRISTOPHER HU – 293052 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

3 50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105-2235

4 Telephone: (415) 433-6830

Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

5 Email:

srosen@rbgg.com jbornstein@rbgg.com

6

chu@rbgg.com

7

BRIAN A. VOGEL – 167413 LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN A. VOGEL, PC

8

770 County Square Drive, Suite 104 Ventura, CA 93003

9

Telephone: Facsimile:

(805) 654-0400 (805) 654-0326

10 Email:

brian@bvogel.com

11

SABARISH NEELAKANTA – Fla. Bar No. 26623* MASIMBA MUTAMBA – Fla. Bar No. 102772*

12

DANIEL MARSHALL – Fla. Bar No. 617210* HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

13

P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, Florida 33460

14

Telephone: Email:

(561) 360-2523 sneelakanta@hrdc-law.org

15

mmutamba@hrdc-law.org dmarshall@hrdc-law.org

16 *Pro hac vice applications to be filed

17 Attorneys for Plaintiff

18

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

21

22 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, Case No.

23

Plaintiff,

24

v.

25

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; JIM MCDONNELL, Sheriff, Los Angeles

26

County; NEAL TYLER, Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s

27

Department; KELLY HARRINGTON, Assistant Sheriff, Los Angeles County;

28 JOANNE SHARP, Custody Services

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1, AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

[3138846.5]

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 2 of 32 Page ID #:2

[3138846.5]

1

Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; KEVIN HEBERT,

2

Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department;

3

ROOSEVELT JOHNSON, Custody Services Commander, Los Angeles

4

County Sheriff’s Department; KEVIN KUYKENDALL, Custody Services

5

Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; ERIC PARRA,

6

Division Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; ELIER

7

MOREJON, Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; DANIEL

8

DYER, Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; ANA

9

BRACKPOOL, Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; AGUSTIN

10

DEL VALLE, Captain, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, in their

11

individual and official capacities; TERRI MCDONALD, in her individual capacity;

12

and DOES 1-10, in their individual and official capacities,

13

Defendants.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 3 of 32 Page ID #:3

[3138846.5]

1

INTRODUCTION

2

Plaintiff HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER (“HRDC” or “Plaintiff”)

3 brings this action to enjoin censorship of its publications and other correspondence

4 mailed by its publishing project Prison Legal News to prisoners held in Defendants’

5 custody at Los Angeles County’s Men’s Central Jail (“Men’s Central Jail”).

6 Defendants’ mail policies and practices unconstitutionally prohibit delivery of

7 Plaintiff’s magazines and enveloped mail to prisoners housed both in the Men’s

8 Central Jail’s general population and in the restrictive housing unit known as “K-10”

9 in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants’

10 policies and practices also deny due process of law to senders, like Plaintiff, by

11 failing to provide notice of and an opportunity to challenge each instance of

12 censorship as required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

13 Constitution. In addition, Defendants’ policies and practices violate the Bane Act

14 (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1) and the California Constitution.

15

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16

1. This action is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question),

17 as this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and

18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights), as this action seeks redress for civil

19 rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). On information and belief,

21 at least one Defendant resides within this judicial district, and the events giving rise

22 to the claims asserted herein all occurred within this judicial district.

23

3. Plaintiff’s claims for relief under federal law are predicated upon 42

24 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes actions to redress the deprivation, under color of

25 state law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured to the Plaintiff by the First,

26 Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United

27 States.

28

4. Plaintiff’s claims for relief under state law are predicated upon the

1
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 4 of 32 Page ID #:4

[3138846.5]

1 Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1), which authorizes actions to protect the exercise or

2 enjoyment of rights secured under federal or California law, as well as upon the

3 direct causes of action to enforce constitutional rights guaranteed under article I,

4 section 2 of the California Constitution, and article I, section 7 of the California

5 Constitution.

6

5. This Court has jurisdiction over claims seeking declaratory and

7 injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and Rules 57 and 65 of the

8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as nominal and compensatory damages,

9 against all Defendants.

10

6. Plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees and costs under federal law is

11 predicated upon 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees

12 and costs to prevailing plaintiffs in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

13

7. Plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees and costs under state law is

14 predicated upon California Civil Code § 52.1, which authorizes the award of

15 attorneys’ fees and costs in an action brought under that statute, and California Code

16 of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, which authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees and costs

17 to prevailing plaintiffs whose actions vindicate important rights.

18

8. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that the

19 individual Defendants acted as described herein with reckless disregard for

20 Plaintiff’s rights and/or with the intent to injure, vex, annoy and harass Plaintiff, and

21 subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s

22 rights with the intention of causing Plaintiff injury and depriving it of its

23 constitutional rights.

24

9. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive

25 damages against the individual Defendants.

26

10. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law

27 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as they arise from the same case or

28 controversy as Plaintiff’s claims under federal law.

2
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 5 of 32 Page ID #:5

[3138846.5]

1

PARTIES

2

11. HRDC is a not-for-profit charitable corporation recognized under

3 § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code with its principal offices in Lake Worth,

4 Florida. The purpose of HRDC, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation, is to

5 educate prisoners and the public about the destructive nature of racism and sexism,

6 as well as the economic and social costs of prisons to society. Prison Legal News is

7 a wholly-owned project and the publishing arm of HRDC. Through its publishing

8 project, HRDC engages in core protected speech and expressive conduct on matters

9 of public concern, such as the operation of prison facilities, prison conditions,

10 prisoner health and safety, and prisoners’ rights. HRDC’s publications contain

11 political speech and social commentary, which are core First Amendment rights and

12 are entitled to the highest protection afforded by the U.S. Constitution. For more

13 than 25 years, the focus of HRDC’s mission has been public education, advocacy

14 and outreach on behalf of, and for the purpose of assisting, prisoners who seek legal

15 redress for infringements of their constitutionally-guaranteed and other basic human

16 rights. HRDC’s mission, if realized, has a salutary effect on public safety.

17

12. Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (“Los Angeles County” or

18 “County”) is a political subdivision of the State of California organized and existing

19 under the laws of California. Los Angeles County is, and was at all relevant times

20 mentioned herein, responsible for the actions and/or inactions and the policies,

21 procedures, customs and practices of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

22 (“Sheriff’s Department” or “Department”) and its employees and agents. The

23 Department currently operates at least six detention facilities: Men’s Central Jail;

24 North County Correctional Facility; Pitchess Detention Center North Facility;

25 Pitchess Detention Center South Facility; Twin Towers Correctional Facility; and

26 Century Regional Detention Center. The Department is and was responsible for

27 adopting and implementing mail policies governing incoming mail for inmates at all

28 Los Angeles County jails, including Men’s Central Jail.

3
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 6 of 32 Page ID #:6

[3138846.5]

1

13. Defendant JIM MCDONNELL is the Los Angeles County Sheriff, and

2 has held this position since December 1, 2014. Defendant MCDONNELL is

3 employed by and is an agent of Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the

4 Sheriff’s Department. He is responsible for overseeing the management and

5 operations of the jails, and for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision,

6 discipline, counseling, and control of the personnel of the Los Angeles County jails

7 who interpret and apply the jails’ inmate mail policy. As Sheriff, Defendant

8 MCDONNELL is a final policymaker for Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

9 with respect to the operations of all Los Angeles County jails, inclusive of Men’s

10 Central Jail, including for policies governing incoming mail for inmates. He is sued

11 in his individual and official capacities.

12

14. Defendant NEAL TYLER is Executive Officer of the Sheriff’s

13 Department. Defendant TYLER is employed by and is an agent of Defendants

14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and JIM MCDONNELL, as well as the Sheriff’s

15 Department. Upon information and belief, he is personally involved in the adoption

16 and/or implementation of the mail policies at issue and is responsible for overseeing,

17 planning, coordinating and evaluating the legality of the mail policies and practices

18 at the Men’s Central Jail. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

19

15. Defendant KELLY HARRINGTON is the Assistant Sheriff in charge

20 of Custody Operations for the Sheriff’s Department and was appointed to the

21 position in 2016. He is employed by and is an agent of Defendant COUNTY OF

22 LOS ANGELES and the Sheriff’s Department. Custody Operations includes all jail

23 responsibilities related to inmate services, including but not limited to reception,

24 booking and classification, housing, and other jail services. As Assistant Sheriff in

25 charge of Custody Operations, Defendant HARRINGTON is responsible for the

26 operation and management of the Los Angeles County jails and for the

27 promulgation and implementation of Custody Operations policies, including the

28 inmate mail policies challenged herein. He is also responsible for the hiring,

4
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 7 of 32 Page ID #:7

[3138846.5]

1 screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of the

2 personnel of the Los Angeles County jails, including the Men’s Central Jail, who

3 interpret and apply the inmate mail policy. He is sued in his individual and official

4 capacities.

5

16. Defendant JOANNE SHARP is the Division Chief for the Sheriff’s

6 Department’s Custody Services Division – General Population, a division within

7 Custody Operations. She is employed by and is an agent of Defendant COUNTY

8 OF LOS ANGELES and the Sheriff’s Department. In that capacity, Defendant

9 SHARP is responsible for the implementation of Custody Services policies at Los

10 Angeles County jail facilities, including the inmate mail policies challenged herein,

11 and for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling,

12 and control of the personnel of the Los Angeles County jails who interpret and apply

13 the inmate mail policy. She is sued in her individual and official capacities.

14

17. Defendant KEVIN HEBERT is a Commander in the Sheriff’s

15 Department’s Custody Services Division – General Population. He is employed by

16 and is an agent of Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the Sheriff’s

17 Department. In that capacity, Defendant HEBERT is responsible for the

18 implementation of Custody Services policies at Los Angeles County jail facilities,

19 including the inmate mail policies challenged herein, and for the hiring, screening,

20 training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of the personnel

21 of the Los Angeles County jails who interpret and apply the inmate mail policy. He

22 is sued in his individual and official capacities.

23

18. Defendant ROOSEVELT JOHNSON is a Commander in the Sheriff’s

24 Department’s Custody Services Division – General Population. He is employed by

25 and is an agent of Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the Sheriff’s

26 Department. In that capacity, Defendant JOHNSON is responsible for the

27 implementation of Custody Services policies at Los Angeles County jail facilities,

28 including the inmate mail policies challenged herein, and for the hiring, screening,

5
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 8 of 32 Page ID #:8

[3138846.5]

1 training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of the personnel

2 of the Los Angeles County jails who interpret and apply the inmate mail policy. He

3 is sued in his individual and official capacities.

4

19. Defendant KEVIN KUYKENDALL is a Commander in the Sheriff’s

5 Department’s Custody Services Division – General Population. He is employed by

6 and is an agent of Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the Sheriff’s

7 Department. In that capacity, Defendant KUYKENDALL is responsible for the

8 implementation of Custody Services policies at Los Angeles County jail facilities,

9 including the inmate mail policies challenged herein, and for the hiring, screening,

10 training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of the personnel

11 of the Los Angeles County jails who interpret and apply the inmate mail policy. He

12 is sued in his individual and official capacities.

13

20. Defendant ERIC PARRA was the Division Chief for the Sheriff’s

14 Department’s Custody Services Division at all relevant times mentioned herein until

15 early 2017, when he was reassigned to Patrol Operations. He is employed by and is

16 an agent of Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the Sheriff’s Department.

17 In his capacity as Custody Services Division Chief, Defendant PARRA was

18 responsible for the implementation of Custody Services policies at Los Angeles

19 County jail facilities, including the inmate mail policies challenged herein, and for

20 the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and

21 control of the personnel of the Los Angeles County jails who interpret and apply the

22 inmate mail policy. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

23

21. Defendant ELIER MOREJON is the Captain in charge of the Inmate

24 Reception Center at Men’s Central Jail. He is employed by and is an agent of

25 Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the Sheriff’s Department. Defendant

26 MOREJON supervises mailroom staff and manages the inspection and routing of all

27 incoming inmate mail to the Men’s Central Jail. He is sued in his individual and

28 official capacities.

6
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 9 of 32 Page ID #:9

[3138846.5]

1

22. Defendant DANIEL DYER is the Commander in charge of the

2 Sheriff’s Department’s Custody Services Administration Command. Defendant

3 DYER was previously the Captain in charge of the Men’s Central Jail. He is

4 employed by and is an agent of Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the

5 Sheriff’s Department. As Captain in charge of the Men’s Central Jail, Defendant

6 DYER supervised and managed all of the daily operations of the Men’s Central Jail.

7 In his current position, Defendant DYER is responsible for the implementation of

8 Custody Services policies at Los Angeles County jail facilities, including the inmate

9 mail policies challenged herein, and for the hiring, screening, training, retention,

10 supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of the personnel of the Los Angeles

11 County jails who interpret and apply the inmate mail policy. He is sued in his

12 individual and official capacities.

13

23. Defendant ANA BRACKPOOL is one of two Captains in charge of the

14 Men’s Central Jail. She is employed by and is an agent of Defendant COUNTY OF

15 LOS ANGELES and the Sheriff’s Department. Defendant BRACKPOOL

16 supervises and manages all of the daily operations of the Men’s Central Jail. She is

17 sued in her individual and official capacities.

18

24. Defendant AGUSTIN DEL VALLE is one of two Captains in charge of

19 the Men’s Central Jail. He is employed by and is an agent of Defendant COUNTY

20 OF LOS ANGELES and the Sheriff’s Department. Defendant DEL VALLE

21 supervises and manages all of the daily operations of the Men’s Central Jail. He is

22 sued in his individual and official capacities.

23

25. Defendant TERRI MCDONALD was the Assistant Sheriff in charge of

24 Custody Operations for the Sheriff’s Department from 2013 until her retirement

25 from the Sheriff’s Department in spring 2016. She was employed by and was an

26 agent of Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the Sheriff’s Department.

27 As Assistant Sheriff in charge of Custody Operations, Defendant MCDONALD was

28 responsible for the operation and management of the Los Angeles County jails and

7
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 10 of 32 Page ID #:10

[3138846.5]

1 for the promulgation and implementation of Custody Operations policies, including

2 the inmate mail policies challenged herein. She was also responsible for the hiring,

3 screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of the

4 personnel of the Los Angeles County jails, including the Men’s Central Jail, who

5 interpret and apply the inmate mail policy. She is sued in her individual capacity.

6

26. The true names and identities of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are

7 presently unknown to HRDC. Each of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are or were

8 employed by and are or were agents of Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

9 and the Sheriff’s Department when some or all of the challenged inmate mail

10 policies and practices at the Men’s Central Jail were adopted and/or implemented.

11 Each of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are or were personally involved in the

12 adoption and/or implementation of the Custody Services Division’s mail policies for

13 inmates, and/or are or were responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention,

14 supervision, discipline, counseling, and/or control of the Men’s Central Jail staff

15 who interpret and implement these inmate mail policies. They are sued in their

16 individual and official capacities. HRDC will seek to amend this Complaint as soon

17 as the true names and identities of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 have been

18 ascertained.

19

27. At all times material to this action, the actions of all Defendants as

20 alleged herein were taken under the authority and color of state law.

21

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

22

28. The Los Angeles County jail system currently consists of six

23 correctional facilities and holds the largest number of pre-trial detainees in the

24 United States. Over half of the prisoners within the jail system have yet to stand

25 trial or be sentenced for a crime.

26

29. The Men’s Central Jail has a bed capacity of 5,640 prisoners and

27 houses prisoners of every security level, from general population to high security

28 prisoners. It houses the majority of the pre-trial detainees in the Los Angeles

8
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 11 of 32 Page ID #:11

[3138846.5]

1 County jail system. The K-10 unit within Men’s Central Jail houses prisoners

2 whom Defendants have segregated from the general population for a variety of

3 reasons. For instance, the K-10 unit houses prisoners whom Defendants have

4 determined need to be protected from other prisoners because of the crimes with

5 which they have been charged.

6

30. HRDC, through its publication project Prison Legal News, publishes

7 and distributes a soft-cover monthly magazine titled Prison Legal News: Dedicated

8 to Protecting Human Rights, which contains news and analysis about prisons, jails

9 and other detention facilities, prisoners’ rights, court opinions, management of

10 prison facilities, prison conditions, and other matters pertaining to the rights and/or

11 interests of incarcerated individuals. The monthly magazine is published on

12 newsprint and is 72 pages long. HRDC has thousands of subscribers to its monthly

13 magazine in the United States and abroad, including prisoners, attorneys, journalists,

14 public libraries, judges, and members of the general public. HRDC distributes its

15 monthly magazine and other publications to prisoners and law librarians in more

16 than 2,200 correctional facilities located across all fifty states, including Federal

17 Bureau of Prisons institutions such as the Lompoc Federal Correctional Institute and

18 the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center. HRDC’s monthly magazine and

19 other publications are distributed in prisons run by the California Department of

20 Corrections and Rehabilitation, as well as in county jails throughout California,

21 including San Diego County Jail, Sacramento County Jail, and Ventura County Jail.

22 HRDC’s publications are also distributed in death row units and “supermax”

23 facilities throughout the United States, including the ADX Supermax at Florence,

24 Colorado, the most secure prison in the United States.

25

31. In addition to monthly magazine issues, HRDC also sends to prisoners:

26 (a) Prison Legal News subscription renewal letters in individually-addressed

27 envelopes; (b) informational brochure packets that contain a brochure and

28 subscription order form, a book list, and a published books brochure (each of which

9
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 12 of 32 Page ID #:12

[3138846.5]

1 is a single page); and (c) copies of judicial opinions of import to prisoners.

2

Defendants’ Inmate Mail Policy

3

32. Defendants’ inmate mail policy is posted on its public website at

4 http://shq.lasdnews.net/pages/PageDetail.aspx?id=1512 (last visited July 3, 2017).

5 This policy, entitled “Inmate Mail Regulations,” provides in pertinent part:

6

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has strict inmate mail procedures for security and safety reasons. All inmates are advised of

7

these regulations/guidelines via handouts, and/or posted information within Inmate Reception Center and Century Regional Detention

8

Facility. They are directed to notify anyone that might send mail or parcels. Any mail or parcels that are received contrary to these

9

guidelines will be returned “intact” to the sender. Many of the items that are not allowed, are readily available through the jail stores.

10

Your cooperation when corresponding with an inmate will be greatly

11

appreciated.

12

All envelopes and paper must be free of debris and/or any illegal substances, perfume/cologne, lip stick, or dried liquids.

13

Your mail or parcel will been returned for the following reason(s):

14

* Food or cosmetic items (lipstick, perfume, unknown stains)

15

* Blank envelopes (with or without postage attached), blank paper,

16

(stationery)

17

* Envelopes with metal clasps

18

* Postage stamps that were not used to mail package

19

* Envelopes with gang or suggestive drawings

20

* No artwork in crayon, marker, or colored pencils.

21

* Copyright material (this includes, printed song lyrics; book passages; articles)

22

* Cash, personal or second party checks, payroll checks, out of state

23

checks

24

* Money order exceeding the $200 limit

25

* Blank money orders (money orders must be signed and made payable to the inmate)

26

* Out of state money orders (must be from a US Postal Office)

27

* Greeting cards: that plays music; plastic; blank; tri fold; larger than

28

6"x 9"; pop up style; 3D style; includes ribbons and/or bows; have been

10
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 13 of 32 Page ID #:13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
[3138846.5]

altered. Postcards larger than 6"x 9" * Photographs or pictures that depict full or partial nudity; suggestive; depict gang tattoos or hand gestures * Picture inside a picture photographs (a picture that has a smaller photo within the picture) * Photographs of headshots * Identification cards or facsimiles * Photographs that depict inmate for whom the mail is intended * Paper clips, staples, pens, pencils, glitter, stickers, glued or gummed labels * Rosary beads, balloons, string bracelets or jewelry items * Lottery tickets or pre-paid telephone cards * Cellophane tape or any type of tape on letters With respect to photographs and computer generated pictures, the following WILL be accepted: * Maximum of five (5) photographs are allowed (each photograph on a collage is included in this count and measured separately) no polaroid photographs, no collages * Photographs or computer generated pictures must be a minimum of 3"x 5" and a maximum of 4"x 6" in size * OTHER: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has the right to return any item(s) that are deemed potentially harmful and/or possibly cause security concerns within the Jail environment. With respect to books, publications or periodicals, we will not accept: * Anything NOT sent directly from a bookstore or a publisher * Anything of an explicit sexual nature * More than three (3) books per week * More than three (3) magazines per week * No hardcover books * Audio, CDs or Cassette tape
Defendants’ Censorship of HRDC’s Mail 33. Defendants have censored the following materials that Plaintiff sent to
11
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 14 of 32 Page ID #:14

[3138846.5]

1 individual prisoners at the Men’s Central Jail: (1) issues of the monthly magazine,

2 Prison Legal News, that were mailed to subscribers; (2) sample issues of Prison

3 Legal News that were mailed to prospective subscribers; (3) subscription renewal

4 letters; (4) informational brochure packets; and (5) court opinions. Defendants

5 refused to deliver said items to the prisoners and, in some instances, returned items

6 to Plaintiff’s office via the “Return To Sender” service of the United States Postal

7 Service. Defendants continue to censor the items listed above.

8

34. Since August 2015, Plaintiff has identified at least one hundred and

9 forty-nine (149) items of mail sent by HRDC to prisoners at Men’s Central Jail that

10 were withheld by Defendants. This restriction on written speech sent to prisoners at

11 Men’s Central Jail is not rationally related to any legitimate penological interest and

12 violates HRDC’s First Amendment right to communicate its speech with prisoners.

13

Censorship of Monthly Issues of Prison Legal News

14

35. Since August 2015, HRDC has identified at least seventy-eight (78)

15 separate occasions in which Defendants censored monthly issues of Prison Legal

16 News that were individually addressed to prisoners who subscribed to the magazine.

17 Instead of delivering these magazines to the prisoners who ordered them,

18 Defendants returned the mail at Plaintiff’s expense, indicating various reasons for

19 the return, including:

20

(1) “CONTENTS UNACCEPTABLE”;

21

(2) “CONTENTS UNACCEPTABLE … 2500 C7”;

22

(3) “RELEASED” (even though the Sheriff’s Department’s own website indicated the prisoner was still in custody at the Men’s Central

23

Jail after the mailing);

24

(4) “OTHER 4/14”; and

25

(5) “CONTENTS UNACCEPTABLE … NOT CASE RELATED.”

26 / / /

27 / / /

28 / / /

12
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 15 of 32 Page ID #:15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
[3138846.5]

36. These 78 occasions are as follows:

Prisoner Name: Date Returned to HRDC:

Subscriber 1

August 21, 2015

Subscriber 2

September 25, 2015

Subscriber 1

March 23, 2016

Subscriber 2

March 23, 2016

Subscriber 3

March 23, 2016

Subscriber 4

March 23, 2016

Subscriber 5

March 23, 2016

Subscriber 6

March 23, 2016

Subscriber 7

March 23, 2016

Subscriber 8

March 23, 2016

Subscriber 9

April 6, 2016

Subscriber 4

April 15, 2016

Subscriber 7

April 15, 2016

Subscriber 1

April 19, 2016

Subscriber 3

April 19, 2016

Subscriber 4

April 19, 2016

Subscriber 5

April 19, 2016

Subscriber 7

April 19, 2016

Subscriber 8

April 19, 2016

Subscriber 9

April 19, 2016

Subscriber 10 April 19, 2016

Subscriber 11 April 19, 2016

Subscriber 12 April 19, 2016

Subscriber 13 April 19, 2016

Subscriber 14 April 19, 2016

13
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 16 of 32 Page ID #:16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
[3138846.5]

Prisoner Name: Date Returned to HRDC:

Subscriber 15 April 19, 2016

Subscriber 16 April 19, 2016

Subscriber 17 April 19, 2016

Subscriber 18 April 19, 2016

Subscriber 19 April 19, 2016

Subscriber 20 April 19, 2016

Subscriber 21 April 19, 2016

Subscriber 22 April 19, 2016

Subscriber 23 April 19, 2016

Subscriber 13 April 26, 2016

Subscriber 20 April 26, 2016

Subscriber 21 July 26, 2016

Subscriber 10 September 1, 2016

Subscriber 24 September 1, 2016

Subscriber 7

September 2, 2016

Subscriber 17 September 2, 2016

Subscriber 25 September 2, 2016

Subscriber 26 September 2, 2016

Subscriber 27 September 2, 2016

Subscriber 16 October 17, 2016

Subscriber 21 October 17, 2016

Subscriber 23 October 17, 2016

Subscriber 28 October 17, 2016

Subscriber 13 November 17, 2016

Subscriber 29 November 21, 2016

Subscriber 1

November 28, 2016

14
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 17 of 32 Page ID #:17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
[3138846.5]

Prisoner Name: Date Returned to HRDC:

Subscriber 16 November 28, 2016

Subscriber 20 November 28, 2106

Subscriber 21 November 28, 2016

Subscriber 23 November 28, 2016

Subscriber 24 November 28, 2016

Subscriber 29 November 28, 2016

Subscriber 30 November 28, 2016

Subscriber 1

December 24, 2016

Subscriber 23 December 24, 2016

Subscriber 24 December 24, 2016

Subscriber 29 December 24, 2016

Subscriber 24 January 27, 2017

Subscriber 30 February 4, 2017

Subscriber 29 March 9, 2017

Subscriber 12 April 27, 2017

Subscriber 13 April 27, 2017

Subscriber 20 April 27, 2017

Subscriber 29 April 27, 2017

Subscriber 16 May 1, 2017

Subscriber 1

May 26, 2017

Subscriber 13 May 26, 2017

Subscriber 16 May 26, 2017

Subscriber 24 May 26, 2017

Subscriber 29 May 26, 2017

Subscriber 30 May 26, 2017

Subscriber 42 May 26, 2017

15
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 18 of 32 Page ID #:18

[3138846.5]

1

Prisoner Name: Date Returned to HRDC:

2

Subscriber 23 June 9, 2017

3

4 In this list and those that follow, HRDC has replaced the names of the prisoners to

5 whom the items were addressed with unique but anonymous identifiers.

6

37. On information and belief, a vast majority of the other monthly issues

7 mailed to individual prisoners at Men’s Central Jail were censored by Defendants.

8

38. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs are unconstitutional both

9 facially and as applied to HRDC.

10

39. Defendants’ censorship policies, practices, and customs have a chilling

11 effect on HRDC’s future speech and expression directed toward prisoners at Men’s

12 Central Jail.

13

40. HRDC will continue to mail monthly issues of Prison Legal News to

14 subscribers at Men’s Central Jail.

15

Censorship of Sample Issues of Prison Legal News

16

41. Defendants have also censored sample issues of Prison Legal News

17 sent to prisoners at the Men’s Central Jail in individually addressed envelopes via

18 U.S. First Class Mail. These issues were sent directly to individuals who requested

19 sample copies of Prison Legal News and to others who were identified by HRDC as

20 people likely to be in need of the information that HRDC distributes.

21

42. Since August 2015, HRDC can identify at least thirty-two (32) separate

22 occasions in which Defendants censored sample issues sent to individually

23 addressed prisoners. Defendants sent these sample issues back by return mail at

24 HRDC’s expense, indicating various reasons for rejecting the mail, including:

25

(1) “CONTENTS UNACCEPTABLE … NOT CURRENT ISSUE. RCVD. 1/5/16”; and

26

(2) “CONTENTS UNACCEPTABLE.”

27

28 / / /

16
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 19 of 32 Page ID #:19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
[3138846.5]

43. These 32 occasions are as follows:

Prisoner Name: Date Returned to HRDC:

Subscriber 3

January 18, 2016

Subscriber 6

January 18, 2016

Subscriber 8

January 18, 2016

Subscriber 12 January 18, 2016

Subscriber 13 January 18, 2016

Subscriber 17 January 18, 2016

Subscriber 19 January 18, 2016

Subscriber 31 January 18, 2016

Subscriber 32 January 18, 2016

Subscriber 33 January 18, 2016

Subscriber 34 January 18, 2016

Subscriber 35 January 18, 2016

Subscriber 11 March 9, 2016

Subscriber 14 March 9, 2016

Subscriber 16 March 9, 2016

Subscriber 18 March 9, 2016

Subscriber 20 March 9, 2016

Subscriber 22 March 9, 2016

Subscriber 28 March 9, 2016

Subscriber 36 March 9, 2016

Subscriber 10 April 15, 2016

Subscriber 15 April 15, 2016

Subscriber 21 April 16, 2016

Subscriber 24 May 20, 2016

Subscriber 29 May 20, 2016

17
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 20 of 32 Page ID #:20

[3138846.5]

1

Prisoner Name: Date Returned to HRDC:

2

Subscriber 30 August 16, 2016

3

Subscriber 37 September 2, 2016

4

Subscriber 38 September 2, 2016

5

Subscriber 39 September 9, 2016

6

Subscriber 40 September 10, 2016

7

Subscriber 41 September 10, 2016

8

Subscriber 29 May 22, 2017

9

10 These prisoners are identified for purposes of this complaint by a unique subscriber

11 identifier, even though not all of them ultimately chose to subscribe to Prison Legal

12 News.

13

44. On information and belief, a vast majority of the other sample issues

14 mailed to individual prisoners at Men’s Central Jail were censored by Defendants.

15

45. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs are unconstitutional both

16 facially and as applied to HRDC.

17

46. Defendants’ censorship policies, practices, and customs have a chilling

18 effect on HRDC’s future speech and expression directed toward prisoners at Men’s

19 Central Jail.

20

47. HRDC will continue to mail sample issues of Prison Legal News to

21 prisoners at Men’s Central Jail.

22

Censorship of Subscription Renewal Letters

23

48. Defendants have also censored HRDC’s correspondence with prisoners

24 containing subscription renewal letters.

25

49. Since August 2015, HRDC has identified at least twenty-four (24)

26 individually addressed subscription renewal letters, mailed on separate occasions,

27 that Defendants sent back by return mail, at HRDC’s expense, noting:

28

(1) RELEASED” (even though the Sheriff’s Department’s own website

18
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 21 of 32 Page ID #:21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
[3138846.5]

indicated the prisoner was still in custody at the Men’s Central Jail after the mailing); (2) “10/7 RETURN UNACCEPTABLE READING MATERIAL”; (3) “CONTENTS UNACCEPTABLE”; (4) “CONTENTS UNACCEPTABLE … RETURN UNACCEPTABLE READING MATERIAL”; and (5) “OTHER.” 50. These 24 occasions are as follows:

Prisoner Name: Date Returned to HRDC:

Subscriber 9

June 16, 2016

Subscriber 8

September 16, 2016

Subscriber 12 September 16, 2016

Subscriber 13 September 16, 2016

Subscriber 17 September 16, 2016

Subscriber 18 September 16, 2016

Subscriber 19 September 16, 2016

Subscriber 20 September 16, 2016

Subscriber 32 September 16, 2016

Subscriber 36 September 16, 2016

Subscriber 28 October 1, 2016

Subscriber 12 October 24, 2016

Subscriber 16 October 24, 2016

Subscriber 17 October 24, 2016

Subscriber 18 October 24, 2016

Subscriber 21 October 24, 2016

Subscriber 23 October 24, 2016

Subscriber 28 October 24, 2016

Subscriber 32 October 24, 2016

19
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 22 of 32 Page ID #:22

[3138846.5]

1

Prisoner Name: Date Returned to HRDC:

2

Subscriber 36 October 24, 2016

3

Subscriber 20 November 2, 2016

4

Subscriber 29 December 14, 2016

5

Subscriber 29 January 21, 2017

6

Subscriber 29 March 6, 2017

7

8

51. On information and belief, a vast majority of the other subscription

9 renewal letters mailed by HRDC to individual prisoners at Men’s Central Jail were

10 censored by Defendants.

11

52. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs are unconstitutional both

12 facially and as applied to HRDC.

13

53. Defendants’ censorship policies, practices, and customs have a chilling

14 effect on HRDC’s future speech and expression directed toward prisoners at Men’s

15 Central Jail.

16

54. HRDC will continue to mail subscription renewal letters to subscribers

17 at Men’s Central Jail.

18

Censorship of Information Brochure Packets

19

55. Since August 2015, HRDC has identified at least eight (8) separate

20 occasions in which informational brochure packets that were individually addressed

21 to prisoners were censored by Defendants. These brochures were sent directly to

22 individuals who requested information about HRDC publications and to others who

23 were identified by HRDC as people likely to be in need of the information that

24 HRDC distributes. Defendants sent the packets back to HRDC by return mail, at

25 HRDC’s expense, indicating various reasons for the return including the following:

26

(1) “CONTENTS UNACCEPTABLE”; and

27

(2) “BANNED 8/29.”

28 / / /

20
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 23 of 32 Page ID #:23

[3138846.5]

1

56. These eight occasions are as follows:

2

Prisoner Name: Date Returned to HRDC:

3

Subscriber 16 August 30, 2016

4

Subscriber 18 August 30, 2016

5

Subscriber 20 August 30, 2016

6

Subscriber 21 August 30, 2016

7

Subscriber 28 August 30, 2016

8

Subscriber 36 August 30, 2016

9

Subscriber 40 September 2, 2016

10

Subscriber 41 September 2, 2016

11

12

57. On information and belief, a vast majority of the other informational

13 brochure packets mailed to individual prisoners at Men’s Central Jail were censored

14 by Defendants.

15

58. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs are unconstitutional both

16 facially and as applied to HRDC.

17

59. Defendants’ censorship policies, practices, and customs have a chilling

18 effect on HRDC’s future speech and expression directed toward prisoners at Men’s

19 Central Jail.

20

60. HRDC will continue to mail informational brochure packets to

21 prisoners at Men’s Central Jail.

22

Censorship of Court Opinions

23

61. Since August 2015, HRDC has identified at least seven (7) individually

24 addressed copies of court opinions mailed to prisoners at Men’s Central Jail that

25 Defendants censored. All of these court opinions were copies of the Ninth Circuit’s

26 opinion in Clement v. California Dept. of Corr., 364 F.3d1148 (9th Cir. 2004),

27 which concerns the validity of a prison regulation barring prisoners from receiving

28 material printed from the internet. These court opinions were sent directly to

21
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 24 of 32 Page ID #:24

[3138846.5]

1 individuals who requested them and to others who were identified by HRDC as

2 people likely to be in need of the information.

3

62. All of the above court opinions were sent back to HRDC by return

4 mail, at HRDC’s expense, indicating various reasons for the return including the

5 following: “CONTENTS UNACCEPTABLE.”

6

63. These seven occasions are as follows:

7

Prisoner Name: Date Returned to HRDC:

8

Subscriber 16 August 30, 2016

9

Subscriber 18 August 30, 2016

10

Subscriber 20 August 30, 2016

11

Subscriber 21 August 30, 2016

12

Subscriber 28 August 30, 2016

13

Subscriber 36 August 30, 2016

14

Subscriber 29 June 13, 2017

15

16

64. On information and belief, a vast majority of the other court opinions

17 mailed by HRDC to individual prisoners at Men’s Central Jail were censored by

18 Defendants.

19

65. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs are unconstitutional both

20 facially and as applied to HRDC.

21

66. Defendants’ censorship policies, practices, and customs have a chilling

22 effect on HRDC’s future speech and expression directed toward prisoners at Men’s

23 Central Jail.

24

67. HRDC will continue to mail court opinions to prisoners at Men’s

25 Central Jail.

26

Defendants’ Censorship of HRDC’s Communication to Prisoners in the Restrictive Housing Unit (K-10)

27

28

68. Of the one hundred and ten (110) monthly and sample issues of Prison

22
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 25 of 32 Page ID #:25

[3138846.5]

1 Legal News, noted supra in ¶¶ 35-36 and 42-43, Plaintiff has identified at least

2 seventy-four (74) of those individually addressed issues that were mailed to

3 prisoners in the K-10 unit at Men’s Central Jail. When censoring these issues,

4 Defendants have indicated various reasons for the returned issues, including the

5 following:

6

(1) “CONTENTS UNACCEPTABLE … K-10 NO NEWSPAPERS”;

7

(2) “K-10 INMATE NO MAGAZINES”;

8

(3) “K-10 … NO MAGAZINES … SECURITY ISSUE – SAFETY OF INMATES AND CUSTODY STAFF”;

9

(4) “CONTENTS UNACCEPTABLE … NOT CASE RELATED …

10

K-10 NO NEWSPAPERS”;

11

(5) “CONTENTS UNACCEPTABLE … INMATE K-10 … NO MAG ALLOWED”;

12

(6) “CONTENTS UNACCEPTABLE … K-10 NO MAGAZINES

13

ALLOWED”; and

14

(7) “K-10 NO MAGAZINES ALLOWED.”

15

69. On information and belief, a vast majority, if not all, other monthly and

16 sample issues of Prison Legal News mailed to individual prisoners in the K-10 unit

17 were censored by Defendants.

18

70. Defendants house prisoners in the K-10 unit for a variety of reasons.

19 The K-10 unit houses pretrial detainees who have been accused of high-profile

20 crimes, regardless of their behavior in custody, as well as prisoners whom

21 Defendants have determined need to be protected for other reasons. On information

22 and belief, other prisoners are housed in K-10 only as a result of being improperly

23 “de-classed,” or discharged, from a mental health classification. The K-10 unit also

24 houses prisoners whom Defendants deem a threat to jail security and discipline, but

25 on information and belief, these prisoners are not housed in K-10 as part of a

26 behavioral modification program, and some of them have not committed any

27 disciplinary infractions while in Men’s Central Jail. Even among those prisoners

28 who have committed disciplinary infractions in the past, on information and belief,

23
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 26 of 32 Page ID #:26

[3138846.5]

1 some remain housed in K-10 despite demonstrating no current disciplinary

2 problems.

3

71. Defendants have violated and continue to violate HRDC’s

4 constitutional right to communicate with prisoners in the K-10 unit.

5

72. As stated infra, Defendants did not provide adequate notice to HRDC

6 of the reasons for this censorship, or allow it an opportunity to appeal the censorship

7 decisions.

8

73. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs are unconstitutional both

9 facially and as applied to HRDC’s communication with prisoners in the K-10 unit.

10

74. Defendants’ censorship policies, practices, and customs have a chilling

11 effect on HRDC’s future speech and expression directed toward prisoners in the K-

12 10 unit at Men’s Central Jail.

13

75. HRDC will continue to communicate with prisoners in the K-10 unit at

14 Men’s Central Jail.

15

Defendants’ Failure to Provide Due Process

16

76. Defendants’ Inmate Mail Regulations, as stated on the Sheriff’s

17 Department website, fail to provide any explanation why HRDC’s publications and

18 other correspondence have been or are being censored.

19

77. Defendants’ mail policy also fails to require notice of censorship be

20 given to either the intended recipient or the sender of censored mail, nor does it

21 provide an avenue by which the censorship decision can be appealed.

22

78. In all of the above instances of censorship of HRDC’s communication,

23 Defendants failed to provide due process notice to HRDC of the reason for rejecting

24 its materials, in violation of HRDC’s Fourteenth Amendment rights.

25

79. Some of the items returned to HRDC by Defendants contain no

26 indication why the item was censored. Other items returned to HRDC bear

27 notations such as “CONTENTS UNACCEPTABLE,” but those notations fail to

28 explain the penological justification for Defendants’ censorship decisions, fail to

24
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 27 of 32 Page ID #:27

[3138846.5]

1 identify the specific mail policy they relied on, state different reasons for censoring

2 identical items of mail, and otherwise fail to give meaningful notice of the

3 censorship.

4

80. On information and belief, Defendants in other instances refused to

5 deliver HRDC’s communication to prisoners at the Men’s Central Jail, yet failed to

6 return the censored items to HRDC and failed to provide HRDC with any notice of

7 censorship.

8

81. At no time did Defendants provide an opportunity for HRDC to appeal

9 the censorship of its mail.

10 Defendants’ Unconstitutional Mail Policy is Causing HRDC Ongoing Harm

11

82. Due to Defendants’ actions described above, HRDC has suffered

12 damages, and will continue to suffer damages, including, but not limited to: the

13 violation of the HRDC’s constitutional rights; the impediment of HRDC’s ability to

14 disseminate its political message; frustration of HRDC’s non-profit organizational

15 mission; diversion of resources; loss of potential subscribers and customers; an

16 inability to recruit new subscribers and supporters; the loss of reputation; and the

17 costs of printing, handling, mailing, and staff time.

18

83. Defendants’ actions and inactions were and are motivated by ill motive

19 and intent, and were and are all committed under color of law and with reckless

20 indifference to HRDC’s rights.

21

84. Defendants, and their agents, are responsible for or personally

22 participated in creating and implementing these unconstitutional policies, practices,

23 and customs, or for ratifying or adopting them. Further, Defendants are responsible

24 for training and supervising the staff persons whose conduct has injured and

25 continues to injure HRDC.

26

85. Defendants’ unconstitutional policy, practices, and customs are

27 ongoing, continue to violate HRDC’s rights, and are the moving force behind the

28 constitutional violations. Defendants’ unconstitutional policy, practices, and

25
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 28 of 32 Page ID #:28

[3138846.5]

1 customs will continue unless enjoined. As such, HRDC has no adequate remedy at

2 law.

3

86. HRDC is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from

4 refusing to deliver its monthly magazine Prison Legal News, sample issues of

5 Prison Legal News, informational brochure packets, subscription renewal letters and

6 court opinions without any legal justification, and prohibiting Defendants from

7 censoring mail without due process of law.

8

HRDC’s Exhaustion of Pre-Lawsuit Procedures for State-Law Claims

9

87. HRDC submitted a state tort claim to Defendant COUNTY OF LOS

10 ANGELES on April 10, 2017. The County responded by letter on April 13, 2017,

11 asserting that HRDC’s claim was untimely as to activities occurring before October

12 9, 2016. On May 25, 2017, the County notified HRDC by letter that its claim was

13 rejected as it pertains to activities occurring since October 10, 2016.

14

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

15

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (For Violations of the First Amendment Under Color Of State Law – Free

16

Speech; Section 1983)

17

88. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully

18 herein.

19

89. The acts described above constitute violations of HRDC’s rights, the

20 rights of other correspondents who have attempted to or intend to correspond with

21 prisoners at the Men’s Central Jail, and the rights of prisoners confined at the Men’s

22 Central Jail, under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

23

90. HRDC has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in

24 communicating with incarcerated individuals by sending information packets,

25 renewal letters, court opinions and magazines to them via U.S. Mail, a right clearly

26 established under existing case law.

27

91. The conduct of Defendants was objectively unreasonable and was

28 undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the

26
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 29 of 32 Page ID #:29

[3138846.5]

1 rights of others.

2

92. HRDC’s injuries and the violations of its constitutional rights were

3 directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Defendants, and

4 those policies were the moving force behind the violations.

5

93. The acts described above have caused damages to HRDC, and if not

6 enjoined, will continue to cause damage to HRDC.

7

94. HRDC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and nominal and

8 compensatory damages against all Defendants, except that it does not seek

9 injunctive relief against Defendant MCDONALD. HRDC seeks punitive damages

10 against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities.

11

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (For Violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Under

12

Color Of State Law; Section 1983)

13

95. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully

14 herein.

15

96. The acts described above constitute violations of HRDC’s rights, the

16 rights of other correspondents who have attempted to or intend to correspond with

17 prisoners at the Jail, and the rights of prisoners confined at the Jail, under the

18 Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

19

97. HRDC has a right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

20 Amendment to receive notice and an opportunity to object and/or appeal

21 Defendants’ decisions to prevent Plaintiff’s mail from reaching prisoners at the Jail.

22

98. Defendants’ policy and practice of censoring HRDC’S information

23 packets, renewal letters, court opinions and magazines fails to provide Plaintiff with

24 individualized notice of the censorship or an opportunity to be heard.

25

99. The conduct of Defendants was objectively unreasonable and was

26 undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the

27 rights of others.

28

100. HRDC’s injuries and the violations of its constitutional rights were

27
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 30 of 32 Page ID #:30

[3138846.5]

1 directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Defendants, and

2 which were the moving force behind the same.

3

101. The acts described above have caused damages to HRDC, and if not

4 enjoined, will continue to cause damage to HRDC.

5

102. HRDC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and nominal and

6 compensatory damages against all Defendants, except that it does not seek

7 injunctive relief against Defendant MCDONALD. HRDC seeks punitive damages

8 against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities.

9

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (For Violations of the Bane Act, California Civil Code Section 52.1)

10

11

103. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully

12 herein.

13

104. The acts described above constitute violations of HRDC’s rights under

14 California Civil Code § 52.1, in that they constitute interference by threats,

15 intimidation, and/or coercion with the exercise or enjoyment of HRDC’s rights

16 secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and Constitution and laws

17 of California. Defendants’ actions have caused actual damages to HRDC within the

18 meaning of California Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1.

19

105. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, HRDC is also

20 entitled to injunctive relief and an award of exemplary damages, civil penalties, and

21 attorneys’ fees, as provided by California Civil Code §§ 52 and 52.1, except that it

22 does not seek injunctive relief against Defendant MCDONALD.

23

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (For Violations of Article I, Section 2 of California Constitution – Free Speech)

24

25

106. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully

26 herein.

27

107. The acts described above constitute violations of HRDC’s speech rights

28 under Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution and have caused damage to

28
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 31 of 32 Page ID #:31

[3138846.5]

1 HRDC, and will continue to cause damage.

2

108. As a result of the conduct of Defendants, HRDC seeks declaratory and

3 injunctive relief against all Defendants, except that it does not seek injunctive relief

4 against Defendant MCDONALD.

5

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (For Violations of Article I, Section 7 of California Constitution – Due Process)

6

7

109. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully

8 herein.

9

110. By failing to give HRDC sufficient notice of the censorship of its

10 publications, and an opportunity to be heard with respect to that censorship,

11 Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive HRDC of liberty and property

12 without due process of law, in violation of the Article I, Section 7 of the California

13 Constitution, and have caused damage to HRDC, and will continue to cause

14 damage.

15

111. As a result of the conduct of Defendants, HRDC seeks declaratory and

16 injunctive relief against all Defendants, except that it does not seek injunctive relief

17 against Defendant MCDONALD.

18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as follows:

20

1. A declaration that Defendants’ policies and practices violate the U.S.

21 Constitution and California Constitution;

22

2. A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Defendants from

23 continuing to violate the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution, and

24 providing other equitable relief;

25

3. Nominal damages for each violation of HRDC’s rights by the

26 Defendants;

27

4. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial;

28

5. Punitive damages against the individual Defendants in an amount to be

29
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 32 of 32 Page ID #:32

[3138846.5]

1 proved at trial;

2

6. Costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988

3 and under other applicable law, including but not limited to California Civil Code

4 § 52.1 and California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; and

5

7. Any other such relief that this Court deems just and equitable.

6

7 DATED: July 3, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

8

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

9

10

By: /s/ Jeffrey L. Bornstein Jeffrey L. Bornstein

11

12

Attorneys for Plaintiff

13

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

14

Plaintiff, the Human Rights Defense Center, hereby demands a trial by jury

15 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.

16

17 DATED: July 3, 2017 18 19 20 21 22

Respectfully submitted,
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
By: /s/ Jeffrey L. Bornstein Jeffrey L. Bornstein
Attorneys for Plaintiff

23

24

25

26

27

28

30
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

 
 Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 50 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:770

1

NO JS-6

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

11
12 v.
13

Plaintiff,

14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

) CASE NO. CV 17-4883-R ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ) MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY ) INJUNCTION ) ) ) ) )

17

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 35), which was

18 filed on July 17, 2017. Having been thoroughly briefed by both parties, this Court took the matter

19 under submission on August 29, 2017.

20

Plaintiff publishes and distributes Prison Legal News (“PLN”), a monthly journal of

21 corrections news and editorial content about legal issues affecting prisoners. PLN is distributed in

22 approximately 2,200 correctional facilities throughout the country, including Men’s Central Jail

23 (“MCJ”) in Los Angeles. Plaintiff also sends other written communications to inmates, including

24 subscription renewal letters, informational brochure packets, and copies of court opinions.

25 Defendants operate MCJ, which receives about 2,300 pieces of mail each day.

26

Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction based on alleged violations of its First and

27 Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unconstitutionally

28 rejected 149 pieces of mail sent by Plaintiff over a two-year period. Plaintiff also alleges that

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 50 Filed 09/25/17 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:771

1 Defendants denied Plaintiff due process by failing to give notice of the rejection and a chance to

2 appeal.

3

A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a

4 clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,

5 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). A party is entitled to injunctive relief upon a showing that: (1) it is

6 likely to succeed on the merits, (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

7 preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in the moving party’s favor, and (4) an

8 injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20. This Court finds that Plaintiff has not made the

9 requisite showing to justify the “extraordinary remedy” that is a preliminary injunction.

10

First, the Court must determine the likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits. A

11 prison policy violates the First Amendment where the plaintiff shows that the policy is not

12 “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

13 In making this determination, the court looks to: (1) whether the regulation is rationally related to

14 a legitimate and neutral government objective, (2) whether inmates have alternative avenues of

15 exercising their rights, (3) the impact that accommodating the right will have on guards and other

16 prisoners, and on the allocation of prison resources, and (4) whether the existence of easy and

17 obvious alternatives indicates that the regulation is an exaggerated response. Id. at 89-90.

18

Here, Plaintiff’s claim fails at its inception because Plaintiff does not show that Defendants

19 enacted any regulation causing rejection of PLN and associated written content. On the contrary,

20 PLN is an expressly approved publication at MCJ. Although MCJ has a policy limiting

21 periodicals to current issues, the policy results in few rejections. Moreover, Plaintiff does not

22 show that the policy has caused the rejection of any of its communications. Plaintiff also does not

23 demonstrate, but rather assumes, that some of its communications were rejected because of a ban

24 on PLN. Plaintiff does not provide any evidence of this ban. Even to the extent Defendants might

25 have improperly rejected some communications, Plaintiff does not show that the rejections were

26 based on unconstitutional policies. See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003) (according

27 “substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison administrators, who bear a

28 significant responsibility for defining the legitimate goals of a corrections system and for

2

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 50 Filed 09/25/17 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:772

1 determining the most appropriate means to accomplish them”). Therefore, Plaintiff does not show

2 that it will likely prevail on its First Amendment claim.

3

In order to prevail on a due process claim, the plaintiff must show that the prison officials

4 did not give senders of censored mail notice or an opportunity to appeal. Procunier v. Martinez,

5 416 U.S. 396, 418-19 (1974), overruled in part on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490

6 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989). “[T]he decision to censor or withhold delivery of a particular letter must

7 be accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards,” which requires only that “the author of that

8 letter be given a reasonable opportunity to protest that decision….” Id. at 417-18. Here, Plaintiff

9 has not demonstrated that it was deprived of notice or an opportunity to protest. First, Defendants

10 sent back each piece of rejected mail with a short, written explanation. Second, Plaintiff does not

11 allege that Defendants did not offer a chance to protest. Instead, Plaintiff merely points to other

12 prisons with explicit appeals policies. Plaintiff does not claim that it contacted Defendants to

13 challenge the rejection of its mail or that Defendants were unresponsive. Therefore, Plaintiff does

14 not show that it will likely prevail on its due process claim.

15

Next, the Court must assess the possibility of irreparable injury to Plaintiff in the absence

16 of injunctive relief. Irreparable injury must be more than merely speculative in order to warrant a

17 preliminary injunction. See Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Florida Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d

18 1239, 1249 (9th Cir. 2013). Here, even to the extent Plaintiff suffers irreparable injury when it

19 cannot reach inmates, Plaintiff does not explain how an injunction would provide relief. Plaintiff

20 does not show that any particular policy is responsible for the rejections and does not propose an

21 alternative. At best, any issuable injunction would order Defendants to follow current policy.

22 Therefore, it is unclear how a preliminary injunction would solve any irreparable injury to

23 Plaintiff.

24

Finally, Plaintiff has not shown that the balance of equities tips in its favor or that a

25 preliminary injunction is in the public interest. An injunction that forces Defendants to

26 immediately overhaul their entire mail system in a jail that receives 2,300 pieces of mail per day

27 will cause serious harm, especially where Plaintiff has not shown that an overhaul is warranted.

28 On the other hand, denial of an injunction means Plaintiff may temporarily reach a narrower

3

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 50 Filed 09/25/17 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:773

1 customer base. The balance favors Defendants. Furthermore, while the public is interested in

2 ensuring that prisoners can access reading materials, MCJ prisoners will continue to access these

3 materials absent an injunction from this Court. The public has an even stronger interest in prison

4 mail policies that prevent inmates from receiving dangerous items. An injunction that forces

5 Defendants to suddenly overhaul their entire system compromises that public interest. Therefore,

6 Plaintiff has not met its difficult burden of showing that a preliminary injunction is proper.

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is

8 DENIED. (Dkt. No. 35).

9

10 Dated: September 25, 2017.

11

12 ___________________________________

13

MANUEL L. REAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 
 Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 57 Filed 11/14/17 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:789

1

NO JS-6

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

12 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

) CASE NO. CV 17-4883-R )

13

Plaintiff,

) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

) MOTION TO DISMISS

14

v.

)

)

15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; et al.,

)

16

)

Defendants.

)

17

)

)

18

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which was filed on August 25, 2017.

19 (Dkt. No. 44). Having been fully briefed by both parties, this Court took the matter under

20 submission on September 27, 2017.

21

Plaintiff publishes and distributes Prison Legal News (“PLN”), a monthly journal of

22 corrections news and editorial content about legal issues affecting prisoners. PLN is distributed in

23 approximately 2,200 correctional facilities throughout the country, including Men’s Central Jail

24 (“MCJ”) in Los Angeles. Plaintiff also sends other written communications to inmates, including

25 subscription renewal letters, informational brochure packets, and copies of court opinions.

26 Defendants operate MCJ. Plaintiff sues the County of Los Angeles and thirteen individual

27 defendants for their alleged roles in inhibiting distribution of PLN throughout MCJ. Plaintiff

28 alleges violations of: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the free speech and due process clauses of the

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 57 Filed 11/14/17 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:790

1 Constitution, California’s Bane Act, and the free speech and due process clauses of the California

2 Constitution. Defendants move to dismiss the entire Complaint as to the thirteen individuals and

3 the Bane Act claim as to all defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

4

Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper when a complaint exhibits either “the lack of a

5 cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”

6 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Under the heightened

7 pleading standards of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

8 556 U.S. 662 (2009), a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible

9 on its face,” so that the defendant receives “fair notice of what the…claim is and the grounds upon

10 which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570. The plaintiff must plead “factual content that

11 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

12 alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Courts will not accept “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a

13 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements….” Id. “All allegations of material fact

14 are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Sprewell v.

15 Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).

16

“To state a claim under § 1983 against state officials in their individual capacities, a

17 plaintiff must plead that the officials, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a

18 federal right.” OSU Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2012). “[A] plaintiff

19 must plead that each government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions,

20 had violated the Constitution.” Id. at 1069. A complaint must contain “sufficient allegations of

21 underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable each of the County officers to defend him or

22 herself.” AE ex rel. Hernandez v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 637 (9th Cir. 2012). Where a

23 plaintiff does not know who devised an allegedly unconstitutional policy, the complaint must

24 create a plausible inference that the individual “promulgated, implemented, or in some other way

25 possessed responsibility” for the continued operation of the policy. See OSU, 699 F.3d at 1076.

26

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is fatally based on “conclusory allegations and generalities,

27 without any allegation of the specific wrong-doing by each Defendant.” Hydrick v. Hunter, 669

28 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012). The Complaint’s allegations against each individual defendant do

2

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 57 Filed 11/14/17 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:791

1 no more than recite each individual’s job description, and in some cases allege in conclusory

2 fashion that the individual was personally involved in adopting and/or implementing the policy.

3 For example: “Defendant NEAL TYLER is Executive Officer of the Sheriff’s Department,” and

4 “[u]pon information and belief, he is personally involved in the adoption and/or implementation of

5 the mail policies at issue and is responsible for overseeing, planning, coordinating and evaluating

6 the legality of the mail policies and practices at the Men’s Central Jail.” The Complaint does not

7 mention any individual thereafter. Without specific allegations of misconduct, the Court cannot

8 accept as plausible that any individual promulgated, implemented, or was responsible for the

9 continued operation of the policy. Mere allegations that an individual oversaw implementation of

10 the policy at issue, without more, is too “bald” and “conclusory” to accept as plausible. See Iqbal,

11 556 U.S. at 680-81 (allegations that attorney general was “principal architect” of policy and FBI

12 director was “instrumental in adopting and executing” policy were insufficient). Plaintiff has not

13 adequately pleaded that any individual, through his own actions, violated the Constitution.

14

Plaintiff’s alternative argument that the Complaint is at least sufficient as to Sheriff

15 McDonnell in his supervisory capacity fares no better. “A defendant may be held liable as a

16 supervisor under § 1983 if there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the

17 constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful

18 conduct and the constitutional violation.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011).

19 “The requisite causal connection can be established…by setting in motion a series of acts by

20 others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the

21 constitutional injury.” Redman v. Cnty. of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1448 (9th Cir. 1991).

22

Here, the Complaint alleges: “Defendant JIM MCDONNELL is the Los Angeles County

23 Sheriff,” and “is responsible for overseeing the management and operations of the jails, and for the

24 hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of the

25 personnel of the Los Angeles County jails who interpret and apply the jails’ inmate mail policy.

26 As Sheriff, Defendant MCDONNELL is a final policymaker for Defendant COUNTY OF LOS

27 ANGELES with respect to the operations of all Los Angeles County jails, inclusive of Men’s

28 Central Jail, including for policies governing incoming mail for inmates.” The Complaint does

3

Case 2:17-cv-04883-R-AS Document 57 Filed 11/14/17 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:792

1 not allege with specificity that Sheriff McDonnell was personally involved in creating or enforcing

2 the policy or that he “set in motion” acts by his subordinates that he knew or should have known

3 would cause injury. Moreover, the Complaint does not allege with specificity that Sheriff

4 McDonnell participated in, directed, or knew of the violations and failed to prevent them.

5 Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed as to Sheriff McDonnell and all other individual

6 defendants.

7

California’s Bane Act provides a cause of action for violations of constitutional rights.

8 Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1; Rivera v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 745 F.3d 384, 393 (9th Cir. 2014). There

9 are two elements to a Bane Act claim: “(1) intentional interference or attempted interference with

10 a state or federal constitutional or legal right, and (2) the interference or attempted interference

11 was by threats, intimidation or coercion.” Allen v. City of Sacramento, 183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 654, 676

12 (Ct. App. 2015). Where a violation is inherently coercive, some courts hold that a plaintiff is not

13 required to allege threats, intimidation, or coercion apart from the violation. See, e.g., M.H. v.

14 Cnty. of Alameda, 90 F. Supp. 3d 889, 897-98 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (plaintiff not required to show

15 separate coercion where plaintiff alleged deliberate indifference to medical needs).

16

Here, Plaintiff’s Bane Act claim fails because the Complaint does not plausibly allege that

17 Defendants threatened, intimidated, or coerced Plaintiff. The Complaint’s allegations that

18 Defendants rejected 149 pieces of mail, sometimes with notations such as “UNACCEPTABLE,”

19 and did not give Plaintiff notice or a chance to appeal, are insufficient. The Complaint’s

20 allegations that the rejections “constitute[d] interference by threats, intimidation, and/or coercion”

21 are conclusory and unsupported by the other allegations. Further, the act of rejecting mail is not

22 inherently coercive. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Bane Act claim is dismissed as to the County.

23

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (Dkt.

24 No. 44).

25 Dated: November 14, 2017.

26 ___________________________________
27

28

MANUEL L. REAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4