Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 Lisa Ells – Cal. Bar No. 243657* Jenny S. Yelin – Cal. Bar No. 273601*
2 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 lells@rbgg.com jyelin@rbgg.com
6
Lance Weber – Fla. Bar No. 104550* 7 Sabarish Neelakanta – Fla. Bar No. 26623*
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER 8 Post Office Box 1151
Lake Worth, Florida 33460-1151 9 Telephone: (561) 360-2523
Facsimile: (866) 735-7136 10 lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
sneelakanta@humanrightsdefensecenter.org 11

12 David J. Bodney

13

bodneyd@ballardspahr.com Heather Todd Horrocks

14

horrocksh@ballardspahr.com BALLARD SPAHR LLP

15

1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

16

Telephone: 602.798.5400 Facsimile: 602.798.5595

17 * Pro Hac Vice applications to be filed 18 forthwith
19 Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

22 Prison Legal News, a project of the Human 23 Rights Defense Center,

24

Plaintiff,

25

v.

26

Charles L. Ryan, in his official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of

27

Corrections and in his individual capacity; Gail Rittenhouse, in her official capacity as

28

Division Director, Support Services of the Arizona Department of Corrections and in

her individual capacity; Jeff Hood, in his

NO. __________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DMWEST #13240601 v1

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 official capacity as Deputy Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections and in
2 his official capacity; Alf Olson, in his official capacity as an employee of the
3 Office of Publication Review of the Arizona Department of Corrections and in his
4 individual capacity; and Does 1 to 20, inclusive,
5 Defendants.
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DMWEST #13240601 v1

2

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS (“PLN” or “Plaintiff”), a project of the

3 Human Rights Defense Center, brings this action regarding Defendants’ censorship of

4 four issues of its monthly publication mailed to prisoners in the Arizona Department of

5 Corrections (“ADC”), in violation of PLN’s clearly established rights under the First and

6 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendants have adopted and

7 implemented mail policies and a pattern of practices that unconstitutionally prevent

8 distribution of PLN’s eponymously named monthly publication. The censored issues

9 contain articles that include non-salacious descriptions of sexual activity to make clear

10 the factual basis for legal cases of interest to PLN’s readers. In particular, Defendants

11 refuse to deliver issues of PLN’s monthly publication to subscribers in ADC facilities

12 when those issues contain articles describing sexual contact between jail or prison guards

13 and prisoners to which the prisoners did not consent.

14

2. Defendants’ mail policies and practices also do not afford constitutionally

15 adequate notice and an opportunity to challenge Defendants’ censorship, in violation of

16 PLN’s right to due process. Defendants’ actions violate PLN’s rights and the rights of

17 others under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

18 Amendment. PLN thus brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking

19 injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages to be proven at trial.

20

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21

3. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

22 States Constitution and is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has subject

23 matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The Court has

24 jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 57.

25

4. Venue is proper in the District of Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)

26 because substantial acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District,

27 including Defendants’ implementation of the challenged mail policies and practices, and

28 because Defendants reside in this District.

DMWEST #13240601 v1

3

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 4 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1

PARTIES

2

5. Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS is a project of the Human Rights

3 Defense Center, a Washington non-profit corporation. PLN publishes a 72-page monthly

4 journal of corrections news and analysis called Prison Legal News, and distributes books

5 about the criminal justice system and legal issues affecting prisoners to prisoners,

6 lawyers, courts, libraries, and the public throughout the country.

7

6. The Defendants listed below are sued in their official capacities only for

8 equitable relief as to each and every violation of federal rights alleged in this complaint.

9 Defendants are also sued in their individual capacities for damages.

10

7. Defendant CHARLES L. RYAN (“RYAN”) is, and at all relevant times

11 herein mentioned was, the Director of the ADC, the state agency that manages the

12 correctional facilities within the State of Arizona. Defendant RYAN has ultimate

13 responsibility for the promulgation and implementation of ADC policies, procedures, and

14 practices and for the management of the ADC. As to all claims presented herein against

15 him, Defendant RYAN is being sued in his individual capacity for damages, and in his

16 official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. At all relevant times, Defendant

17 RYAN has acted under color of state law.

18

8. Defendant GAIL RITTENHOUSE is, and at all relevant times herein

19 mentioned was, Division Director, Support Services of ADC. Defendant

20 RITTENHOUSE is responsible for the promulgation and implementation of policies,

21 procedures, and practices at the ADC. As to all claims presented herein against her,

22 Defendant RITTENHOUSE is being sued in her individual capacity for damages, and in

23 her official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. At all relevant times,

24 Defendant RITTENHOUSE has acted under color of state law.

25

9. Defendant JEFF HOOD is, and at all relevant times herein mentioned was,

26 Deputy Director of ADC. Defendant HOOD is responsible for the promulgation and

27 implementation of policies, procedures, and practices at the ADC. As to all claims

28 presented herein against him, Defendant HOOD is being sued in his individual capacity

DMWEST #13240601 v1

4

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 5 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 for damages, and in his official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. At all

2 relevant times, Defendant HOOD has acted under color of state law.

3

10. Defendant ALF OLSON is, and at all relevant times herein mentioned was,

4 an ADC employee who worked or works in the Office of Publication Review. Defendant

5 OLSON is responsible for the promulgation and implementation of policies, procedures,

6 and practices at the ADC. As to all claims presented herein against him, Defendant

7 OLSON is being sued in his individual capacity for damages associated with clearly

8 established federal rights, and in his official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief.

9 At all relevant times, Defendant OLSON has acted under color of state law.

10

11. The names and capacities of the persons sued as DOES 1 to 20, inclusive,

11 herein are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Each of Defendants DOES 1 through 20 is

12 or was employed by and is or was an agent of ADC when some or all of the challenged

13 prisoner mail policies and practices were adopted and/or implemented. Each of

14 Defendants DOES 1 through 20 is or was personally involved in the adoption and/or

15 implementation of the ADC’s mail policies for prisoners, and/or is or was responsible for

16 the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and/or

17 control of the ADC staff who interpret and implement these prisoner mail policies. Each

18 of Defendants DOES 1 through 20 is or was acting under color of state law. Each of

19 Defendants DOES 1 through 20 is sued in his or her individual capacity for damages and

20 his or her official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. PLN will seek to amend

21 this Complaint as soon as the true names and identities of Defendants DOES 1 through

22 20 have been ascertained.

23

12. Each and every act and omission alleged herein of Defendants, their

24 officers, agents, servants, employees, or persons acting at their behest or direction, were

25 done and are continuing to be done under the color of state law and within the scope of

26 their official duties as officers, employees or agents of the ADC. Each Defendant was or

27 is an agent of each other Defendant in committing the unconstitutional acts alleged in this

28 complaint.

DMWEST #13240601 v1

5

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 6 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2

13. Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS publishes and distributes Prison Legal

3 News: Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights, a monthly journal of corrections news and

4 analysis. PLN also publishes and distributes paperback books about the criminal justice

5 system and legal issues impacting prisoners.

6

14. Prison Legal News has thousands of subscribers in the United States and

7 abroad, including prisoners, attorneys, journalists, public libraries, judges, and other

8 members of the public. PLN distributes its publication to prisoners and law librarians in

9 approximately 2,600 correctional facilities across the United States, including institutions

10 within the Federal Bureau of Prisons and all of the adult prisons of the California

11 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

12

15. PLN also distributes approximately fifty (50) different books about the

13 criminal justice system, legal reference books, and self-help books of interest to

14 prisoners. These books are designed to foster a better understanding of criminal justice

15 policies and to allow prisoners to educate themselves about related issues, such as legal

16 research, how to write a business letter, health care issues, and similar topics.

17

16. Plaintiff’s organizational purpose, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation,

18 is to disseminate legal information on issues affecting prisoners and their loved ones on

19 the outside and to educate prisoners and the public about the destructive nature of racism,

20 sexism, and the economic and social costs of prisons to society, among other purposes.

21

17. For more than 25 years, the core of PLN’s mission has been public

22 education, advocacy and outreach on behalf of, and for the purpose of assisting, prisoners

23 who seek legal redress for infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed and other

24 basic human rights. PLN’s mission, if realized, has a salutary effect on public safety.

25

18. PLN engages in core protected speech and expressive conduct on matters of

26 public concern, such as the operations of corrections facilities, jail and prison conditions,

27 prisoner health and safety, and prisoners’ rights. PLN regularly receives correspondence

28 from prisoners in correctional facilities around the country, including ADC prisons, in

DMWEST #13240601 v1

6

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 7 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 which they ask questions and report on jail or prison conditions.

2

19. Currently, PLN has ninety-seven (97) subscribers to its monthly publication

3 at ADC facilities. Despite ADC’s recent censorship of issues of Prison Legal News, PLN

4 continues to pursue its mission to promote public safety through educational and

5 journalistic avenues by sending its monthly publication to prisoners confined at ADC

6 prisons.

7

Overview of Censorship and Lack of Due Process

8

20. Until approximately March 2014, ADC prisoners who subscribed to Prison

9 Legal News or ordered other publications from PLN generally received those publications

10 without incident.

11

21. Beginning in March 2014, Defendants began refusing to deliver certain

12 issues of Prison Legal News to prisoner subscribers in the custody of ADC with more

13 consistency. In particular, Defendants refused to deliver the March 2014, April 2014,

14 July 2014, and October 2014 issues of Prison Legal News.

15

22. Defendants did not return the censored issues of Prison Legal News to

16 PLN, nor did they provide any notice to PLN of their refusal to deliver the issues. PLN

17 only learned of the censorship from its subscribers.

18

23. After PLN notified Defendant RYAN, the director of ADC, on February 6,

19 2015 of the unlawful censorship of Prison Legal News in ADC facilities and of

20 Defendants’ failure to provide due process to PLN, Defendants reconsidered some of

21 their censorship decisions. But to date, Defendants have still not delivered the full,

22 uncensored version of the October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News, and some prisoner

23 subscribers never received copies of the other three previously censored issues that

24 Defendants ultimately agreed to deliver after PLN protested the censorship.

25

24. Moreover, in its February 6, 2015 letter to Defendants, PLN asked

26 Defendants to identify all issues of Prison Legal News that it censored from March 2014

27 to February 2015. Defendants informed PLN about three of the four issues they had

28 censored, but never informed PLN that they censored the March 2014 issue. As alleged

DMWEST #13240601 v1

7

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 8 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 infra, PLN later confirmed Defendants’ censorship of the March 2014 issue from another

2 source.

3

25. ADC’s mail policies (a true and correct copy of which are attached hereto

4 as Exhibit A) state that publications are “prohibited” in ADC facilities if they contain,

5 inter alia, “depictions or descriptions that incite, aid, or abet riots, work stoppages, or

6 means of resistance,” or “pictures, photographs, illustrations, text or other content that

7 may encourage unacceptable sexual or hostile behaviors, or creates a hostile environment

8 for volunteers, including but not limited to sexual representations of inmates, law

9 enforcement, military, professional medical staff, teachers and Clergy.” Exhibit A, ADC

10 DO 914.08, Policy Numbers 1.1.1; 1.1.18. ADC policies also prohibit publications with

11 “sexually explicit material,” which is defined as “publications that contain any of the

12 following acts and behaviors either visually, written, or in audio (non-lyric) form: (1)

13 Physical contact by another person with a person’s unclothed genitals, pubic area,

14 buttocks, or if such a person is a female, breast; (2) Sadomasochistic abuse; (3) Sexual

15 intercourse, vaginal or anal, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality or sodomy; (4) Masturbation,

16 excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals; (5) Incestuous sexual activity;

17 (6) Sexual activity involving an unwilling participant, or a participant who is the subject

18 of coercion, or any sexual activity involving children.” Exhibit A, ADC DO 914.07,

19 Policy Number 1.2.

20

26. Defendants’ policies do not contain an exception permitting delivery of

21 publications that describe sexual acts in a non-salacious way as part of an article

22 reporting on the facts of a court case or published legal decision, such as the articles in

23 the issues of Prison Legal News that Defendants censored.

24

27. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that ADC’s

25 censorship policies and practices are widespread. In addition to their censorship of

26 Prison Legal News, Defendants have also recently refused to deliver issues of

27 publications such as Bloomberg Business, The Economist, National Geographic, and

28 Newsweek to prisoner subscribers in ADC facilities.

DMWEST #13240601 v1

8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 9 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1

28. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants’

2 policies and practices continue to deprive publishers such as PLN of any notice or

3 opportunity to appeal when their publications are not delivered to prisoner subscribers.

4

Censorship of March 2014 Issue of Prison Legal News

5

29. On or about March 10, 2014, PLN mailed its March 2014 Prison Legal

6 News publication to ninety-seven (97) of ADC prisoners in Defendants’ custody at the

7 following ADC facilities: Arizona State Prison-Kingman; ASPC Aspen; ASPC Douglas;

8 ASPC Eyman-Browning; ASPC Eyman-Cook; ASPC Eyman-Meadows; ASPC Eyman-

9 Rynning; ASPC Eyman-SMU; ASPC Florence Central; ASPC Florence East; ASPC

10 Florence North Unit; ASPC Florence South; ASPC Lewis-Barchey; ASPC Lewis-

11 Buckley; ASPC Lewis-Rast; ASPC Lewi-Stiner; ASPC Perryville-Lumley; ASPC

12 Perryville-San Pedro; ASPC Perryville-Santa Cruz; ASPC Santa Maria; ASPC Tucson-

13 Cimarron; ASPC Tucson-Manzanita; ASPC Tucson-Rincon; ASPC Tucson-Winchester;

14 ASPC Winslow; ASPC Yuma-Cheyenne; ASPC Yuma-Cibola; ASPC Yuma-Dakota;

15 Central Arizona Correctional Institute; Central Arizona Correctional Facility; and

16 Florence Correctional Center. A true and correct copy of the March 2014 issue is

17 attached hereto as Exhibit B.

18

30. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that many of the

19 prisoner subscribers incarcerated at the ADC facilities did not receive the March 2014

20 issue of Prison Legal News. Several subscribers in ADC facilities wrote to Plaintiff to

21 notify it that they did not receive the March 2014 issue, and/or sent Plaintiff copies of

22 notices they received from Defendants informing them that the March 2014 issue was

23 being withheld for purportedly violating Defendants’ mail policies.

24

31. PLN has never received any notice from Defendants that the March 2014

25 issue, or any article in it, would not be delivered or was not delivered to the addressed

26 recipients, even after PLN asked Defendants to identify all issues of Prison Legal News

27 from March 2014 to February 2015 that were censored in ADC facilities.

28

32. In 2015, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) submitted a request

DMWEST #13240601 v1

9

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 10 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 pursuant to the Arizona Public Records Law, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 39-121 et seq. to the

2 ADC. The ADC, in response, produced to the ACLU a copy of an ADC “Notice of

3 Result-Publication Review” dated May 9, 2014 (“May 9, 2014 Notice”), which excluded

4 the March 2014 issue of Prison Legal News from distribution in ADC facilities. A true

5 and correct copy of that notice is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

6

33. The May 9, 2014 Notice states that the March 2014 issue of Prison Legal

7 News was excluded because of “Riots/Work Stoppages/Resistance,” and “Unacceptable

8 Sexual or Hostile Behaviors,” and cites to Department Order (“DO”) 914.08, Policy

9 Numbers 1.1.1 and 1.1.18 (see Exhibit A). The Notice does not specify which article(s)

10 or page(s) of the March 2014 issue of Prison Legal News purportedly violated those

11 policies.

12

34. There are no articles in the March 2014 issue of Prison Legal News which

13 “incite, aid, or abet riots, work stoppages, or means of resistance,” or that “may

14 encourage unacceptable sexual or hostile behaviors.” Exhibit A, DO 914.08, Policy

15 Numbers 1.1.1 and 1.1.18.

16

35. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the article in the

17 March 2014 issue to which Defendants objected is on page 54 of the issue, and is entitled

18 “Ninth Circuit Holds Staff Sexual Abuse Presumed Coercive; State Bears Burden of

19 Rebutting Presumption.” See Exhibit B at 54. The article describes the facts underlying

20 a Ninth Circuit reported decision, including a non-salacious description of sexual contact

21 between a prison guard and a prisoner in an Idaho prison, to which the prisoner did not

22 consent.

23

36. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have

24 never delivered the March 2014 issue to any PLN subscribers incarcerated in ADC

25 facilities.

26

Censorship of April 2014 Issue of Prison Legal News

27

37. On or about April 4, 2014, PLN mailed its April 2014 Prison Legal News

28 publication to one-hundred and fourteen (114) ADC prisoners in Defendants’ custody at

DMWEST #13240601 v1

10

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 11 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 the following ADC facilities: Arizona State Prison-Kingman; ASPC Aspen; ASPC

2 Douglas; ASPC Eyman-Browning; ASPC Eyman-Cook; ASPC Eyman-Meadows; ASPC

3 Eyman-Rynning; ASPC Eyman-SMU; ASPC Florence Central; ASPC Florence East;

4 ASPC Florence North Unit; ASPC Florence South; ASPC Bachman; ASPC Lewis-

5 Barchey; ASPC Lewis-Buckley; ASPC Lewis-Rast; ASPC Lewi-Stiner; ASPC

6 Perryville-Lumley; ASPC Perryville-Piestewa; ASPC Perryville-San Pedro; ASPC

7 Perryville-Santa Cruz; ASPC Santa Maria; ASPC Tucson-Cimarron; ASPC Tucson-

8 Manzanita; ASPC Tucson-Rincon; ASPC Tucson-Winchester; ASPC Winslow; ASPC

9 Yuma-Cheyenne; ASPC Yuma-Cibola; ASPC Yuma-Dakota; ASPC Phoenix-Alhambra;

10 ASPC Safford-Tonto; Central Arizona Correctional Institute; Central Arizona

11 Correctional Facility; and Florence Correctional Center. A true and correct copy of the

12 April 2014 issue of PLN is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

13

38. PLN did not receive any notice from Defendants that the April 2014 issue,

14 or any article in it, would not be delivered or was not delivered to the addressed

15 recipients.

16

39. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that many of the

17 prisoner subscribers incarcerated at the ADC facilities did not receive the April 2014

18 issue of Prison Legal News. Several subscribers in ADC facilities wrote to Plaintiff to

19 notify it that they did not receive the April 2014 issue, and/or sent Plaintiff copies of

20 notices they received from Defendants informing them that the April 2014 issue was

21 being withheld for purportedly violating Defendants’ mail policies.

22

40. On or about March 20, 2015, in response to a letter from PLN regarding the

23 censorship of its publications in ADC facilities, Assistant Attorney General Pamela J.

24 Linnins informed PLN that the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News had been excluded

25 from ADC prisons. Ms. Linnins did not identify the reason for the censorship of the

26 April 2014 issue.

27

41. In the same letter, Ms. Linnins also notified PLN that, after PLN objected

28 to the censorship, Defendants had reconsidered their decision to withhold the April 2014

DMWEST #13240601 v1

11

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 12 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 issue of Prison Legal News from distribution to subscribers in ADC facilities.

2

42. On or about May 26, 2015, after PLN sent a follow-up letter objecting to

3 the censorship and requesting Defendants’ basis for doing so, Defendants provided PLN

4 with a copy of the Notice of Result-Publication Review for the April 2014 issue of Prison

5 Legal News, which had a “Review Date” of November 25, 2014 (“November 25, 2014

6 Notice”). A true and correct copy of the November 25, 2014 Notice is attached hereto as

7 Exhibit E.

8

43. The November 25, 2014 Notice states that the April 2014 issue of Prison

9 Legal News was excluded from ADC facilities pursuant to DO 914.08, Policy Number

10 1.1.18, “Unacceptable Sexual or Hostile Behaviors.” See Exhibit A. The Notice does

11 not specify which article(s) or page(s) of the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News

12 purportedly violated those policies.

13

44. There are no articles in the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News that

14 “may encourage unacceptable sexual or hostile behaviors.” Exhibit A, DO 914.08,

15 Policy Number 1.1.18.

16

45. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the article in the

17 April 2014 issue to which Defendants objected is on page 20 of the issue, and is entitled

18 “Kitchen Supervisor Gets Prison Time for Sexually Abusing Two Prisoners.” See

19 Exhibit D at 20. The article describes the facts underlying a criminal case in the United

20 States District Court for the District of Arizona, including a non-salacious description of

21 non-consensual sexual contact between a prison kitchen supervisor and two prisoners in a

22 federal prison in Arizona.

23

46. In the May 26, 2015 correspondence from Ms. Linnins, Defendants

24 provided PLN with a copy of a follow-up Notice of Result-Publication Review for the

25 April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News, with a “Review Date” of March 18, 2015

26 (“March 18, 2015 Reconsideration Notice”). A true and correct copy of the March 18,

27 2015 Reconsideration Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit F. The March 18, 2015

28 Reconsideration Notice states that the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News would be

DMWEST #13240601 v1

12

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 13 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 allowed.

2

47. On June 22, 2015, Defendants notified PLN that the April 2014 issue of

3 Prison Legal News had been distributed to subscribers.

4

48. Plaintiff is informed and believed and thereon alleges that while some

5 subscribers to Prison Legal News incarcerated in ADC prisons ultimately received their

6 copies of the April 2014 issue, others never did, even though those subscribers remained

7 in custody after the March 18, 2015 Reconsideration Notice and Defendants’ June 22,

8 2015 confirmation that the issue had been delivered.

9

49. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that some of

10 the subscribers to Prison Legal News who were incarcerated in ADC facilities in April

11 2014 never received the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News because they were no

12 longer in custody when Defendants decided to reverse their initial censorship decision

13 approximately one year later.

14

Censorship of July 2014 Issue of Prison Legal News

15

50. On or about July 1, 2014, PLN mailed its July 2014 Prison Legal News

16 publication to one hundred and thirty-five (135) ADC prisoners in Defendants’ custody at

17 the following ADC facilities: Arizona State Prison-Kingman; Arizona State Prison –

18 Kingman/Cerbat; ASPC Aspen; ASPC Douglas; ASPC Eyman-Browning; ASPC

19 Eyman-Cook; ASPC Eyman-Meadows; ASPC Eyman-Rynning; ASPC Eyman-SMU;

20 ASPC Florence – Globe Detention; ASPC Florence Central; ASPC Florence East; ASPC

21 Florence North Unit; ASPC Florence South; ASPC Bachman; ASPC Lewis-Barchey;

22 ASPC Lewis-Buckley; ASPC Lewis-Rast; ASPC Lewi-Stiner; ASPC Perryville-Lumley;

23 ASPC Perryville-Piestewa; ASPC Perryville-San Pedro; ASPC Perryville-Santa Cruz;

24 ASPC Santa Maria; ASPC Tucson-Cimarron; ASPC Tucson-Manzanita; ASPC Tucson-

25 Rincon; ASPC Tucson-Winchester; ASPC Winslow; ASPC Yuma-Cheyenne; ASPC

26 Yuma-Cibola; ASPC Yuma-Dakota; ASPC Phoenix-Alhambra; ASPC Safford-Tonto;

27 Central Arizona Correctional Institute; Central Arizona Correctional Facility; and

28 Florence Correctional Center. A true and correct copy of the July 2014 issue is attached

DMWEST #13240601 v1

13

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 14 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 hereto as Exhibit G.

2

51. PLN did not receive any notice from Defendants that the July 2014 issue, or

3 any article in it, would not be delivered or was not delivered to the addressed recipients.

4

52. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that many of the

5 prisoner subscribers incarcerated at the ADC facilities did not receive the July 2014 issue

6 of Prison Legal News. Several subscribers in ADC facilities wrote to Plaintiff to notify it

7 that they did not receive the July 2014 issue, and/or sent Plaintiff copies of notices they

8 received from Defendants informing them that the July 2014 issue was being withheld for

9 purportedly violating Defendants’ mail policies.

10

53. On or about March 20, 2015, in response to a letter from PLN regarding the

11 censorship of its publications in ADC facilities, Assistant Attorney General Pamela J.

12 Linnins informed PLN that the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News had been excluded

13 from ADC prisons. Ms. Linnins did not state the reason for the censorship of the July

14 2014 issue.

15

54. Also in that letter, Ms. Linnins notified PLN that Defendants had

16 reconsidered their decision to withhold the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News from

17 distribution to subscribers in ADC facilities.

18

55. On or about May 26, 2015, after PLN sent a follow-up letter objecting to

19 the censorship and requesting Defendants’ basis for doing so, Defendants provided PLN

20 with a copy of an undated “Complex Publications Review – Sexually Explicit Material”

21 form (“Undated Complex Publications Review Form”) from the ASPC-Tucson facility

22 for the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News, completed by an ADC staff member

23 identified as “AA II Vasquez” from the “Complex-Level Publications Staff.” A true and

24 correct copy of the Undated Complex Publications Review Form is attached hereto as

25 Exhibit H.

26

56. The Undated Complex Publications Review Form states that the July 2014

27 issue of Prison Legal News was excluded from ADC facilities pursuant to DO 914.07,

28 Policy Numbers 1.1 through 1.2.2.6, which prohibit “publications that feature nudity

DMWEST #13240601 v1

14

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 15 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 and/or sexual behaviors and/or the publication is promoted based on such depictions.”

2 See Exhibit A. The Notice does not specify which article(s) or page(s) of the July 2014

3 issue of Prison Legal News purportedly violated those policies.

4

57. There are no articles in the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News which

5 “feature nudity and/or sexual behaviors,” and Prison Legal News is not “promoted based

6 on such depictions.”

7

58. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the article in the

8 July 2014 issue to which Defendants objected is on page 36 of the issue, and is entitled

9 “New York Jail Guard Sentenced for Sexually Abusing Seven Prisoners.” See Exhibit G

10 at 36. The article describes the facts of a state criminal case and federal civil rights cases,

11 including a non-salacious description of forced sexual contact between a jail guard and

12 seven prisoners in a New York correctional facility.

13

59. In the May 26, 2015 correspondence from Ms. Linnins, Defendants

14 provided PLN with a copy of a Memorandum from Defendant OLSON in the Office of

15 Publication Review to a prisoner whose name was redacted, dated January 15, 2015 and

16 regarding “Prison Legal News, July 2014, V25 N7” (“January 15, 2015 Memorandum”).

17 A true and correct copy of that Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit I.

18

60. The January 15, 2015 Memorandum notified the prisoner that upon second

19 review, the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News was determined “not [to] contain

20 material that meets the sexually explicit criteria,” that the “prior decision to exclude this

21 publication is rescinded,” and that the publication “shall be distributed to those inmates

22 who were to receive the edition.” Exhibit I (emphasis in original).

23

61. On June 22, 2015, Defendants notified PLN that the April 2014 issue of

24 Prison Legal News had been distributed to subscribers.

25

62. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that while some

26 subscribers to Prison Legal News incarcerated in ADC prisons received their copies of

27 the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News, others did not, even though they remained in

28 ADC custody after January 15, 2015 Memorandum and Defendants’ June 22, 2015

DMWEST #13240601 v1

15

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 16 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 confirmation that the issue had been delivered.

2

63. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some of the

3 subscribers to Prison Legal News who were incarcerated in ADC facilities in July 2014

4 never received the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News because they were no longer in

5 custody when Defendants decided to reverse their initial censorship decision

6 approximately six months later.

7

Censorship of October 2014 Issue of Prison Legal News

8

64. On or about October 9, 2014, PLN mailed its October 2014 Prison Legal

9 News publication to one hundred and forty-two (142) ADC prisoners in Defendants’

10 custody at the following ADC facilities: Arizona State Prison-Kingman; Arizona State

11 Prison – Kingman/Cerbat; ASPC Aspen; ASPC Douglas; ASPC Eyman-Browning;

12 ASPC Eyman-Cook; ASPC Eyman-Meadows; ASPC Eyman-Rynning; ASPC Eyman-

13 SMU; ASPC Florence – Globe Detention; ASPC Florence Central; ASPC Florence East;

14 ASPC Florence North Unit; ASPC Florence South; ASPC Bachman; ASPC Lewis-

15 Barchey; ASPC Lewis-Buckley; ASPC Lewis-Rast; ASPC Lewi-Stiner; ASPC

16 Perryville-Lumley; ASPC Perryville-Piestewa; ASPC Perryville-San Pedro; ASPC

17 Perryville-Santa Cruz; ASPC Santa Maria; ASPC Tucson-Cimarron; ASPC Tucson-

18 Manzanita; ASPC Tucson-Rincon; ASPC Tucson-Winchester; ASPC Winslow; ASPC

19 Yuma-Cheyenne; ASPC Yuma-Cibola; ASPC Yuma-Dakota; ASPC Phoenix-Alhambra;

20 ASPC Safford-Tonto; Central Arizona Correctional Institute; Central Arizona

21 Correctional Facility; and Florence Correctional Center. A true and correct copy of the

22 October 2014 issue is attached hereto as Exhibit J.

23

65. PLN did not receive any notice from Defendants that the October 2014

24 issue, or any article in it, would not be delivered or was not delivered to the addressed

25 recipients.

26

66. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that many of the

27 prisoner subscribers incarcerated at the ADC facilities did not receive the October 2014

28 issue of Prison Legal News, and none of the prisoner subscribers incarcerated at the ADC

DMWEST #13240601 v1

16

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 17 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 facilities received a full, unredacted copy of the October 2014 issue. Several subscribers

2 in ADC facilities wrote to Plaintiff to notify it that they did not receive the October 2014

3 issue, and/or sent Plaintiff copies of notices they received from Defendants informing

4 them that the October 2014 issue was being withheld for purportedly violating

5 Defendants’ mail policies.

6

67. On or about March 20, 2015, in response to a letter from PLN regarding the

7 censorship of its publications in ADC facilities, Assistant Attorney General Pamela J.

8 Linnins informed PLN that the October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News had been

9 excluded from ADC prisons. Ms. Linnins did not state the reason for the censorship of

10 the October 2014 issue.

11

68. On or about May 26, 2015, after PLN sent a follow-up letter objecting to

12 the censorship and requesting Defendants’ basis for doing so, Defendants provided PLN

13 with a copy of the Notice of Result-Publication Review for the October 2014 issue of

14 Prison Legal News, which had a “Review Date” of February 11, 2015 (“February 11,

15 2015 Notice”). A true and correct copy of the February 11, 2015 Notice is attached

16 hereto as Exhibit K.

17

69. The February 11, 2015 Notice states that the October 2014 issue of Prison

18 Legal News was excluded from ADC facilities pursuant to DO 914.07, “Sexually Explicit

19 Material.” See Exhibit A. The February 11, 2015 Notice does not specify which

20 article(s) or page(s) of the October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News purportedly violated

21 that policy.

22

70. On or about June 22, 2015, Defendants informed PLN that, after further

23 review of the October 2014 issue, Defendants distributed a redacted version of the issue

24 to subscribers. A true and correct copy of the page of the October 2014 issue with those

25 redactions is attached hereto as Exhibit L. PLN did not authorize Defendants to make

26 any redactions or modifications to its publication at any point.

27

71. The unredacted version of the article Defendants censored appears on page

28 32 of the October 2014 issue, and is entitled “Tenth Circuit Holds ‘Consensual’ Sex

DMWEST #13240601 v1

17

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 18 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 Defeats Prisoner’s Eighth Amendment Claim.” See Exhibit J at 32. The article

2 describes the facts underlying an opinion by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Graham

3 v. Sheriff of Logan County, 741 F.3d 1118 (10th Cir. 2013), including a non-salacious

4 description of sexual contact between a prisoner in a county jail and two jail guards, to

5 which the prisoner asserted she did not consent.

6

72. Defendants’ unauthorized redaction of the October 2014 issue violates

7 Defendants’ own mail policies. ADC DO 914.06, Policy Number 1.12 prohibits ADC

8 staff from “remov[ing] pages of any publication to make the publication acceptable,”

9 because “[r]emoving pages alters the publication rendering it as contraband.” See

10 Exhibit A.

11

73. PLN has never received an updated Notice of Result-Publication Review

12 for the October 2014 issue that indicates that the issue was delivered to subscribers, with

13 or without the redactions.

14

74. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some subscribers

15 to Prison Legal News incarcerated in ADC prisons received copies of the redacted

16 October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News between March 18, 2015 and June 22, 2015.

17

75. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some of the

18 subscribers to Prison Legal News who were incarcerated in ADC facilities in October

19 2014 never received the October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News because they were no

20 longer in custody when Defendants decided to reverse their censorship decision. Plaintiff

21 is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that additional subscribers may not

22 have received the redacted issue, even though they remained in custody after March 18,

23 2015.

24

Defendants Failed to Provide Due Process to PLN

25

76. Defendants did not provide PLN with constitutionally adequate due process

26 when censoring PLN’s written speech. Defendants provided neither notice nor an

27 opportunity to appeal the aforementioned censorship decisions at or shortly after the time

28 they occurred.

DMWEST #13240601 v1

18

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 19 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1

77. Defendants failed to provide notice to PLN of the reason for rejecting

2 issues of Prison Legal News by, among other inadequacies, failing to notify PLN directly

3 of their refusal to deliver the issues to Prison Legal News subscribers in a timely fashion

4 (or at all), failing to explain the basis for their censorship decisions or to identify the mail

5 policies relied on at the time of the decision, and otherwise failing to give meaningful

6 notice of the censorship. Even when Defendants notified PLN of the censorship months

7 after it occurred, in response to inquiries from PLN, Defendants failed to identify specific

8 articles or pages of the issues of Prison Legal News that they found objectionable, and

9 failed to notify PLN that they had censored the March 2014 issue. At no time did

10 Defendants provide an opportunity for PLN to appeal the rejection of its mail.

11

78. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants fail

12 to provide notice and an opportunity to appeal to other senders of censored mail

13 addressed to prisoners at the ADC prisons.

14

79. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants fail

15 to provide constitutionally adequate notice to some of the prisoner subscribers when

16 ADC censors issues of Prison Legal News. Defendants also fail to provide the same

17 prisoner subscribers with any opportunity to be heard to challenge the censorship

18 decisions.

19

ADC Policies and Practices Do Not Provide for Notice and Are Overbroad

20

80. ADC policies do not provide for any notice to be given to the publisher or

21 sender when a publication or mailing is censored by ADC staff. Exhibit A, ADC DO

22 914.02, Policy Number 1.7 specifies that “[u]nauthorized property or material discovered

23 in incoming mail shall be removed,” and a “Notice to Sender of Rejection of Incoming

24 Mail, Form 909-3, shall be completed and sent to the inmate.” The policy is explicit that

25 the ADC “shall not pay for the cost of notifying the sender.” Exhibit A, ADC DO

26 914.02, Policy Number 1.7 violates constitutional requirements regarding notice to

27 senders of mail to prison prisoners.

28

81. Moreover, ADC policies explicitly prohibit appeals of “decisions to

DMWEST #13240601 v1

19

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 20 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 exclude publications” from ADC facilities. Exhibit A, ADC DO 914.06, Policy Number

2 1.13 states that “[p]reviously excluded Publications shall not be re-submitted for review

3 or appeal under this Department Order.” Exhibit A, ADC DO 914.06, Policy Number

4 1.13 violates constitutional requirements regarding due process for senders of mail to

5 prison prisoners.

6

82. Similarly, while ADC DO 914.07, Policy Number 1.5 provides an

7 opportunity for a prisoner recipient of a publication deemed to contain “Sexually Explicit

8 Material” to request second-level review of ADC staff’s decision to exclude the

9 publication, it has no such provision for the publisher or sender to request a second-level

10 review. Exhibit A, ADC DO 914.07, Policy Number 1.5 violates constitutional

11 requirements regarding due process for senders of mail to prison prisoners.

12

83. As noted above, Defendants’ policies prohibiting distribution of

13 publications with sexual content do not contain any exception for discussion of sexual

14 acts in a non-salacious manner for the purpose of discussing the facts underlying a

15 reported decision or legal proceeding, and are therefore overbroad.

16

84. Allowing PLN to distribute publications with articles that contain a

17 discussion of sexual acts in a non-salacious manner for the purpose of discussing the facts

18 underlying a court case will not have any negative impact on the operation of ADC

19 facilities or programs.

20

85. Defendants’ mail policies, practices, and customs have been used to censor

21 PLN’s correspondence with prisoners at ADC prisons, in particular PLN’s monthly

22 publication.

23

86. Defendants’ conduct prohibiting distribution of at least four issues of

24 Prison Legal News in a seven month period in 2014 to prisoners confined at ADC prisons

25 violates the First Amendment. Defendants’ policies, practices and customs censor PLN’s

26 expressive activities and have a chilling effect on PLN’s future speech and expression

27 directed toward inmates confined there. Defendants’ policies, practices and customs are

28 unconstitutional both facially and as applied to PLN. Defendants’ censorship of Prison

DMWEST #13240601 v1

20

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 21 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 Legal News serves no legitimate penological purpose.

2

87. PLN publishes and distributes content concerning the rights of prisoners

3 and the means by which they may obtain relief from unconstitutional conditions of

4 confinement. As a result, PLN is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

5 Defendants have retaliated against PLN by refusing to deliver PLN’s written materials to

6 inmates held at ADC prisons.

7

88. Defendants’ actions have violated, continue to violate, and are reasonably

8 expected in the future to violate PLN’s constitutional rights, and have caused Plaintiff

9 financial harm in the form of lost subscriptions and diversion of resources to address the

10 censorship. In addition, Defendants’ actions have frustrated Plaintiff’s mission of

11 education and advocacy, including the dissemination of PLN’s political message, and the

12 reporting and publishing of news regarding the human and legal rights of persons held in

13 prisons and jails. Further, Defendants’ actions have interfered with PLN’s ability to

14 recruit new donors, writers and supporters.

15

89. Defendants’ actions and inactions were and are malicious, oppressive, and

16 were and are all committed under color of law with reckless disregard to PLN’s rights.

17

90. Defendants CHARLES L. RYAN, GAIL RITTENHOUSE, JEFF HOOD,

18 ALF OLSON, DOES 1 to 20, and other agents of the ADC are responsible for or

19 personally participated in creating and implementing these unconstitutional policies,

20 practices, and customs, or for ratifying or adopting them. Further, Defendants are

21 responsible for training and supervising the mail staff whose conduct has injured and

22 continues to injure PLN.

23

91. Defendants’ unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs are ongoing,

24 and continue to violate PLN’s rights. It is likely that Defendants will continue to censor

25 future issues of Prison Legal News in violation of the First Amendment and without

26 providing due process. As such, PLN has no adequate remedy at law.

27

92. PLN is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from refusing to

28 deliver its publication without any legal justification, and prohibiting Defendants from

DMWEST #13240601 v1

21

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 22 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 censoring mail without due process of law.

2

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

3

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Against all Defendants – For Violations of the First Amendment Under Color of

4

State Law – Free Speech; Section 1983)

5 93. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every

6 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-92.

7

94. The acts described above constitute violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the

8

First Amendment to the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and have

9

caused and will continue to cause damages and irreparable injury to Plaintiff.

10

95. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal and

11

compensatory damages, against all Defendants.

12

96. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that in engaging in

13

the conduct alleged herein, the individual Defendants acted with the intent to injure, vex,

14

annoy and harass Plaintiff, and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in

15

conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intention of causing Plaintiff injury and

16 depriving it of its constitutional rights.

17 97. As a result of the forgoing, Plaintiff seeks nominal and compensatory

18 damages against Defendants in their individual capacities.

19 98. Moreover, Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that in

20 engaging in the conduct alleged herein, the individual Defendants’ actions were

21 malicious, oppressive, and/or in reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, and therefore

22 Plaintiff seeks exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants in their individual

23 capacities.

24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

25

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

26

(Against all Defendants – For Violations of the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment Under Color of State Law) 27

28

99. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every

DMWEST #13240601 v1

22

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 23 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-98.

2

100. By failing to give Plaintiff sufficient notice of the censorship of its written

3 speech, and by failing to give an opportunity to be heard with respect to that censorship,

4 Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiff of liberty and property

5 without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

6 States Constitution via 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

7

101. The acts described above have caused and will continue to cause damage to

8 Plaintiff.

9

102. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal and

10 compensatory damages, against all Defendants.

11

103. Moreover, Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that in

12 engaging in the conduct alleged herein, the individual Defendants’ actions were

13 malicious, oppressive, and/or in reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, and therefore

14 Plaintiff seeks exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants in their individual

15 capacities.

16

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

17

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

18

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the Human Rights

19 Defense Center, prays for judgment against Defendants CHARLES L. RYAN, in his

20 official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections and in his

21 individual capacity; GAIL RITTENHOUSE, in her official capacity as Division Director,

22 Support Services of the Arizona Department of Corrections and in her individual

23 capacity; JEFF HOOD, in his official capacity as Deputy Director of the Arizona

24 Department of Corrections and in his individual capacity; ALF OLSON, in his official

25 capacity as an employee of the Office of Publication Review of the Arizona Department

26 of Corrections and his individual capacity; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, as follows:

27

1. A declaration that Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate the

28 First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

DMWEST #13240601 v1

23

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 24 of 24

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street
Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

1

2. An order enjoining all Defendants and their employees, agents, and any and

2 all persons acting in concert with them from further violating Plaintiff’s and other

3 senders’ civil rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

4 Constitution.

5

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

6

4. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

7

5. Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

8

6. Costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and

9 under other applicable law.

10

7. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

11

8. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

12

13

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

14

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

15

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6th day of November, 2015.

16

BALLARD SPAHR LLP

17

18

By: /s/ David J. Bodney

David J. Bodney

19

bodneyd@ballardspahr.com

Heather Todd Horrocks

20

horrocksh@ballardspahr.com

1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300

21

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DMWEST #13240601 v1

24

 
 Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 LISA ELLS – Cal. Bar No. 243657* KRISTA STONE-MANISTA – Cal. Bar No. 269083*
2 ANDREW G. SPORE – Cal. Bar No. 308756* ROSEN BIEN
3 GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor
4 San Francisco, California 94105-2235 Telephone: (415) 433-6830
5 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 lells@rbgg.com
6 kstonemanista@rbgg.com aspore@rbgg.com
7 SABARISH NEELAKANTA – Fla. Bar No. 26623*
8 DANIEL MARSHALL – Fla. Bar No. 617210* MASIMBA MUTAMBA – Fla. Bar No. 102772*
9 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER Post Office Box 1151
10 Lake Worth, Florida 33460-1151 Telephone: (561) 360-2523
11 Facsimile: (866) 735-7136 Email:
12 sneelakanta@hrdc-law.org dmarshall@hrdc-law.org
13 mmutamba@hrdc-law.org

14 DAVID J. BODNEY – Az. Bar No. 006065 MICHAEL DIGIACOMO – Az. Bar No. 032251
15 BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
16 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555 Telephone: (602) 798-5400
17 Facsimile: (602) 798-5595 bodneyd@ballardspahr.com
18 digiacomom@ballardspahr.com

19 * Admitted Pro Hac Vice

20 Attorneys for Plaintiff

21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

23 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the

Human Rights Defense Center,

24

Plaintiff,

25

v.

26

CHARLES L. RYAN, in his official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of

27

Corrections and in his individual capacity; GAIL RITTENHOUSE, in her official

28 capacity as Division Director, Support

Case No. CV-15-2245-PHX-ROS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 2 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 Services of the Arizona Department of

Corrections and in her individual capacity;

2 JEFF HOOD, in his official capacity as

Deputy Director of the Arizona Department of

3 Corrections and in his individual capacity;

ALF OLSON, in his individual capacity;

4 JAMES RIGGS, in his official capacity as an

employee of the Office of Publication Review

5 of the Arizona Department of Corrections and

his individual capacity; JAMIE GUZMAN, in

6 her official capacity as an employee of the

Office of Publication Review of the Arizona

7 Department of Corrections; and DOES 1 to

20, inclusive,

8

Defendants.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 3 of 30

[3184088.5]

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS (“PLN” or “Plaintiff”), a project of the

3 Human Rights Defense Center, brings this action regarding Defendants’ censorship of four

4 issues of its monthly publication mailed to prisoners in Arizona Department of Corrections

5 (“ADC”), in violation of PLN’s clearly established rights under the First and Fourteenth

6 Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendants have adopted and

7 implemented mail policies and a pattern of practices that unconstitutionally prevent

8 distribution of PLN’s eponymously named monthly publication. The censored issues

9 contain articles that include non-salacious descriptions of sexual activity to make clear the

10 factual basis for legal cases of interest to PLN’s readers. In particular, Defendants refuse

11 to deliver issues of PLN’s monthly publication to subscribers in ADC facilities when those

12 issues contain articles describing sexual contact between jail or prison guards and prisoners

13 to which the prisoners did not consent. Additionally, Defendants refuse to deliver a book

14 distributed by Plaintiff entitled The Celling of America: An Inside Look at the US Prison

15 Industry, edited by Daniel Burton-Rose, Dan Pens, and Paul Wright.

16

2. Defendants’ mail policies and practices also do not afford constitutionally

17 adequate notice and an opportunity to challenge Defendants’ censorship, in violation of

18 PLN’s right to due process. Defendants’ actions violate PLN’s rights and the rights of

19 others under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

20 Amendment. PLN thus brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking

21 injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages to be proven at trial.

22

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

23

3. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

24 States Constitution and is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has subject

25 matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The Court has

26 jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and F.R.C.P. 57.

27

4. Venue is proper in the District of Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)

28 because substantial acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District,
1
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 4 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 including Defendants’ implementation of the challenged mail policies and practices, and

2 because Defendants reside in this District.

3

PARTIES

4

5. Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS is a project of the Human Rights Defense

5 Center, a Washington non-profit corporation. PLN publishes a 72-page monthly journal of

6 corrections news and analysis called Prison Legal News, and distributes books about the

7 criminal justice system and legal issues affecting prisoners to prisoners, lawyers, courts,

8 libraries, and the public throughout the country.

9

6. The Defendants listed below are sued in their official capacities only for

10 equitable relief as to each and every violation of federal rights alleged in this complaint.

11 Defendants are also sued in their individual capacities for damages.

12

7. Defendant CHARLES L. RYAN (“RYAN”) is, and at all relevant times

13 herein mentioned was, the Director of the ADC, the state agency that manages the

14 correctional facilities within the State of Arizona. Defendant RYAN has ultimate

15 responsibility for the promulgation and implementation of ADC policies, procedures, and

16 practices and for the management of the ADC. Each ADC policy, procedure, or practice

17 challenged by Plaintiff was promulgated, enacted, and implemented during Defendant

18 RYAN’s tenure as Director of the ADC. Defendant RYAN has ultimate responsibility for

19 each of these policies, and possesses unilateral authority to enact new policies, or to

20 modify or repeal existing policies. (D.O. 101.02, subparts 1.3.1.1 & 1.4). As to Plaintiff’s

21 due process claims presented herein against him, Defendant RYAN is being sued in his

22 individual capacity for damages, and in his official capacity for injunctive and declaratory

23 relief. As to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims presented herein against him, Defendant

24 RYAN is being sued in his official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief only. At

25 all relevant times, Defendant RYAN has acted under color of state law.

26

8. Defendant GAIL RITTENHOUSE is, and at all relevant times herein

27 mentioned was, Division Director, Support Services of ADC. Defendant RITTENHOUSE

28 is responsible for the promulgation and implementation of policies, procedures, and
2
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 5 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 practices at the ADC. Defendant RITTENHOUSE performed duties including supervising

2 the operations of the Office of Publication Review at all relevant times mentioned herein.

3 As to Plaintiff’s due process all claims presented herein against her, Defendant

4 RITTENHOUSE is being sued in her individual capacity for damages, and in her official

5 capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. As to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims

6 presented herein against her, Defendant RITTENHOUSE is being sued in his official

7 capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. At all relevant times, Defendant

8 RITTENHOUSE has acted under color of state law.

9

9. Defendant JEFF HOOD is, and at all relevant times herein mentioned was,

10 Deputy Director of ADC. Defendant HOOD is responsible for the promulgation and

11 implementation of policies, procedures, and practices at the ADC. Under Department

12 Order 914, effective February 26, 2010, until March 4, 2016, Defendant HOOD had an

13 official duty to perform publication review. Pursuant to this duty, Defendant HOOD

14 personally participated in the review of the October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News, and

15 personally participated in the decision to redact that issue. Pursuant to this duty,

16 Defendant HOOD supervised the Office of Publication Review and its employees and

17 provided training to its employees, including Defendant RIGGS, as to publication review

18 duties and expectations. As to Plaintiff’s due process claims presented herein against him,

19 Defendant HOOD is being sued in his individual capacity for damages, and in his official

20 capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. As to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims

21 presented herein against him, Defendant HOOD is being sued in his official capacity for

22 injunctive and declaratory relief only. At all relevant times, Defendant HOOD has acted

23 under color of state law.

24

10. Defendant ALF OLSON at all relevant times herein mentioned, before May

25 31, 2016, was an ADC employee who worked or works in the Office of Publication

26 Review. As of May 31, 2016, Defendant OLSON retired from ADC. Defendant OLSON

27 was responsible for the promulgation and implementation of policies, procedures, and

28 practices at the ADC. Defendant OLSON participated in each act of censorship and failure
3
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 6 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 to provide process alleged herein to have occurred before May 31, 2016, including by

2 personally reviewing each issue of Prison Legal News alleged to have been censored

3 herein before May 31, 2016. As to Plaintiff’s due process claims presented herein against

4 him, Defendant OLSON is being sued in his individual capacity for damages associated

5 with clearly established federal rights. At all relevant times, Defendant OLSON has acted

6 under color of state law.

7

11. Defendant JAMES RIGGS is, and at all relevant times herein mentioned

8 was, an ADC employee who worked or works in the Office of Publication Review.

9 Defendant RIGGS is Quality Assurance Administrator of the Office of Publication Review

10 and is responsible for the promulgation and implementation of policies, procedures, and

11 practices at the ADC. At all relevant times herein, before May 31, 2016, Defendant

12 RIGGS participated in the operations of the Office of Publication Review and was

13 personally responsible for the censorship decisions of the Office of Publication Review,

14 including decisions to redact content from publications. At all relevant times herein,

15 before May 31, 2016, Defendant RIGGS personally performed publication review and

16 personally assisted the publication review duties of Defendant OLSON, including review

17 of Prison Legal News. Defendant RIGGS personally participated in the decision to redact

18 the October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News, including by overseeing distribution, if any,

19 of unauthorized redacted versions of the issue within all ADC facilities. As to Plaintiff’s

20 due process claims presented herein against him, Defendant RIGGS is being sued in his

21 individual capacity for damages associated with clearly established federal rights, and in

22 his official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. As to Plaintiff’s First

23 Amendment claims presented herein against him, Defendant RIGGS is being sued in his

24 official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. At all relevant times, Defendant

25 RIGGS has acted under color of state law.

26

12. Defendant JAMIE GUZMAN is, and at all relevant times after May 31, 2016

27 herein mentioned was, an ADC employee who worked or works in the Office of

28 Publication Review. Defendant GUZMAN is the current head of the Office of Publication
4
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 7 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 Review and is responsible for the promulgation and implementation of policies,

2 procedures, and practices at the ADC. Since Defendant OLSON’s retirement, Defendant

3 GUZMAN is and has been personally responsible for the censorship decisions of the

4 Office of Publication Review, including decisions to redact content from publications.

5 Defendant GUZMAN personally participated in ADC’s decision to censor the April, May,

6 and June 2017 issues of Prison Legal News, including by reviewing these issues, by

7 overseeing and executing any redactions made to these issues, and by overseeing and

8 executing the distribution, if any, of unauthorized redacted versions of these issues within

9 all ADC facilities. As to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims presented herein against her,

10 Defendant GUZMAN is being sued in her official capacity for injunctive and declaratory

11 relief. At all relevant times, Defendant GUZMAN has acted under color of state law.

12

13. The names and capacities of the persons sued as DOES 1 to 20, inclusive,

13 herein are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Each of Defendants DOES 1 through 20 is or

14 was employed by and is or was an agent of ADC when some or all of the challenged

15 prisoner mail policies and practices were adopted and/or implemented. Each of

16 Defendants DOES 1 through 20 is or was personally involved in the adoption and/or

17 implementation of the ADC’s mail policies for prisoners, and/or is or was responsible for

18 the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and/or control

19 of the ADC staff who interpret and implement these prisoner mail policies. Each of

20 Defendants DOES 1 through 20 is or was acting under color of state law. Each of

21 Defendants DOES 1 through 20 is sued in his or her individual capacity for damages and

22 his or her official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. PLN will seek to amend

23 this Complaint as soon as the true names and identities of Defendants DOES 1 through 20

24 have been ascertained.

25

14. Each and every act and omission alleged herein of Defendants, their officers,

26 agents, servants, employees, or persons acting at their behest or direction, were done and

27 are continuing to be done under the color of state law and within the scope of their official

28 duties as officers, employees or agents of the ADC. Each Defendant was or is an agent of
5
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 8 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 each other Defendant in committing the unconstitutional acts alleged in this complaint.

2

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3

15. Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS publishes and distributes Prison Legal

4 News: Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights, a monthly journal of corrections news and

5 analysis. PLN also publishes and distributes paperback books about the criminal justice

6 system and legal issues impacting prisoners.

7

16. Prison Legal News has thousands of subscribers in the United States and

8 abroad, including prisoners, attorneys, journalists, public libraries, judges, and other

9 members of the public. PLN distributes its publication to prisoners and law librarians in

10 approximately 2,600 correctional facilities across the United States, including institutions

11 within the Federal Bureau of Prisons and all of the adult prisons of the California

12 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

13

17. PLN also distributes approximately fifty (50) different books about the

14 criminal justice system, legal reference books, and self-help books of interest to prisoners.

15 These books are designed to foster a better understanding of criminal justice policies and

16 to allow prisoners to educate themselves about related issues, such as legal research, how

17 to write a business letter, health care issues, and similar topics. PLN is a distributor for

18 The Celling of America: An Inside Look at the US Prison Industry, edited by Daniel

19 Burton-Rose, Dan Pens, and Paul Wright.

20

18. Plaintiff’s organizational purpose, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation, is

21 to disseminate legal information on issues affecting prisoners and their loved ones on the

22 outside and to educate prisoners and the public about the destructive nature of racism,

23 sexism, and the economic and social costs of prisons to society, among other purposes.

24

19. For more than 25 years, the core of PLN’s mission has been public

25 education, advocacy and outreach on behalf of, and for the purpose of assisting, prisoners

26 who seek legal redress for infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed and other

27 basic human rights. PLN’s mission, if realized, has a salutary effect on public safety.

28

20. PLN engages in core protected speech and expressive conduct on matters of

6
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 9 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 public concern, such as the operations of corrections facilities, jail and prison conditions,

2 prisoner health and safety, and prisoners’ rights. PLN regularly receives correspondence

3 from prisoners in correctional facilities around the country, including ADC prisons, in

4 which they ask questions and report on jail or prison conditions.

5

21. Currently, PLN has one-hundred and sixty-five (165) subscribers to its

6 monthly publication at ADC facilities. Despite ADC’s recent censorship of issues of

7 Prison Legal News, PLN continues to pursue its mission to promote public safety through

8 educational and journalistic avenues by sending its monthly publication to prisoners

9 confined at ADC prisons.

10

Overview of Censorship and Lack of Due Process

11

22. Until approximately March 2014, ADC prisoners who subscribed to Prison

12 Legal News or ordered other publications from PLN generally received those publications

13 without incident.

14

23. Beginning in March 2014, Defendants began refusing to deliver certain

15 issues of Prison Legal News to prisoner subscribers in the custody of ADC with more

16 consistency. In particular, Defendants refused to deliver the March 2014, April 2014, July

17 2014, and October 2014 issues of Prison Legal News.

18

24. Defendants did not return the censored issues of Prison Legal News to PLN,

19 nor did they provide any notice to PLN of their refusal to deliver the issues. PLN only

20 learned of the censorship from its subscribers.

21

25. After PLN notified Defendant RYAN, the director of ADC, on February 6,

22 2015 of the unlawful censorship of Prison Legal News in ADC facilities and of

23 Defendants’ failure to provide due process to PLN, Defendants reconsidered some of their

24 censorship decisions. But to date, Defendants have still not delivered the full, uncensored

25 version of the October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News, and some prisoner subscribers

26 never received copies of the other three previously censored issues that Defendants

27 ultimately agreed to deliver after PLN protested the censorship.

28

26. Moreover, in its February 6, 2015 letter to Defendants, PLN asked

7
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 10 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 Defendants to identify all issues of Prison Legal News that it censored from March 2014 to

2 February 2015. Defendants informed PLN about three of the four issues they had

3 censored, but never informed PLN that they censored the March 2014 issue. As alleged

4 infra, PLN later confirmed Defendants’ censorship of the March 2014 issue from another

5 source.

6

27. Since at least February 2, 2011, and continuing until at least May 2015,

7 Defendants have also censored the PLN-distributed book The Celling of America.

8 Defendants have refused to deliver The Celling of America to any ADC prisoner who

9 orders a copy of the book.

10

28. The ADC mail policies that were in effect at the time of ADC’s censorship

11 of the March, April, July, and October 2014 issues (a true and correct copy of which are

12 attached hereto as Exhibit A) state that publications are “prohibited” in ADC facilities if

13 they contain, inter alia, “depictions or descriptions that incite, aid, or abet riots, work

14 stoppages, or means of resistance,” or “pictures, photographs, illustrations, text or other

15 content that may encourage unacceptable sexual or hostile behaviors, or creates a hostile

16 environment for volunteers, including but not limited to sexual representations of inmates,

17 law enforcement, military, professional medical staff, teachers and Clergy.” Exhibit A,

18 ADC DO 914.08, Policy Numbers 1.1.1; 1.1.18. ADC policies also prohibit publications

19 with “sexually explicit material,” which is defined as “publications that contain any of the

20 following acts and behaviors either visually, written, or in audio (non-lyric) form: (1)

21 Physical contact by another person with a person’s unclothed genitals, pubic area,

22 buttocks, or if such a person is a female, breast; (2) Sadomasochistic abuse; (3) Sexual

23 intercourse, vaginal or anal, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality or sodomy; (4) Masturbation,

24 excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals; (5) Incestuous sexual activity; (6)

25 Sexual activity involving an unwilling participant, or a participant who is the subject of

26 coercion, or any sexual activity involving children.” Exhibit A, ADC DO 914.07, Policy

27 Number 1.2.

28

29. Defendants’ policies do not contain an exception permitting delivery of

8
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 11 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 publications that describe sexual acts in a non-salacious way for journalistic purposes, such

2 as news reporting on the facts of a court case or published legal decision, as was the case

3 in each of the articles in the issues of Prison Legal News that Defendants censored.

4

30. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that ADC’s censorship

5 policies and practices are widespread. In addition to their censorship of Prison Legal

6 News, Defendants have also recently refused to deliver issues of publications such as

7 Bloomberg Business, The Economist, National Geographic, and Newsweek to prisoner

8 subscribers in ADC facilities.

9

31. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants’

10 policies and practices continue to deprive publishers such as PLN of any notice or

11 opportunity to appeal when their publications are not delivered to prisoner subscribers.

12

Censorship of March 2014 Issue of Prison Legal News

13

32. On or about March 10, 2014, PLN mailed its March 2014 Prison Legal News

14 publication to ninety-seven (97) of ADC prisoners in Defendants’ custody at the following

15 ADC facilities: Arizona State Prison-Kingman; ASPC Aspen; ASPC Douglas; ASPC

16 Eyman-Browning; ASPC Eyman-Cook; ASPC Eyman-Meadows; ASPC Eyman-Rynning;

17 ASPC Eyman-SMU; ASPC Florence Central; ASPC Florence East; ASPC Florence North

18 Unit; ASPC Florence South; ASPC Lewis-Barchey; ASPC Lewis-Buckley; ASPC Lewis-

19 Rast; ASPC Lewis-Stiner; ASPC Perryville-Lumley; ASPC Perryville-San Pedro; ASPC

20 Perryville-Santa Cruz; ASPC Santa Maria; ASPC Tucson-Cimarron; ASPC Tucson-

21 Manzanita; ASPC Tucson-Rincon; ASPC Tucson-Winchester; ASPC Winslow; ASPC

22 Yuma-Cheyenne; ASPC Yuma-Cibola; ASPC Yuma-Dakota; Central Arizona

23 Correctional Institute; Central Arizona Correctional Facility; and Florence Correctional

24 Center. A true and correct copy of the March 2014 issue is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

25

33. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that many of the

26 prisoner subscribers incarcerated at the ADC facilities did not receive the March 2014

27 issue of Prison Legal News. Several subscribers in ADC facilities wrote to Plaintiff to

28 notify it that they did not receive the March 2014 issue, and/or sent Plaintiff copies of
9
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 12 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 notices they received from Defendants informing them that the March 2014 issue was

2 being withheld for purportedly violating Defendants’ mail policies.

3

34. PLN has never received any notice from Defendants that the March 2014

4 issue, or any article in it, would not be delivered or was not delivered to the addressed

5 recipients, even after PLN asked Defendants to identify all issues of Prison Legal News

6 from March 2014 to February 2015 that were censored in ADC facilities.

7

35. In 2015, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) submitted a request

8 pursuant to the Arizona Public Records Law, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 39-121 et seq. to the

9 ADC. The ADC, in response, produced to the ACLU a copy of an ADC “Notice of

10 Result-Publication Review” dated May 9, 2014 (“May 9, 2014 Notice”), which excluded

11 the March 2014 issue of Prison Legal News from distribution in ADC facilities. A true

12 and correct copy of that notice is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

13

36. The May 9, 2014 Notice states that the March 2014 issue of Prison Legal

14 News was excluded because of “Riots/Work Stoppages/Resistance,” and “Unacceptable

15 Sexual or Hostile Behaviors,” and cites to Department Order (“DO”) 914.08, Policy

16 Numbers 1.1.1 and 1.1.18 (see Exhibit A). The Notice does not specify which article(s) or

17 page(s) of the March 2014 issue of Prison Legal News purportedly violated those policies.

18

37. There are no articles in the March 2014 issue of Prison Legal News which

19 “incite, aid, or abet riots, work stoppages, or means of resistance,” or that “may encourage

20 unacceptable sexual or hostile behaviors.” Exhibit A, DO 914.08, Policy Numbers 1.1.1

21 and 1.1.18.

22

38. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the article in the

23 March 2014 issue to which Defendants objected is on page 54 of the issue, and is entitled

24 “Ninth Circuit Holds Staff Sexual Abuse Presumed Coercive; State Bears Burden of

25 Rebutting Presumption.” See Exhibit B at 54. The article describes the facts underlying a

26 Ninth Circuit reported decision, including a non-salacious description of sexual contact

27 between a prison guard and a prisoner in an Idaho prison, to which the prisoner did not

28 consent.
10
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 13 of 30

[3184088.5]

1

39. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have

2 not delivered the March 2014 issue to all of the PLN subscribers incarcerated in ADC

3 facilities.

4

Censorship of April 2014 Issue of Prison Legal News

5

40. On or about April 4, 2014, PLN mailed its April 2014 Prison Legal News

6 publication to one-hundred and fourteen (114) ADC prisoners in Defendants’ custody at

7 the following ADC facilities: Arizona State Prison-Kingman; ASPC Aspen; ASPC

8 Douglas; ASPC Eyman-Browning; ASPC Eyman-Cook; ASPC Eyman-Meadows; ASPC

9 Eyman-Rynning; ASPC Eyman-SMU; ASPC Florence Central; ASPC Florence East;

10 ASPC Florence North Unit; ASPC Florence South; ASPC Bachman; ASPC Lewis-

11 Barchey; ASPC Lewis-Buckley; ASPC Lewis-Rast; ASPC Lewis-Stiner; ASPC

12 Perryville-Lumley; ASPC Perryville-Piestewa; ASPC Perryville-San Pedro; ASPC

13 Perryville-Santa Cruz; ASPC Santa Maria; ASPC Tucson-Cimarron; ASPC Tucson-

14 Manzanita; ASPC Tucson-Rincon; ASPC Tucson-Winchester; ASPC Winslow; ASPC

15 Yuma-Cheyenne; ASPC Yuma-Cibola; ASPC Yuma-Dakota; ASPC Phoenix-Alhambra;

16 ASPC Safford-Tonto; Central Arizona Correctional Institute; Central Arizona Correctional

17 Facility; and Florence Correctional Center. A true and correct copy of the April 2014 issue

18 of PLN is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

19

41. PLN did not receive any notice from Defendants that the April 2014 issue, or

20 any article in it, would not be delivered or was not delivered to the addressed recipients.

21

42. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that many of the

22 prisoner subscribers incarcerated at the ADC facilities did not receive the April 2014 issue

23 of Prison Legal News. Several subscribers in ADC facilities wrote to Plaintiff to notify it

24 that they did not receive the April 2014 issue, and/or sent Plaintiff copies of notices they

25 received from Defendants informing them that the April 2014 issue was being withheld for

26 purportedly violating Defendants’ mail policies.

27

43. On or about March 20, 2015, in response to a letter from PLN regarding the

28 censorship of its publications in ADC facilities, Assistant Attorney General Pamela J.
11
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 14 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 Linnins informed PLN that the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News had been excluded

2 from ADC prisons. Ms. Linnins did not identify the reason for the censorship of the April

3 2014 issue.

4

44. In the same letter, Ms. Linnins also notified PLN that, after PLN objected to

5 the censorship, Defendants had reconsidered their decision to withhold the April 2014

6 issue of Prison Legal News from distribution to subscribers in ADC facilities.

7

45. On or about May 26, 2015, after PLN sent a follow-up letter objecting to the

8 censorship and requesting Defendants’ basis for doing so, Defendants provided PLN with

9 a copy of the Notice of Result-Publication Review for the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal

10 News, which had a “Review Date” of November 25, 2014 (“November 25, 2014 Notice”).

11 A true and correct copy of the November 25, 2014 Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

12

46. The November 25, 2014 Notice states that the April 2014 issue of Prison

13 Legal News was excluded from ADC facilities pursuant to DO 914.08, Policy Number

14 1.1.18, “Unacceptable Sexual or Hostile Behaviors.” See Exhibit A. The Notice does not

15 specify which article(s) or page(s) of the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News

16 purportedly violated those policies.

17

47. There are no articles in the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News that “may

18 encourage unacceptable sexual or hostile behaviors.” Exhibit A, DO 914.08, Policy

19 Number 1.1.18.

20

48. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants

21 objected to the article in the April 2014 issue on page 20 of the issue, entitled “Kitchen

22 Supervisor Gets Prison Time for Sexually Abusing Two Prisoners.” See Exhibit D at 20.

23 The article describes the facts underlying a criminal case in the United States District

24 Court for the District of Arizona, including a non-salacious description of non-consensual

25 sexual contact between a prison kitchen supervisor and two prisoners in a federal prison in

26 Arizona.

27

49. Plaintiff is also informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants

28 objected to the article in the April 2014 issue on page 48 of the issue, entitled “Sexual
12
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 15 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 Abuse by Oregon Jail Guard Nets Probation; Defense Attorney Blames Victim.” See

2 Exhibit D at 48. The article describes the facts underlying a criminal case in Oregon state

3 court, including a non-salacious description of the non-consensual sexual contact between

4 prison staff and prisoners on which the prosecution was based.

5

50. In the May 26, 2015 correspondence from Ms. Linnins, Defendants provided

6 PLN with a copy of a follow-up Notice of Result-Publication Review for the April 2014

7 issue of Prison Legal News, with a “Review Date” of March 18, 2015 (“March 18, 2015

8 Reconsideration Notice”). A true and correct copy of the March 18, 2015 Reconsideration

9 Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit F. The March 18, 2015 Reconsideration Notice states

10 that the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News would be allowed.

11

51. On June 22, 2015, Defendants notified PLN that the April 2014 issue of

12 Prison Legal News had been distributed to subscribers.

13

52. Plaintiff is informed and believed and thereon alleges that while some

14 subscribers to Prison Legal News incarcerated in ADC prisons ultimately received their

15 copies of the April 2014 issue, others never did, even though those subscribers remained in

16 custody after the March 18, 2015 Reconsideration Notice and Defendants’ June 22, 2015

17 confirmation that the issue had been delivered.

18

53. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that some of the

19 subscribers to Prison Legal News who were incarcerated in ADC facilities in April 2014

20 never received the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News because they were no longer in

21 custody when Defendants decided to reverse their initial censorship decision

22 approximately one year later.

23

Censorship of July 2014 Issue of Prison Legal News

24

54. On or about July 1, 2014, PLN mailed its July 2014 Prison Legal News

25 publication to one hundred and thirty-five (135) ADC prisoners in Defendants’ custody at

26 the following ADC facilities: Arizona State Prison-Kingman; Arizona State Prison –

27 Kingman/Cerbat; ASPC Aspen; ASPC Douglas; ASPC Eyman-Browning; ASPC Eyman-

28 Cook; ASPC Eyman-Meadows; ASPC Eyman-Rynning; ASPC Eyman-SMU; ASPC
13
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 16 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 Florence – Globe Detention; ASPC Florence Central; ASPC Florence East; ASPC

2 Florence North Unit; ASPC Florence South; ASPC Bachman; ASPC Lewis-Barchey;

3 ASPC Lewis-Buckley; ASPC Lewis-Rast; ASPC Lewis-Stiner; ASPC Perryville-Lumley;

4 ASPC Perryville-Piestewa; ASPC Perryville-San Pedro; ASPC Perryville-Santa Cruz;

5 ASPC Santa Maria; ASPC Tucson-Cimarron; ASPC Tucson-Manzanita; ASPC Tucson-

6 Rincon; ASPC Tucson-Winchester; ASPC Winslow; ASPC Yuma-Cheyenne; ASPC

7 Yuma-Cibola; ASPC Yuma-Dakota; ASPC Phoenix-Alhambra; ASPC Safford-Tonto;

8 Central Arizona Correctional Institute; Central Arizona Correctional Facility; and Florence

9 Correctional Center. A true and correct copy of the July 2014 issue is attached hereto as

10 Exhibit G.

11

55. PLN did not receive any notice from Defendants that the July 2014 issue, or

12 any article in it, would not be delivered or was not delivered to the addressed recipients.

13

56. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that many of the

14 prisoner subscribers incarcerated at the ADC facilities did not receive the July 2014 issue

15 of Prison Legal News. Several subscribers in ADC facilities wrote to Plaintiff to notify it

16 that they did not receive the July 2014 issue, and/or sent Plaintiff copies of notices they

17 received from Defendants informing them that the July 2014 issue was being withheld for

18 purportedly violating Defendants’ mail policies.

19

57. On or about March 20, 2015, in response to a letter from PLN regarding the

20 censorship of its publications in ADC facilities, Assistant Attorney General Pamela J.

21 Linnins informed PLN that the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News had been excluded

22 from ADC prisons. Ms. Linnins did not state the reason for the censorship of the July

23 2014 issue.

24

58. Also in that letter, Ms. Linnins notified PLN that Defendants had

25 reconsidered their decision to withhold the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News from

26 distribution to subscribers in ADC facilities.

27

59. On or about May 26, 2015, after PLN sent a follow-up letter objecting to the

28 censorship and requesting Defendants’ basis for doing so, Defendants provided PLN with
14
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 17 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 a copy of an undated “Complex Publications Review – Sexually Explicit Material” form

2 (“Undated Complex Publications Review Form”) from the ASPC-Tucson facility for the

3 July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News, completed by an ADC staff member identified as

4 “AA II Vasquez” from the “Complex-Level Publications Staff.” A true and correct copy

5 of the Undated Complex Publications Review Form is attached hereto as Exhibit H.

6

60. The Undated Complex Publications Review Form states that the July 2014

7 issue of Prison Legal News was excluded from ADC facilities pursuant to DO 914.07,

8 Policy Numbers 1.1 through 1.2.2.6, which prohibit “publications that feature nudity

9 and/or sexual behaviors and/or the publication is promoted based on such depictions.” See

10 Exhibit A. The Notice does not specify which article(s) or page(s) of the July 2014 issue

11 of Prison Legal News purportedly violated those policies.

12

61. There are no articles in the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News which

13 “feature nudity and/or sexual behaviors,” and Prison Legal News is not “promoted based

14 on such depictions.”

15

62. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the article in the

16 July 2014 issue to which Defendants objected is on page 36 of the issue, and is entitled

17 “New York Jail Guard Sentenced for Sexually Abusing Seven Prisoners.” See Exhibit G

18 at 36. The article describes the facts of a state criminal case and federal civil rights cases,

19 including a non-salacious description of forced sexual contact between a jail guard and

20 seven prisoners in a New York correctional facility.

21

63. In the May 26, 2015 correspondence from Ms. Linnins, Defendants provided

22 PLN with a copy of a Memorandum from Defendant OLSON in the Office of Publication

23 Review to a prisoner whose name was redacted, dated January 15, 2015 and regarding

24 “Prison Legal News, July 2014, V25 N7” (“January 15, 2015 Memorandum”). A true and

25 correct copy of that Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit I.

26

64. The January 15, 2015 Memorandum notified the prisoner that upon second

27 review, the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News was determined “not [to] contain

28 material that meets the sexually explicit criteria,” that the “prior decision to exclude this
15
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 18 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 publication is rescinded,” and that the publication “shall be distributed to those inmates

2 who were to receive the edition.” Exhibit I (emphasis in original).

3

65. On June 22, 2015, Defendants notified PLN that the April 2014 issue of

4 Prison Legal News had been distributed to subscribers.

5

66. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that while some

6 subscribers to Prison Legal News incarcerated in ADC prisons received their copies of the

7 July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News, others did not, even though they remained in ADC

8 custody after January 15, 2015 Memorandum and Defendants’ June 22, 2015 confirmation

9 that the issue had been delivered.

10

67. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some of the

11 subscribers to Prison Legal News who were incarcerated in ADC facilities in July 2014

12 never received the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News because they were no longer in

13 custody when Defendants decided to reverse their initial censorship decision

14 approximately six months later.

15

Censorship of October 2014 Issue of Prison Legal News

16

68. On or about October 9, 2014, PLN mailed its October 2014 Prison Legal

17 News publication to one hundred and forty-two (142) ADC prisoners in Defendants’

18 custody at the following ADC facilities: Arizona State Prison-Kingman; Arizona State

19 Prison – Kingman/Cerbat; ASPC Aspen; ASPC Douglas; ASPC Eyman-Browning; ASPC

20 Eyman-Cook; ASPC Eyman-Meadows; ASPC Eyman-Rynning; ASPC Eyman-SMU;

21 ASPC Floence – Globe Detention; ASPC Florence Central; ASPC Florence East; ASPC

22 Florence North Unit; ASPC Florence South; ASPC Bachman; ASPC Lewis-Barchey;

23 ASPC Lewis-Buckley; ASPC Lewis-Rast; ASPC Lewis-Stiner; ASPC Perryville-Lumley;

24 ASPC Perryville-Piestewa; ASPC Perryville-San Pedro; ASPC Perryville-Santa Cruz;

25 ASPC Santa Maria; ASPC Tucson-Cimarron; ASPC Tucson-Manzanita; ASPC Tucson-

26 Rincon; ASPC Tucson-Winchester; ASPC Winslow; ASPC Yuma-Cheyenne; ASPC

27 Yuma-Cibola; ASPC Yuma-Dakota; ASPC Phoenix-Alhambra; ASPC Safford-Tonto;

28 Central Arizona Correctional Institute; Central Arizona Correctional Facility; and Florence
16
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 19 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 Correctional Center. A true and correct copy of the October 2014 issue is attached hereto

2 as Exhibit J.

3

69. PLN did not receive any notice from Defendants that the October 2014 issue,

4 or any article in it, would not be delivered or was not delivered to the addressed recipients.

5

70. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that many of the

6 prisoner subscribers incarcerated at the ADC facilities did not receive the October 2014

7 issue of Prison Legal News, and none of the prisoner subscribers incarcerated at the ADC

8 facilities received a full, unredacted copy of the October 2014 issue. Several subscribers in

9 ADC facilities wrote to Plaintiff to notify it that they did not receive the October 2014

10 issue, and/or sent Plaintiff copies of notices they received from Defendants informing them

11 that the October 2014 issue was being withheld for purportedly violating Defendants’ mail

12 policies.

13

71. On or about March 20, 2015, in response to a letter from PLN regarding the

14 censorship of its publications in ADC facilities, Assistant Attorney General Pamela J.

15 Linnins informed PLN that the October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News had been

16 excluded from ADC prisons. Ms. Linnins did not state the reason for the censorship of the

17 October 2014 issue.

18

72. On or about May 26, 2015, after PLN sent a follow-up letter objecting to the

19 censorship and requesting Defendants’ basis for doing so, Defendants provided PLN with

20 a copy of the Notice of Result-Publication Review for the October 2014 issue of Prison

21 Legal News, which had a “Review Date” of February 11, 2015 (“February 11, 2015

22 Notice”). A true and correct copy of the February 11, 2015 Notice is attached hereto as

23 Exhibit K.

24

73. The February 11, 2015 Notice states that the October 2014 issue of Prison

25 Legal News was excluded from ADC facilities pursuant to DO 914.07, “Sexually Explicit

26 Material.” See Exhibit A. The February 11, 2015 Notice does not specify which article(s)

27 or page(s) of the October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News purportedly violated that

28 policy.
17
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 20 of 30

[3184088.5]

1

74. On or about June 22, 2015, Defendants informed PLN that, after further

2 review of the October 2014 issue, Defendants distributed a redacted version of the issue to

3 subscribers. A true and correct copy of the page of the October 2014 issue with those

4 redactions is attached hereto as Exhibit L. PLN did not authorize Defendants to make any

5 redactions or modifications to its publication at any point.

6

75. The unredacted version of the article Defendants censored appears on page

7 32 of the October 2014 issue, and is entitled “Tenth Circuit Holds ‘Consensual’ Sex

8 Defeats Prisoner’s Eighth Amendment Claim.” See Exhibit J at 32. The article describes

9 the facts underlying an opinion by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Graham v. Sheriff

10 of Logan County, 741 F.3d 1118 (10th Cir. 2013), including a non-salacious description of

11 sexual contact between a prisoner in a county jail and two jail guards, to which the

12 prisoner asserted she did not consent.

13

76. Defendants’ unauthorized redaction of the October 2014 issue violated

14 Defendants’ own mail policies. ADC DO 914.06, Policy Number 1.12 prohibits ADC

15 staff from “remov[ing] pages of any publication to make the publication acceptable,”

16 because “[r]emoving pages alters the publication rendering it as contraband.” See Exhibit

17 A.

18

77. PLN has never received an updated Notice of Result-Publication Review for

19 the October 2014 issue that indicates that the issue was delivered to subscribers, with or

20 without the redactions.

21

78. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some subscribers

22 to Prison Legal News incarcerated in ADC prisons received copies of the redacted October

23 2014 issue of Prison Legal News between March 18, 2015 and June 22, 2015.

24

79. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some of the

25 subscribers to Prison Legal News who were incarcerated in ADC facilities in October 2014

26 never received the October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News because they were no longer

27 in custody when Defendants decided to reverse their censorship decision. Plaintiff is

28 further informed and believes and thereon alleges that additional subscribers may not have
18
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 21 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 received the redacted issue, even though they remained in custody after March 18, 2015.

2

Censorship of The Celling of America

3

80. In or around May 2015, Defendants censored The Celling of America, a book

4 distributed by PLN. Defendants excluded The Celling of America from ADC facilities

5 pursuant to DO 914.08, “Unauthorized Publications and Material,” because of

6 “Riots/Work Stoppages/Resistance,” under Policy Numbers 1.1.1. See Exhibit A.

7 Defendants do not specify which page(s) of The Celling of America purportedly violated

8 that policy.

9

81. There are no materials in The Celling of America which “incite, aid, or abet

10 riots, work stoppages, or means of resistance.” Exhibit A, DO 914.08, Policy Number

11 1.1.1.

12

82. PLN did not receive any notice from Defendants that The Celling of America

13 would not be delivered or was not delivered to the addressed recipients. At no time did

14 Defendants provide an opportunity for PLN to appeal the rejection of its mail.

15

Defendants Failed to Provide Due Process to PLN

16

83. Defendants did not provide PLN with constitutionally adequate due process

17 when censoring PLN’s written speech. Defendants provided neither notice nor an

18 opportunity to appeal the aforementioned censorship decisions at or shortly after the time

19 they occurred.

20

84. Defendants failed to provide notice to PLN of the reason for rejecting issues

21 of Prison Legal News by, among other inadequacies, failing to notify PLN directly of their

22 refusal to deliver the issues to Prison Legal News subscribers in a timely fashion (or at all),

23 failing to explain the basis for their censorship decisions or to identify the mail policies

24 relied on at the time of the decision, and otherwise failing to give meaningful notice of the

25 censorship. Even when Defendants, through counsel, notified PLN of the censorship

26 months after it occurred, in response to inquiries from PLN, Defendants failed to identify

27 specific articles or pages of the issues of Prison Legal News that they found objectionable,

28 and failed to notify PLN that they had censored the March 2014 issue. At no time did
19
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 22 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 Defendants provide an opportunity for PLN to appeal the rejection of its mail.

2

85. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants fail to

3 provide notice and an opportunity to appeal to Plaintiff, as well as other senders of

4 censored mail addressed to prisoners at the ADC prisons.

5

86. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants fail to

6 provide constitutionally adequate notice to some of the prisoner subscribers when ADC

7 censors issues of Prison Legal News. Defendants also fail to provide the same prisoner

8 subscribers with any opportunity to be heard to challenge the censorship decisions.

9 ADC Policies and Practices Do Not Provide for Notice and Are Overbroad and Unrelated to Legitimate Penological Interest, Despite Serial Revision by Defendants
10

11

87. ADC’s prior policies, in effect at the time of censorship of the 2014 issues,

12 did not provide for any notice to be given to the publisher or sender when a publication or

13 mailing was censored by ADC staff. Exhibit A, ADC DO 914.02, Policy Number 1.7

14 specifies that “[u]nauthorized property or material discovered in incoming mail shall be

15 removed,” and a “Notice to Sender of Rejection of Incoming Mail, Form 909-3, shall be

16 completed and sent to the inmate.” The policy is explicit that the ADC “shall not pay for

17 the cost of notifying the sender.” Exhibit A, ADC DO 914.02, Policy Number 1.7 violates

18 constitutional requirements regarding notice to senders of mail to prison prisoners.

19

88. Although ADC policy was changed as of March 4, 2016 (a true and correct

20 copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit M), it remains constitutionally invalid under

21 the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Defendants fail to comply with the policy as

22 changed. See Exhibit M (ADC DO 914.06, Policy Number 1.17; 914.07, Policy Numbers

23 1.2.2 and 1.2.17). Under the changed policy, Defendants censored Prison Legal News’s

24 March 2016 and April 2016 issues without providing any notice to PLN. PLN did not

25 receive any notice from Defendants that the March 2016 issue, or any article in it, would

26 not be delivered or was not delivered to the addressed recipients. PLN did not receive any

27 notice from Defendants that the April 2016 issue, or any article in it, would not be

28 delivered or was not delivered to the addressed recipients. At no time did Defendants
20
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 23 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 provide an opportunity for PLN to appeal the rejection of its mail. Defendants’ failure to

2 provide Plaintiff with any notice or opportunity to appeal the censorship of the March and

3 April 2016 issues of Prison Legal News violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right

4 to due process.

5

89. Moreover, ADC policies, which were in effect at the time of all of the

6 challenged censorship, explicitly prohibit appeals of “decisions to exclude publications”

7 from ADC facilities. Exhibit A, ADC DO 914.06, Policy Number 1.13 states that

8 “[p]reviously excluded Publications shall not be re-submitted for review or appeal under

9 this Department Order.” See also Exhibit M, ADC DO 914.06, effective March 4, 2016,

10 Policy Number 1.14 (same); Exhibit N, ADC DO 914.06, effective April 7, 2017, Policy

11 Number 1.14 (same). These policies violate constitutional requirements regarding due

12 process for senders of mail to prison prisoners.

13

90. Similarly, while ADC DO 914.07, Policy Number 1.5 provides an

14 opportunity for a prisoner recipient of a publication deemed to contain “Sexually Explicit

15 Material” to request second-level review of ADC staff’s decision to exclude the

16 publication, it has no such provision for the publisher or sender to request a second-level

17 review. Exhibit A, ADC DO 914.07, Policy Number 1.5 violates constitutional

18 requirements regarding due process for senders of mail to prison prisoners.

19

91. As noted above, Defendants’ policies prohibiting distribution of publications

20 with sexual content do not contain any exception for discussion of sexual acts in a non-

21 salacious manner for journalistic purposes such as news reporting or discussion of the facts

22 underlying a reported decision or legal proceeding, and are therefore overbroad.

23

92. ADC again revised its mail policy, DO 914, on April 7, 2017 (a true and

24 correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit N). As amended, the policy remains

25 constitutionally invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See Exhibit N, ADC

26 DO 914.06, Policy Numbers 1.17, 1.18, & 1.19; 914.07, Policy Number 1.2.

27

93. The revised policy continues to be unconstitutional under the First

28 Amendment. The revised policy creates an exception for otherwise unauthorized content
21
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 24 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 contained within so-called “legal publication[s]” in certain circumstances. See Exhibit N,

2 ADC DO 914.06, Policy Number 1.18 (“A legal publication that contains unauthorized

3 content that is either (a) directly quoted from a trial or appellate court’s decision, opinion,

4 or order, or (b) otherwise taken from a court case, government publication, or news wire

5 service (such as the Associated Press), shall not be withheld if the unauthorized content is

6 reasonably necessary to understand the fundamental legal issue or legal principle of the

7 legal publication.”). The revised policy also creates an exception for sexual content

8 contained in so-called “well-known and widely recognized” religious or literary works.

9 See id., at Policy Number 1.19 (“Publications that contain nudity and/or descriptions of

10 sexual behaviors/acts, or violent acts, shall not be withheld if such unauthorized content is

11 within a publication commonly considered to constitute a well-known and widely

12 recognized religious work (such as the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon) or literary

13 work (such as Shakespeare).”).

14

94. Under the changed policy, unconstitutional censorship of the Prison Legal

15 News has continued. Defendants have censored the April, May, and June 2017 issues of

16 Prison Legal News, despite their purported exceptions. PLN is informed and believes and

17 thereon alleges that Defendants have never applied these exceptions to any publication to

18 date. In practice, the changed policy continues to contain no exception for the discussion

19 of sexual acts in a non-salacious manner for journalistic purposes. As drafted, these

20 exceptions do not define their key terms or lay out any standard to be applied. DO 914

21 does not define “legal publication” or “well known and widely recognized.” DO 914 does

22 not offer guidance as to what content “is reasonably necessary to understand the

23 fundamental legal issue or legal principle of the legal publication.” Prison Legal News

24 intends to and will continue to publish non-salacious discussions of sexual acts in its news

25 coverage. ADC’s changed policy is unconstitutionally overbroad, void for vagueness, and

26 serves no legitimate penological interest.

27

95. Defendants censored the April 2017 issue of Prison Legal News in violation

28 of the First Amendment. A true and correct copy of the April 2017 issue is attached hereto
22
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 25 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 as Exhibit O. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the article in the

2 April 2017 issue to which Defendants objected is on page 56 of the issue, and is entitled

3 “Site of Gruesome Prison Riot Becomes New Mexico Tourist Attraction.” See Exhibit O

4 at 56. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that this article was censored

5 for containing sexual content under current ADC DO 914.07 at Policy Numbers 1.2.2.2,

6 1.2.2.3, 1.2.2.6, & 1.2.17. See Exhibit N. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon

7 alleges that this article was also censored under current ADC DO 914.07 at Policy

8 Numbers 1.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.16, & 1.2.20, despite the absence of any content in the article

9 which “promote[s]” violence, or would “incite, aid, or abet” behavior detrimental to

10 security. See id. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants

11 redacted the April 2017 issue of Prison Legal News without authorization from PLN, and

12 that Defendants have distributed the redacted version of this issue to at least some

13 prisoners within ADC.

14

96. Defendants censored the May 2017 issue of Prison Legal News in violation

15 of the First Amendment. A true and correct copy of the May 2017 issue is attached hereto

16 as Exhibit P. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the articles in the

17 May 2017 issue to which Defendants objected are found on pages 3-4, 8, 30-31, and 59-60

18 of the issue, and are entitled “Registration, Tracking of Sex Offenders Drives Mass

19 Incarceration Numbers and Costs,” “Vigilantes Assault, Rob and Murder Registered Sex

20 Offenders,” “Four Prisoners Murdered at South Carolina Facility,” and “$25,000 Federal

21 Jury Award in Suit over Teenager Raped in Oklahoma Jail.” See Exhibit P at 3-4, 8, 30-

22 31, 59-60. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that these articles were

23 censored for containing sexual content under current ADC DO 914.07 at Policy Numbers

24 1.2.2.1, 1.2.2.3, 1.2.2.6, & 1.2.17. See Exhibit N. Plaintiff is informed and believes and

25 thereon alleges that this article was also censored under current ADC DO 914.07 at Policy

26 Numbers 1.1, 1.2.16, & 1.2.20, despite the absence of any content in the article which

27 “promote[s]” violence. See id. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

28 Defendants redacted the May 2017 issue of Prison Legal News without authorization from
23
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 26 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 PLN, and that Defendants have distributed the redacted version of this issue to at least

2 some prisoners within ADC.

3

97. Defendants censored the June 2017 issue of Prison Legal News in violation

4 of the First Amendment. A true and correct copy of the June 2017 issue is attached hereto

5 as Exhibit Q. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the article in the

6 June 2017 issue to which Defendants objected is on pages 3-4 of the issue, and is entitled

7 “Rich Defendant Rapes Child Receives Probation.” See Exhibit Q at 3-4. Plaintiff is

8 informed and believes and thereon alleges that this article was censored for containing

9 sexual content under current ADC DO 914.07 at Policy Numbers 1.1, 1.2.2.4, 1.2.2.5, &

10 1.2.2.6. See Exhibit N. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

11 Defendants have not allowed the June 2017 issue to be distributed within ADC to date.

12

98. Allowing PLN to distribute publications with articles that contain a

13 discussion of sexual acts in a non-salacious manner as part of its news reporting, such as a

14 discussion of the facts underlying a court case, will not have any negative impact on the

15 operation of ADC facilities or programs.

16

99. Defendants’ mail policies, practices, and customs have been used to censor

17 PLN’s correspondence with prisoners at ADC prisons, in particular PLN’s monthly

18 publication.

19

100. Defendants’ conduct prohibiting distribution of at least four issues of Prison

20 Legal News in a seven month period in 2014, prohibiting distribution of at least three

21 issues of Prison Legal News in a three month period in 2017, and prohibiting distribution

22 of the PLN-distributed book The Celling of America, to prisoners confined at ADC prisons

23 violates the First Amendment. Defendants’ policies, practices and customs censor PLN’s

24 expressive activities and have a chilling effect on PLN’s future speech and expression

25 directed toward inmates confined there. Defendants’ policies, practices and customs are

26 unconstitutional both facially and as applied to PLN. Defendants’ censorship of Prison

27 Legal News and The Celling of America serves no legitimate penological purpose.

28

101. PLN publishes and distributes content concerning the rights of prisoners and

24
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 27 of 30

[3184088.5]

1 the means by which they may obtain relief from unconstitutional conditions of

2 confinement. As a result, PLN is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

3 Defendants have retaliated against PLN by refusing to deliver PLN’s written materials to

4 inmates held at ADC prisons.

5

102. Defendants’ actions have violated, continue to violate, and are reasonably

6 expected in the future to violate PLN’s constitutional rights, and have caused Plaintiff

7 financial harm in the form of lost subscriptions and diversion of resources to address the

8 censorship. In addition, Defendants’ actions have frustrated Plaintiff’s mission of

9 education and advocacy, including the dissemination of PLN’s political message, and the

10 reporting and publishing of news regarding the human and legal rights of persons held in

11 prisons and jails. Further, Defendants’ actions have interfered with PLN’s ability to recruit

12 new donors, writers and supporters.

13

103. Defendants’ actions and inactions were and are malicious, oppressive, and

14 were and are all committed under color of law with reckless disregard to PLN’s rights.

15

104. Defendants CHARLES L. RYAN, GAIL RITTENHOUSE, JEFF HOOD,

16 ALF OLSON, JAMES RIGGS, JAMIE GUZMAN, DOES 1 to 20, and other agents of the

17 ADC are responsible for or personally participated in creating and implementing these

18 unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs, or for ratifying or adopting them.

19 Further, Defendants are responsible for training and supervising the mail staff whose

20 conduct has injured and continues to injure PLN.

21

105. Defendants’ unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs are ongoing,

22 and continue to violate PLN’s rights. It is likely that Defendants will continue to censor

23 future issues of Prison Legal News in violation of the First Amendment and without

24 providing due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. As such, PLN has no

25 adequate remedy at law.

26

106. PLN is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from refusing to

27 deliver its publication without any legal justification, and prohibiting Defendants from

28 censoring mail without due process of law.
25
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 28 of 30

[3184088.5]

1

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

2 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
3 (Against all Defendants – For Violations of the First Amendment Under Color of State Law – Free Speech; Section 1983)
4 107. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every
5 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-106.
6 108. The acts described above constitute violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the
7 First Amendment to the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and have
8 caused and will continue to cause damages and irreparable injury to Plaintiff.
9 109. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against all Defendants.
10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.
11

12

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Against all Defendants – For Violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

13

Amendment Under Color of State Law)

14

110. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every

15 allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-106.

16

111. By failing to give Plaintiff sufficient notice of the censorship of its written

17 speech, and by failing to give an opportunity to be heard with respect to that censorship,

18 Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiff of liberty and property without

19 due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

20 Constitution via 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21

112. The acts described above have caused and will continue to cause damage to

22 Plaintiff.

23

113. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal and

24 compensatory damages, against all Defendants.

25

114. Moreover, Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that in

26 engaging in the conduct alleged herein, the individual Defendants’ actions were malicious,

27 oppressive, and/or in reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, and therefore Plaintiff seeks

28 exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants in their individual capacities.
26
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 29 of 30

[3184088.5]

1

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

2

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

3

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the Human Rights

4 Defense Center, prays for judgment against Defendants CHARLES L. RYAN, in his

5 official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections and in his

6 individual capacity; GAIL RITTENHOUSE, in her official capacity as Division Director,

7 Support Services of the Arizona Department of Corrections and in her individual capacity;

8 JEFF HOOD, in his official capacity as Deputy Director of the Arizona Department of

9 Corrections and in his individual capacity; ALF OLSON, in his individual capacity;

10 JAMES RIGGS, in his official capacity as an employee of the Office of Publication

11 Review of the Arizona Department of Corrections and his individual capacity; JAMIE

12 GUZMAN, in her official capacity as an employee of the Office of Publication Review of

13 the Arizona Department of Corrections; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, as follows:

14

1. A declaration that Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate the

15 First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

16

2. An order enjoining all Defendants and their employees, agents, and any and

17 all persons acting in concert with them from further violating Plaintiff’s and other senders’

18 civil rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

19

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

20

4. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

21

5. Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

22

6. Costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and

23 under other applicable law.

24

7. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

25

8. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

26

27

28
27
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 179 Filed 10/13/17 Page 30 of 30

[3184088.5]

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

3

4 DATED: October 13, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

5

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

6

By: /s/ Lisa Ells

7

Lisa Ells

8

Attorneys for Plaintiff

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

 
 Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 1 of 27

1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Prison Legal News,

No. CV-15-02245-PHX-ROS

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

11 v.

12 Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

15

Prison Legal News (“PLN”) publishes books and magazines about the criminal

16 justice system and issues involving prisoners, including a monthly journal eponymously

17 titled Prison Legal News. Prisoners in the custody of the Arizona Department of

18 Corrections (“ADC”) subscribe to publications by PLN. Since 2014, some of these

19 publications have been excluded and/or redacted pursuant to ADC’s policy prohibiting

20 sexually explicit material. PLN brought claims against Defendants—officers and

21 employees of ADC—under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First and

22 Fourteenth Amendments.

23

The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. (Docs. 233, 235.) For the

24 following reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 233) is granted in

25 part and denied in part. PLN’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 235) is granted in

26 part and denied in part.1

27

28 1 The parties’ request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision.

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 2 of 27

1

BACKGROUND

2

I. The Parties

3

Plaintiff Prison Legal News (“PLN”) is a project of the Human Rights Defense

4 Center.2 (Doc. 236 at 3.) For over 27 years, PLN has published and distributed books and

5 magazines about the criminal justice system and issues impacting prisoners, including

6 Prison Legal News—a monthly journal of corrections news and analysis—and the book

7 The Celling of America: An Inside Look at the U.S. Prison Industry (“Celling”). (Doc. 236

8 at 3.) PLN’s publications contain information on “prison operations and conditions, legal

9 updates on prison litigation, prisoner health and safety, and prisoners’ rights.” (Doc. 236

10 at 3.) PLN’s stated purpose is to “disseminate legal information on issues affecting

11 prisoners and their loved ones on the outside and to educate prisoners and the public about

12 the destructive nature of racism, sexism, and the economic and social costs of prisons to

13 society.” (Doc. 236 at 3–4.) Prison Legal News has been distributed to prisoners in over

14 3,000 correctional facilities in the nation, including prisons within the correctional systems

15 of the Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADC”). (Doc. 236 at 3.) There are

16 approximately 133 subscribers to Prison Legal News at ADC facilities.3 (Doc. 236 at 4.)

17

Defendants are officers and employees of ADC, sued in their official and individual

18 capacities.4 Defendant Charles L. Ryan (“Ryan”) was ADC’s Director during the relevant

19 time period. Ryan signed and executed each version of the department order challenged

20 by PLN. (Doc. 236 at 20.) Defendant Jeff Hood (“Hood”) was ADC’s Deputy Director

21 during the relevant time period. (Doc. 236 at 21.) Defendant Gail Rittenhouse

22 (“Rittenhouse”) was ADC’s Division Director for Support Services from May 2012 until

23 March 17, 2017. (Doc. 234-1 at 40.) She was the immediate supervisor of Defendant

24 James Riggs (“Riggs”), Quality Assurance Coordinator of the Office of Publication

25 Review (“OPR”) from July 2012 until May 2016. (Docs. 218-1 at 23; 234-1 at 15; 241 at

26

27

2 Unless otherwise noted, factual statements included in the Court’s summary are undisputed.

28

3 The number of subscribers fluctuates depending on length of incarceration and other factors concerning release from prison. (Doc. 236 at 4.)

4 Defendant Guzman is sued in her official capacity only.

- 2 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 3 of 27

1 31.) Defendant Olson was an OPR employee from 2013 until his retirement in May 2016.

2 During his time with OPR, Olson had “primary responsibility” over OPR duties—which

3 included conducting reviews of incoming publications—while Riggs supervised and

4 helped him. (Doc. 218-1 at 27.) Defendant Jamie Guzman (“Guzman”) assumed Olson’s

5 position after his retirement. (Doc. 218-1 at 28.)

6

II. ADC’s 2010 Publication Review Policy

7

Before 2010, ADC allowed inmates to “receive virtually any type of sexually-

8 related photographs, magazines and writings, including those depicting nudity, as long as

9 it did not involved depictions of people in uniform or disrespect people in uniform.” (Doc.

10 234-1 at 6.) After complaints from staff about sexual harassment, ADC decided in 2010

11 to regulate sexually explicit material entering the prison through Department Order (“DO”)

12 914 (“2010 Policy”). (Docs. 234-1 at 6–7; 234-2 at 2.) DO 914.07–1.1 provided: “In order

13 to assist with rehabilitation and treatment objectives, reduce sexual harassment and prevent

14 a hostile environment for inmates, staff and volunteers, inmates are not permitted to send,

15 receive or possess sexually explicit material. For the purpose of this Departmental Order,

16 sexually explicit material is defined as publications that feature nudity and/or the

17 publication is promoted based on such depictions and/or the intent of the publication is

18 sexual arousal or gratification.” (Doc. 234-2 at 14.) DO 914.07 provided a non-exhaustive

19 list of prohibited publications, including publications that depict sexual intercourse,

20 sadomasochistic abuse, and masturbation. (Doc. 234-2 at 14.) Since the regulations were

21 adopted in 2010, “staff has reported that they generally feel more comfortable, especially

22 female staff, because they are not exposed to unwanted images and text of graphic, explicit

23 sexual content.” (Doc. 234-2 at 7.)

24

DO 914 also set forth the procedures for receipt, screening, and delivery of

25 publications sent to ADC inmates. ADC operates ten prison complexes, with each complex

26 made up of anywhere between three and nine housing units. Each housing unit consists of

27 anywhere between 200 and 2000 inmates. (Doc. 234-1 at 17.) ADC mail is delivered

28 from the post office and processed at each of the complexes. (Doc. 234-1 at 17.) Each

- 3 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 4 of 27

1 complex receives “hundreds of magazines and publications a week.” (Doc. 234-1 at 17.)

2 At the complex level, mail is opened for contraband inspection and publication review.

3 (Doc. 234-1 at 8.) Complex-level staff reviews the publication and checks a statewide

4 database to see if the publication has already been excluded by another complex. (Doc.

5 234-1 at 8.) If complex-level staff is unclear or unsure about whether a publication should

6 be excluded, they often consult OPR. (Doc. 234-1 at 8.)

7

Under the 2010 Policy, if staff decided to exclude a sexually explicit publication

8 sent to an inmate, ADC was required to notify the inmate. (Doc. 234-2 at 15.) The inmate

9 could then request an appeal—or “second-level review”—to be conducted by OPR. (Doc.

10 234-2 at 15.) OPR’s decision on appeal was final. (Doc. 234-2 at 15.) Some types of

11 material—such as those that contained nudity and sexual behaviors/acts for artistic,

12 medical, educational, or anthropological purposes—were sent to OPR to be “approved on

13 an individualized basis.” (Doc. 234-2 at 14.) In other words, OPR made the first-level

14 decision to allow or exclude these publications. If an inmate wished to request second-

15 level review, he was required to appeal OPR’s decision to the Division Director or

16 Director’s designee. (Doc. 234-2 at 15.)

17

Notably, the 2010 Policy did not provide a process to give publishers notice and an

18 opportunity to appeal exclusion decisions. (Doc. 234-1 at 19.)

19

III. 2014 Exclusion and Redaction of Prison Legal News and Celling

20

Under the 2010 Policy, four issues of Prison Legal News and the PLN-distributed

21 book Celling were initially excluded. Prior to 2014, ADC routinely allowed the delivery

22 of PLN publications, including over 90 different monthly issues of Prison Legal News.

23 (Doc. 236 at 4.) In 2014, ADC excluded delivery of the following four issues of Prison

24 Legal News: March 2014, April 2014, July 2014, and October 2014. These issues were

25 excluded pursuant to ADC’s prohibition of sexually explicit material.

26

The March 2014 issue was excluded because of an article titled “Ninth Circuit Holds

27 Staff Sexual Abuse Presumed Coercive; State Bears Burden of Rebutting Presumption”;

28 the April 2014 issue was excluded because of articles titled “Kitchen Supervisor Gets

- 4 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 5 of 27

1 Prison Time for Sexually Abusing Two Prisoners” and “Sexual Abuse by Oregon Jail

2 Guard Nets Probation; Defense Attorney Blames Victim”; the July 2014 issue was

3 excluded because of an article titled “New York Jail Guard Sentenced for Sexually Abusing

4 Seven Prisoners”; the October 2014 issue was excluded because of an article titled “Tenth

5 Circuit Holds ‘Consensual’ Sex Defeats Prisoners’ Eighth Amendment Claim.” (Doc. 236

6 at 4– 6.) OPR employee Defendant Olson participated in the review and exclusion of these

7 four issues. (Doc. 250 at 13.)

8

When ADC initially excluded the 2014 issues, it did not provide PLN with notice

9 or an opportunity to appeal the exclusion decisions. (Doc. 236 at 6.) PLN eventually

10 learned of ADC’s exclusion decisions from its inmate-subscribers and contacted ADC

11 through counsel. OPR subsequently reversed its exclusion decisions with regard to the

12 March 2014, April 2014, and July 2014 issues. (Doc. 234 at 8.) These issues were

13 delivered to ADC subscribers in February and March 2015. (Doc. 236 at 4–5.) In

14 September 2015, OPR redacted two paragraphs from the October 2014 issue and delivered

15 the redacted issues to subscribers. (Doc. 236 at 6.) The parties dispute whether all ADC

16 subscribers ultimately received their issues, as some subscribers may have been released

17 in the interim and ADC may not have retained all issues. (Doc. 242 at 20.)

18

From at least February 22, 2011, ADC has also excluded from delivery the PLN-

19 distributed book Celling, pursuant to the DO 914.08–1.1.1 prohibition against “[d]epictions

20 or descriptions that incite, aid, or abet riots, work stoppages, or means of resistance.” (Doc.

21 234-2 at 15.) In May 2015, ADC excluded Celling again because it had previously been

22 excluded. (Doc. 236 at 6.) ADC did not provide PLN with any notice of its 2011 or 2015

23 decisions to exclude Celling or the opportunity to appeal the exclusion decisions. (Doc.

24 236 at 7.) PLN was not aware of ADC’s exclusion of Celling until discovery in the present

25 litigation. (Doc. 236 at 19.)

26

27

28

- 5 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 6 of 27

1

IV. March 2016 Policy Revision and Subsequent Exclusions

2

After the present lawsuit began in 2015, PLN amended its publication review policy

3 in March 2016 (“2016 Policy”). The 2016 Policy required that publishers be given notice

4 and an opportunity to appeal if their publications are excluded. (Doc. 234 at 4.)

5

ADC continued to exclude issues of Prison Legal News under the 2016 Policy. The

6 March 2016 and April 2016 issues were initially excluded at the complex level and inmates

7 appealed the decisions. (Doc. 236 at 7–8.) In May 2016, OPR reversed the initial exclusion

8 decisions and allowed the two issues. (Doc. 236 at 7.) However, the two issues were

9 delivered only to the inmates who had appealed the initial decisions, not to all inmate

10 subscribers. (Doc. 236 at 17–18.) Although the 2016 Policy required that ADC give

11 publishers notice and an opportunity to appeal, ADC did not give PLN notice and an

12 opportunity to appeal when ADC initially decided to exclude the March 2016 and April

13 2016 issues. (Doc. 236 at 7.)

14

V. April 2017 Policy Revision and Subsequent Exclusions

15

In April 2017, PLN once again amended DO 914 (“2017 Policy”). The 2017 Policy

16 is currently effective and includes substantive amendments to the prohibition of sexually

17 explicit material.5 (Doc. 236 at 12.) The Court examines the specific provisions in detail

18 in the analysis section below.

19

In May 2017, OPR trained ADC mailroom staff on the 2017 Policy. This training

20 included review of the newly amended provisions, as well as a sample of sexual content in

21 the form of images and text. (Doc. 236 at 14.) As an example, OPR told staff that Dante’s

22 Inferno falls under a DO 914 exception for “well-known and widely recognized religious

23 or literary work.” (Doc. 236 at 12–13.) ADC followed up the training with an email

24 informing mailroom staff of the following “bright-line, [u]nauthorized content”: depictions

25 or descriptions of statutory nudity; masturbation; self-touching photographs; sex toys;

26 sexual contact with an unwilling participant and/or child; spread eagle photographs; sexual

27

28

5 Although ADC has since implemented a 2018 policy, all relevant sections are identical to the 2017 policy. The Court follows the parties in addressing the 2017 Policy as the

current policy.

- 6 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 7 of 27

1 representations of inmates, correctional personnel, law enforcement, military,

2 medical/mental health staff, programming staff, teachers or clergy; statutory

3 sadomasochistic abuse. (Doc. 236 at 15.)

4

Under the 2017 Policy, the April 2017, May 2017, and June 2017 issues were

5 initially excluded due to sexually explicit content. OPR reviewed the content and allowed

6 each issue to be delivered with redactions. (Doc. 236 at 8–9.)

7

LEGAL STANDARD

8

Summary judgment is proper where “the movant shows that there is no genuine

9 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

10 law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those that “might affect the outcome of the

11 suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

12 (1986). A dispute of material fact is only genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable

13 jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. In reviewing a motion for

14 summary judgment, all evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the non-

15 moving party.

16

“[W]hen simultaneous cross-motions for summary judgment on the same claim are

17 before the court, the court must consider the appropriate evidentiary material identified and

18 submitted in support of both motions, and in opposition to both motions, before ruling on

19 each of them.” Tulalip Tribes of Wash. v. Wash., 783 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2015)

20 (quoting Fair Hous. Council of Riverside Cty. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1134 (9th

21 Cir. 2001)).

22

ANALYSIS

23

I. Due Process

24

a. Individual Liability

25

PLN alleges Defendants violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

26 Amendment, via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as a result of ADC’s failure to provide PLN with notice

27 and an opportunity to appeal when it excluded the four 2014 and two 2016 issues of Prison

28 Legal News, and when it excluded Celling in 2011 and 2015. (Doc. 235 at 16.) In addition

- 7 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 8 of 27

1 to suing Defendants in their official capacities, PLN seeks damages from Defendants Ryan,

2 Rittenhouse, Hood, Olson, and Riggs in their individual capacities. (Doc. 179 at 4–6.)

3

The Due Process Clause requires that when a correctional facility refuses to deliver

4 mail to an inmate, it must provide both sender and prisoner with notice and an opportunity

5 for appeal to an official other than the one who made the initial decision to exclude.

6 Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 418–19 (1974), overruled on other grounds by

7 Thornburgh v. Abbot, 490 U.S. 401 (1989); Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692, 697–68 (9th Cir.

8 2003); Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1152 (9th Cir. 2001). Defendants admit

9 that PLN was not given notice and an opportunity to appeal when ADC initially excluded

10 the four 2014 and two 2016 issues of Prison Legal News, and when it excluded Celling in

11 2011 and 2015. (Doc. 236 at 6–7.) As to the exclusion decisions made from 2011 until

12 2015, ADC did not have any policy requiring notice and an opportunity to appeal for

13 publishers. In 2016, ADC implemented a new policy requiring publishers be given notice

14 and an opportunity to appeal if their mail is excluded. But ADC employees, in

15 contravention of the 2016 Policy, continued to exclude Prison Legal News in 2016 without

16 providing PLN with notice and an opportunity to appeal. Because Defendants admit ADC

17 deprived PLN of its right to due process, summary judgment is granted to PLN with regard

18 to its due process claim against Defendants in their official capacities.

19

Next, the Court considers PLN’s due process claim against Defendants in their

20 individual capacities. “In order for a person acting under color of state law to be liable

21 under section 1983 there must be a showing of personal participation in the alleged rights

22 deprivation[.]” Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Defendants move

23 for summary judgment to dismiss Defendants Ryan, Rittenhouse, Hood, and Riggs in their

24 individual capacities on the basis that they did not personally participate in depriving PLN

25 of its due process rights. (Doc. 233 at 9.) Of note, Defendants do not move to dismiss

26 PLN’s due process claim against Defendant Olson in his individual capacity and admit

27 Olson personally participated in excluding the four 2014 issues without providing to PLN

28 notice and an opportunity to appeal. (Doc. 233 at 13.)

- 8 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 9 of 27

1

Summary judgment is granted to PLN with regard to Olson’s individual liability in

2 excluding the four 2014 issues and two 2016 issues of Prison Legal News. During the

3 relevant time period, Olson worked in OPR as a Quality Assurance Coordinator. (Doc.

4 218-1 at 28.) Defendants admit that Olson personally reviewed and “initially excluded

5 the four 2014 Prison Legal News issues.” (Doc. 233 at 13.) Further, in their Answer,

6 Defendants admitted to PLN’s allegation that “Olson participated in each act of censorship

7 and failure to provide access alleged herein to have occurred before May 31, 2016,

8 including by personally reviewing each issue.” (Docs. 179 at 10; 181 at 10.) The March

9 2016 and April 2016 issues were reviewed prior to May 31, 2016; thus, Olson participated

10 in their exclusion decisions. (Docs. 236 at 7.) When he participated in the exclusion

11 decisions, Olson neither provided nor directed others to provide PLN with notice and an

12 opportunity to appeal. (Doc. 236 at 22.) Defendants do not dispute that Olson’s conduct

13 caused PLN’s deprivation of due process. As such, Olson is individually liable for the due

14 process violations involving the 2014 and 2016 issues of Prison Legal News. See Prison

15 Legal News v. Babeu, 933 F. Supp.2d 1188, 1210 (D. Ariz. 2013) (finding that county jail

16 mailroom staff was personally liable for due process violation when they “discarded or

17 returned PLN materials, and in doing so provided no opportunity to contest or appeal the

18 non-deliverability decision”).

19

The other individual defendants, however, did not personally review and exclude

20 without notice any of PLN’s publications.6 PLN nevertheless argues they are individually

21 liable because they advanced an unconstitutional policy that proximately caused PLN’s

22 harm. (Doc. 248 at 11.)

23

24

6 PLN claims Hood and Riggs participated in the second appellate review of the October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News and decided to redact two paragraphs, which Defendants

25

dispute. (Doc. 242 at 28.) Even assuming this is true, their alleged review was conducted after an inmate appealed the initial decision to exclude publications and after PLN’s

26

counsel communicated with ADC about the initial exclusion. Thus, the alleged participation by Hood and Riggs cannot serve as a basis for the due process violation of

27

excluding a publication without affording the publisher notice and an opportunity to appeal. In any event, PLN does not base its argument on this stated fact. Moreover, Defendants

28

admit Hood conducted second-level review of Celling in 2012 but argue the two-year statute of limitations bars any claims for damages. (Doc. 242 at 28.) PLN did not respond

to this argument.

- 9 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 10 of 27

1

The Ninth Circuit has instructed that “§ 1983 allows a plaintiff to impose liability

2 upon a defendant-supervisor who creates, promulgates, implements, or in some other way

3 possesses responsibility for the continued operation of a policy the enforcement (by the

4 defendant-supervisor or her subordinates) of which ‘subjects, or causes to be subjected’

5 that plaintiff ‘to the deprivation of any [constitutional] rights.’” OSU Student Alliance v.

6 Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1076 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). In other words, a supervisor

7 can meet the “personal participation” requirement by advancing an unconstitutional policy

8 that caused the constitutional violation at issue.

9

In a previous case before the District of Arizona, PLN similarly argued that

10 officials and employees of the Pinal County Jail were individually liable for violations

11 related to exclusion of its publications. Prison Legal News v. Babeu, 933 F. Supp.2d 1188,

12 1210 (D. Ariz. 2013), aff’d 552 Fed. App’x 747 (9th Cir. 2014). The court found the Pinal

13 County Jail had an unconstitutional mail policy that, among other things, failed to afford

14 publishers with notice and an opportunity to appeal exclusion decisions. Id. at 1210. The

15 court, however, declined to find that Sheriff Paul Babeu and Deputy Chief James Kimble

16 were individually liable for PLN’s due process injury. Although Sheriff Babeu and Deputy

17 Kimble were the “ultimate policymakers,” and Deputy Kimble was responsible “for jail

18 policies, including the mailroom policy,” the court found it significant that there was no

19 evidence that either official “actually participated in the drafting of the mailroom policy.”

20 Id. at 1211. As such, the court concluded Sheriff Babeu and Deputy Kimble were

21 responsible only in their official capacities. Id. Additionally, the court held there was a

22 genuine dispute of material fact over whether the “command staff” at the jail could be

23 individually liable because there was evidence suggesting they were “personally involved

24 in the drafting of the policy.” Id. at 1211. On the other hand, the command staff could not

25 be individually liable for the First Amendment violations, which did not occur pursuant to

26 written policy. Id. at 1208. Rather, the ground-level staff administered an unwritten policy

27 banning certain publications. The court held that although the command staff was

28 generally involved in policymaking and training, PLN did not produce “any evidence that

- 10 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 11 of 27

1 members of the command staff were the source of these practices,” and did not show a

2 “definite connection between the actions of the [command staff] and the injury suffered”

3 by PLN. Id. at 1208.

4

Here, PLN does not allege any of the individual defendants actually drafted the

5 unconstitutional 2010 Policy. Rather, PLN points out that Ryan, pursuant to his authority

6 as Director of ADC, signed and executed the 2010 Policy. (Doc. 248 at 11.) Unlike the

7 policymakers in Babeu, Ryan—through his signature—personally authorized the

8 execution of an unconstitutional policy. Even though PLN does not show that Ryan drafted

9 the policy, there is no question that he personally participated in creating, promulgating, or

10 implementing the 2010 Policy that deprived PLN of its constitutional rights. See OSU

11 Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1076 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); Dodds v.

12 Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1195 (10th Cir. 2010). Defendants argue that the 2010 Policy

13 did not require officers to not give notice to publishers; rather, it required notice to inmates

14 and was silent with regard to publishers. This argument is unpersuasive. A policy that

15 required notice only to inmates, by implication, excluded the provision of notice to

16 publishers. As such, Ryan is individually liable for the violations of PLN’s right to due

17 process under the unconstitutional 2010 Policy.

18

On the other hand, there is no evidence that Rittenhouse or Hood personally

19 participated in creating, promulgating, or implementing the unconstitutional 2010 Policy.

20 PLN argues both Rittenhouse and Hood were members of the Office of Primary

21 Responsibility, which is charged with developing department orders. (Doc. 218-1 at 215.)

22 However, aside from pointing to this general policymaking responsibility, PLN fails to

23 show that Rittenhouse or Hood had any personal involvement in advancing the particular

24 department order at issue. Without this evidence of a definite connection, Rittenhouse and

25 Hood are not individually liable for the due process violations that occurred pursuant to the

26 2010 Policy.

27

PLN also argues the individual defendants—as supervisors—implemented and

28 oversaw ADC staff’s due process violations, including after the facially unconstitutional

- 11 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 12 of 27

1 2010 Policy was amended in 2016 to require notice and an opportunity to appeal for

2 publishers. This argument fails because PLN does not produce “specific facts showing a

3 definite connection” between the actions of any supervisors and PLN’s injuries. Babeu,

4 933 F. Supp. 2d at 1208. Rittenhouse, as Division Director, supervised Quality Assurance

5 at OPR, although the officer she supervised testified she did not do anything related to

6 publication review. (Doc. 218-1 at 23.) Hood, as Deputy Director, was generally

7 responsible for interpreting department orders and training OPR staff. (Doc. 236 at 21.)

8 In deposition, Riggs testified about the training he received from Hood: “Not really training

9 as far as how to review publications, just acclimating me to the department, to the mission

10 and goals, to the duties of the position and what he expected out of me when we conducted

11 our second-level reviews.” (Doc. 218-1 at 23.) Riggs, as the Quality Assurance

12 Coordinator, also oversaw the publication review process and was one of the officers that

13 trained Olson on his duties. (Doc. 218-1 at 28.) Aside from conclusory statements that

14 Defendants promulgated and implemented an unconstitutional policy, PLN has not

15 identified specific evidence showing that any of the individual defendants personally

16 directed staff to exclude publications without giving publishers notice, or to give notice to

17 inmates only. Babeu, 933 F. Supp. 2d at 1208; see also Benitez v. Hutchens, No. SACV

18 12-550 AG(JC), 2016 WL 7477590, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2016) (finding defendant

19 sheriff was not individually liable when plaintiff provided “no factual basis for inferring

20 that it was the defendant, as an individual, who personally created, promulgated,

21 implemented, or advanced, a particular policy”).

22

Accordingly, only Ryan and Olson are individually liable for due process violations

23 involving exclusions of PLN publications.

24

b. Damages

25

Defendants move for summary judgment on the issue of damages for due process

26 violations. On February 20, 2018, the last day of discovery, PLN disclosed four categories

27 of damages for its due process claim: (1) Compensatory Damages; (2) Compensatory

28 Damages: Frustration of Mission; (3) Compensatory Damages: Diversion of Resources;

- 12 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 13 of 27

1 and (4) Punitive Damages. (Doc. 234-4 at 8–10.) Defendants argue PLN should be

2 precluded from submitting any evidence on damages because it failed to properly disclose

3 damages in accordance with Rule 26(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Under Rule 37(c),

4 “[i]f a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or

5 (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a

6 motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is

7 harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c).

8

First, with regard to compensatory damages generally, PLN disclosed damages in

9 the amount of $1,000 per violation for approximately 400 copies—based on past

10 settlements—as a “reasonable estimate of the value of the constitutionally protected

11 activity of publication of each of Plaintiff’s publications suppressed by Defendants.” (Doc.

12 234-4 at 8.) PLN stated in its disclosure: “Plaintiff is unable to compute the exact number

13 of instances of the censorship of its speech without further discovery and investigation, and

14 Plaintiff’s assessment of damages to date is currently impeded by Defendants’ refusal to

15 provide meaningful discovery.” (Doc. 234-4 at 8.) As this disclosure was made on the last

16 day of discovery, PLN’s statements concerning additional discovery are perplexing.

17 Furthermore, PLN’s “estimate of the value of the constitutionally protected activity of

18 publication” is speculative and involves the “abstract weighing of constitutional rights.”

19 Babeu, 933 F. Supp. 2d at 1212 (rejecting damages theory based on the lost opportunity to

20 communicate). PLN shall not be allowed to seek damages based on this theory.

21

Second, PLN seeks compensatory damages for frustration of mission, which

22 includes the anticipated time and expense spent on notifying prisoners of ADC policy

23 changes and any declaratory judgment or injunction issued by this Court, a publicity

24 campaign to educate the public about ADC policy changes, and testing and monitoring of

25 ADC’s mail practices for compliance with orders of this Court for five years. (Doc. 234-

26 4 at 9.) To support this theory, PLN’s disclosures included the names of staff members,

27 their hourly rates, and the estimated hours of work they will perform. (Doc. 234-4 at 9.)

28 Because this damages theory involves estimates of anticipated future work—to be done

- 13 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 14 of 27

1 after this Court issues any declaratory judgment or injunction—PLN’s disclosures are

2 adequate here.

3

Third, PLN seeks compensatory damages for diversion of resources, on the ground

4 that “Defendants’ unconstitutional policy and practices have caused PLN to divert time

5 and resources to investigate the extent and nature of Defendants’ mail policy and

6 censorship practices.” (Doc. 234-4 at 9.) PLN again disclosed the names of staff, their

7 hourly rates, and estimated hours based on past cases. It also stated it would “supplement

8 this disclosure if and when Defendants provide meaningful discovery.” (Doc. 234-4 at 10.)

9 PLN disclosed no additional records or supporting documents showing expenses spent on

10 their own investigation, despite discovery being complete and always having access to its

11 own records. As a result, Defendants were harmed by PLN’s inadequate disclosure and

12 PLN shall not receive damages based on this theory.

13

Fourth, PLN seeks punitive damages. Nothing in the record suggests Defendants

14 were “motivated by evil motive or intent,” or “reckless or callous indifference to the

15 federally protected rights of others.” Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983); see Babeu,

16 933 F. Supp. 2d at 1214. Summary judgment is granted to Defendants on the issue of

17 punitive damages.

18

Finally, PLN is entitled to mandatory nominal damages for constitutional violations.

19

II. First Amendment

20

PLN alleges Defendants violated its First Amendment rights because ADC’s policy

21 prohibiting sexually explicit material is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to

22 PLN. Publishers who wish to send subscriptions to inmates have a “legitimate First

23 Amendment interest in access to prisoners.” Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145,

24 1149 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 408 (1989)). The First

25 Amendment prohibits unreasonable restrictions on publishers’ right to communicate with

26 prisoners. Cook, 238 F.3d at 1149. In Turner v. Safley, the Supreme Court identified four

27 factors to be considered in evaluating the constitutionality of a prison regulation. 490 U.S.

28 401, 409 (1989). The Ninth Circuit has summarized the factors as follows:

- 14 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 15 of 27

1

(1) [W]hether there is a valid, rational connection between the policy and the

2

legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it; (2) whether there

are alternative means of exercising the right; (3) whether the impact of

3

accommodating the asserted constitutional right will have a significant

4

negative impact on prison guards, other inmates and the allocation of prison resources generally; and (4) whether the policy is an “exaggerated response”

5

to the jail’s concerns.

6 Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1058–59 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). The first

7 factor—rational connection—must be met to uphold any regulation. “[I]f a regulation is

8 not rationally related to a legitimate and neutral governmental objective, a court need not

9 reach the remaining three factors.” Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th

10 Cir. 2005). As the Ninth Circuit has instructed, the Turner analysis “applies equally to

11 facial and ‘as applied’ challenges.” Bahrampour v. Lambert, 366 F.3d 969, 975 (9th Cir.

12 2004) (citation omitted). In considering these factors, the Court gives deference to the

13 prison authorities, in recognition of the principle that prison authorities are better equipped

14 to deal with prison administration. Turner, 482 U.S. at 84–85 (1987) (citation omitted).

15

a. Facial Challenge

16

PLN’s First Amendment facial challenges concern three versions of DO 914 that

17 deal with sexually explicit material: the 2010 Policy, 2016 Policy, and 2017 Policy. On

18 summary judgment, Defendants argue that only the 2017 Policy—the policy that is

19 currently effective—presents a live issue for the Court to decide. The two prior versions,

20 according to Defendants, are moot because they no longer exist. (Doc. 233 at 14–15.)

21

The Court agrees. A case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer

22 ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Rosebrock v. Mathis,

23 745 F.3d 963, 971 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). Voluntary cessation of the

24 challenged conduct does not necessarily moot a claim, “unless the party challenging

25 mootness can show that the ‘allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected

26 to occur.’” Rosemere Neighborhood Ass’n v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 581

27 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). In the event of government policy

28 change, voluntary cessation by “government officials has been treated with more solicitude

- 15 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 16 of 27

1 by the courts than similar action by private parties” because courts presume the government

2 acts in good faith. Am. Cargo Transport, Inc. v. United States, 625 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th

3 Cir. 2010) (citation omitted) (“The government’s change of policy presents a special

4 circumstance in the world of mootness. Of course there is always the possibility of bad

5 faith and a change of heart. But, unlike in the case of a private party, we presume the

6 government is acting in good faith.”).

7

In Roy v. State, for example, the prisoner plaintiff brought a First Amendment claim

8 challenging ADC’s policy that “permitted prisoners to possess only seven religious items.”

9 No. CV-03-2150-PHX-SRB, 2006 WL 120328, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 13, 2006). While

10 litigation was pending, ADC modified its policy, eliminating the seven-item limit and

11 permitting inmates to possess as many religious items as can fit in a designated box. Id.

12 The District of Arizona held that the plaintiff’s First Amendment challenge to the seven-

13 item limit was moot, concluding “any suggestion that [ADC] will revert to the old policy

14 once the threat of litigation has been removed is but a ‘speculative contingency.’”7 Id. at

15 *6. Similarly, PLN here seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief as to policies that no

16 longer exist. The 2010 and 2016 Policies were superseded by the 2017 Policy, which is

17 discussed below. As in Roy, the Court is persuaded that ADC will not revert back to its

18 old policies when the threat of litigation is removed. Thus, PLN’s facial challenges to the

19 2010 and 2016 Policies are moot.

20

Next, the Court turns to the currently effective 2017 Policy. Its regulations

21 prohibiting sexually explicit material provide in relevant part:

22

 914.07–1.1: “In order to assist with rehabilitation and treatment

23

objectives, reduce sexual harassment and prevent a hostile environment for inmates, staff and volunteers, inmates are not permitted to send,

24

receive or possess sexually explicit material or content that is detrimental

25

to the safe, secure, and orderly operation of the facility as set forth in this Department Order.” (Doc. 234-2 at 62.)

26

27

7 On the other hand, the court allowed the aspect of plaintiff’s claim that involved the “allegedly wrongful denial of the particular seven items that Plaintiff requested,”

28

concluding “[t]hat Plaintiff may now be permitted to possess additional items beyond those seven already denied to him has no effect on whether the original seven items were properly

denied to him.” Roy, 2006 WL 120328, at *5–6.

- 16 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 17 of 27

1

 914.07–1.2.2: “Prohibited publications included, but are not limited to . .

2

. Publications that depict any of the following acts and behaviors in either

visual, audio, or written form: Physical contact by another person with a

3

person’s unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person is a

4

female breast; Sadomasochistic abuse; Sexual intercourse, vaginal or

anal, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality or sodomy; Masturbation, excretory

5

functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals; Incestuous sexual activity;

6

Sexual activity involving an unwilling participant, or a participant who is the subject of coercion, or any sexual activity involving children.” (Doc.

7

234-2 at 62.)

8

 914.07–1.2.17 prohibits: “Content in publications, photographs,

drawings, or in any type of image or text, that may, could reasonably be

9

anticipated to, could reasonably result in, is or appears to be intended to

10

cause or encourage sexual excitement or arousal or hostile behaviors, or

that depicts sexually suggestive settings, poses or attire, and/or depicts

11

sexual representations of inmates, correctional personnel, law

12

enforcement, military, medical/mental health staff, programming staff,

teachers or clergy.” (Doc. 234-2 at 63.)

13  “Sexually explicit material” is defined as: “Any publication . . . which

14

pictorially or textually depicts nudity of either gender, or homosexual,

15

heterosexual, or auto-erotic sex acts including fellatio, cunnilingus,

masturbation, sadism, sado-masochism, bondage, bestiality, excretory

16

functions, sexual activity involving children, an unwilling participant, or

17

the participant who is the subject of coercion.” (Doc. 234-2 at 69.)

18 In addition to the prohibited content listed above, the 2017 Policy contains several

19 exceptions:

20

 914.07–1.19: “Publications that contain nudity and/or descriptions of

sexual behaviors/acts, or violent acts, shall not be withheld if such

21

unauthorized content is within a publication commonly considered to

22

constitute a well-known and widely recognized religious work (such as

the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon) or literary work (such as

23

Shakespeare). (Doc. 234-2 at 61–62.)

24

 914.07–1.18: “A legal publication that contains unauthorized content that

25

is either (a) directly quoted from a trial or appellate court’s decision,

opinion, or order, or (b) otherwise taken from a court case, government

26

publication, or news wire service (such as the Associated Press), shall not

27

be withheld if the unauthorized content is reasonably necessary to

understand the fundamental legal issue or legal principle of the legal

28

publication. (Doc. 234-2 at 61.)

- 17 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 18 of 27

1

ADC’s policy prohibiting sexually explicit material violates the First Amendment

2 on its face. Under the first factor of the Turner test, there is no rational connection between

3 ADC’s policy and a legitimate government interest. This factor contains three questions:

4 (1) whether the government objective is legitimate; (2) whether the policy is neutral; and

5 (3) whether the policy is “rationally related” to the government objective. Mauro, 188 F.3d

6 at 1059. Defendants state the purpose of ADC’s prohibition of sexually explicit

7 publications is to “assist with rehabilitation and treatment objectives, reduce sexual

8 harassment and prevent a hostile environment for inmates, staff and volunteers.” (Doc.

9 233 at 17.) There is no question these are legitimate penological interests. Mauro, 188

10 F.3d at 1059. ADC’s policy is also “neutral” under Turner, because it furthers “an

11 important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression.”

12 Id. (citation omitted).

13

However, ADC’s policy fails on the rational connection prong. “[A] regulation

14 cannot be sustained where the logical connection between the regulation and the asserted

15 goal is so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 89–

16 90. The standard for rational connection is low: “The only question that we must answer

17 is whether the defendants’ judgment was ‘rational,’ that is, whether the defendant might

18 reasonably have thought that the policy would advance its interests.” Mauro v. Arpaio,

19 188 F.3d 1054, 1060 (9th Cir. 1999). Overbreadth can “cast doubt upon the purported

20 legitimate interest at stake.” Jolly v. Snyder, No. 00-041, 2003 WL 1697539, at*3 n.2 (D.

21 Del. Mar. 22, 2003); see also Couch v. Jabe, 737 F. Supp. 2d 561, 565–66 (W.D. Va.,

22 2010).

23

ADC’s policy prohibiting sexually explicit material is not rationally related to its

24 stated goals of rehabilitation, reduction of sexual harassment, and prison security. ADC

25 defines “sexually explicit material” as “[a]ny publication [that] pictorially or textually

26 depicts nudity of either gender, or homosexual, heterosexual, or auto-erotic sex acts[.]”

27 (Doc. 234-2 at 69.) Under this definition, any depiction of sex can qualify as “sexually

28 explicit.” Thus, this definition on its face includes all sexually related material and

- 18 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 19 of 27

1 effectively reads “explicit” out of the policy. Read in conjunction with other provisions,

2 ADC prohibits written or visual depictions of “[s]exual intercourse,” and “[s]exual activity

3 involving an unwilling participant,” among others. (Doc. 234-2 at 62.) The policy goes

4 even further and prohibits content that “may, could reasonably be anticipated to, could

5 reasonably result in, is or appears to be intended to cause or encourage sexual excitement

6 or arousal.”8 (Doc. 234-2 at 63.) Defendants have also provided staff with a list of “bright-

7 line, unauthorized content” which includes, among others, depictions or descriptions of

8 statutory nudity, masturbation, sexual representations of inmates, and sexual contact with

9 an unwilling participant and/or child. (Doc. 236 at 15.)

10

A policy that prohibits all written and visual depictions of sex, and even prohibits

11 content that may cause or encourage sexual arousal, is facially overbroad. While

12 Defendants insist the policy prohibits sexual material only if it is explicit, they ignore

13 ADC’s own sweeping definition of “sexually explicit material.” Indeed, under this policy,

14 ADC has excluded and/or redacted “material far beyond what is needed to further [its]

15 purported goals.” Jolly v. Snyder, No. C.A. 00-041-JJF, 2003 WL 1697539, at *3 n.2 (D.

16 Del. Mar. 22, 2003). Prohibited and/or redacted material include articles about the

17 persecution of the Yazidi people by ISIS, articles about the Me Too movement, Maya

18 Angelou’s I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, a New Yorker book review of a scholarly

19 biography of Sigmund Freud, a Mayo Clinic newsletter that contained a medical illustration

20 of a hernia, and self-portraits by former President George W. Bush. (Doc. 218 at 12; 218-

21 5 at 2, 26, 34; 218-6 at 5, 8; 219 at 48.) Given the literal reading of ADC’s policy, these

22 examples properly qualify as prohibited material. No reasonable trier of fact would

23 conclude that such broad censorship is rationally related to furthering ADC’s penological

24 interests. See, e.g., Aiello v. Litscher, 104 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (W.D. Wisconsin 2000)

25 (denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment where, under regulations that

26 prohibited depictions of human sexual behavior, defendant excluded mainstream articles

27

28

8 ADC’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) testified ADC relies on its staff to exercise “common sense and good judgment” when deciding whether to exclude matereial.

However, such a standardless instruction is easily susceptible to arbitrary enforcement.

- 19 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 20 of 27

1 and books about sex and various works of art); Couch, 737 F. Supp. 2d at 567–68 (declaring

2 as unconstitutional a prison policy—which prohibited “explicit . . . descriptions of sexual

3 acts”—as irrational when it excluded various books describing rape, sex, sexual abuse,

4 prostitution, etc.).

5

Defendants’ reliance on Mauro v. Arpaio is misplaced.9 188 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir.

6 1999). In Mauro, the Ninth Circuit upheld a Maricopa County jail policy prohibiting

7 “sexually explicit materials,” defined as “materials that show frontal nudity” including

8 “personal photographs, drawings, and magazines and pictorials.” Id. at 1057. Unlike

9 ADC here, which defines “sexually explicit materials” to include any text or image

10 depicting sex, the Maricopa County jail defined “sexually explicit materials” narrowly to

11 include only images and emphasized that inmates were allowed access to “sexually explicit

12 articles.” Id. at 1061. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit concluded “[t]here is nothing vague

13 about this policy” because it established a “bright-line rule [that] not only limits the

14 discretion available to jail employees, but also ensures consistency in the exclusion of

15 materials.” Id. at 1060–61 n.5. By contrast, ADC instructs its staff to exercise “good

16 judgment and common sense”—with no specific guidelines—to determine whether a

17 publication, for instance, “may . . . cause or encourage sexual excitement or arousal” in

18 prisoners. (Docs. 234-2 at 63 (emphasis added); 218-1 at 87.)

19

For these reasons, ADC’s current policy prohibiting sexually explicit material is

20 unconstitutional on its face.

21

22

23 9 Further, Defendants cite Thornburgh v. Abbott, which is easily distinguishable. In

24

Thornburgh, the Court upheld a regulation under which “no publication may be excluded unless the warden himself makes the determination that it is ‘detrimental to the security,

25

good order, or discipline of the institution or . . . might facilitate criminal activity.’” 490 U.S. at 416. Defendants argue ADC’s 2017 Policy contains similar language prohibiting

26

content that is detrimental to security. (Doc. 250 at 27.) The 2017 Policy, however, prohibits “sexually explicit material or content that is detrimental to the safe, secure, and

27

orderly operation of the facility[.]” (Doc. 234-2 at 62 (emphasis added).) Read alongside the other provisions of 914.07, which include various prohibitions unrelated to sex, § 1.1

28

on its face prohibits publications that are either sexually explicit or detrimental to security. It does not require that all sexually explicit materials additionally be deemed detrimental

to security, as the regulation did in Thornburgh.

- 20 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 21 of 27

1

b. As Applied Challenge

2

PLN challenges ADC’s exclusion of material from the following publications: the

3 March 2014, April 2014, July 2014, October 2014, April 2017, May 2017, and June 2017

4 issues of Prison Legal News, as well as the 2011 and 2015 exclusions of Celling. (Doc.

5 179 at 26.)

6

Of those, the March 2014, April 2014, and July 2014 issues were eventually

7 delivered without redaction to inmate subscribers. Defendants argue PLN’s as-applied

8 challenge concerning these three issues are moot. Defendants are correct. ADC delivered

9 these issues in full to prisoners—after further review by OPR—and there is no indication

10 in the record that ADC is likely to reverse its decisions on these publications. PLN argues

11 declaratory relief is necessary because “the articles for which those three issues were

12 censored nonetheless continue to violate the ADC mail policy’s prohibition on sexual

13 content.” (Doc. 248 at 23.) This is actually an argument in support of a facial challenge

14 to ADC’s current policy, which the Court addresses above.

15

Next, the Court evaluates PLN’s as-applied challenges to ADC’s exclusion of

16 material from the October 2014, April 2017, May 2017, and June 2017 issues of Prison

17 Legal News.10 While the same Turner test applies to as-applied challenges, the first Turner

18 factor requires the Court to examine “whether applying the regulation to that speech—

19 whatever its value—was rationally related to the legitimate penological interest asserted

20 by the prison.” Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404, 410 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, the Court

21 considers whether PLN’s materials “in fact implicated legitimate security concerns,” as

22 well as concerns about sexual harassment and rehabilitation, and whether application of

23 DO 914 to the publications was rationally connected to these concerns. Id.

24

The October 2014 issue was initially excluded and eventually redacted because of

25 an article titled “Tenth Circuit Holds ‘Consensual’ Sex Defeats Prisoners’ Eighth

26 Amendment Claim.” (Doc. 236 at 5–6.) The article discussed a Tenth Circuit case

27

28 10 The October 2014 issue was excluded under the 2010 Policy but the others were excluded under the current policy.

- 21 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 22 of 27

1 involving sex between a prisoner and guards. The redacted language quoted directly from

2 the Tenth Circuit opinion and described the facts underlying the case:

3

“I look forward to fucking you,” [prisoner] Graham wrote [to guard Jefferies]

4

in one note. “Damn, just the thought of that gets my nipples hard. I’m such a nympho!” She also flashed her breasts at Jefferies “for the hell of it” . . . .

5

[H]er fantasy was to ‘be with two men at the same time. . . . [Guard Mendez]

6

asked who she would like him to bring. She said, ‘Bring Jefferies.’” Graham then agreed to allow Mendez to see her naked when he came by her cell . . .

7

. She “was wearing just her T-shirt. Mendez took it off and Ms. Graham

8

kissed Jefferies . . . it was then ‘back and forth’ between the two men, and both had their hands on her. Jefferies began to have intercourse with Ms.

9

Graham while she simultaneously performed oral sex on Mendez. The two

men then switched positions[.]” (Doc. 235 at 21–22; 220-2 at 98.) 10

11

The April 2017 issue was initially excluded and eventually redacted because of an

12 article titled “Site of Gruesome Prison Riot Becomes New Mexico Tourist Attraction.”

13 This article was redacted pursuant to several provisions of 914.07, including provisions

14 that are unrelated to sexually explicit material.11 PLN points out that the only redacted

15 language concerning sex is the following sentence: “A dozen guards were taken hostage

16 during the incident; some were beaten and raped.” (Doc. 218-2 at 4.) The Court considers

17 this redaction only, and not the other redactions made pursuant to provisions unrelated to

18 sexually explicit material.

19

Several articles were partially redacted in the May and June 2017 issues.12 As an

20 example, a May 2017 article titled “Vigilantes Assault, Rob and Murder Registered Sex

21 Offenders” discussed various cases involving vigilante attacks on sex offenders. ADC

22 redacted the following description of a sexual assault: “Cruz had been charged with

23 sodomy with a minor; he allegedly had sex with the girl after she passed out drunk on his

24 couch.” (Doc. 218-2 at 21.) Additionally, a June 2017 article titled “Rich Defendant Rapes

25 Child, Receives Probation,” discussed the light sentence given to a defendant who had

26 11 For example, ADC also cited § 1.2.3, which prohibits “[d]epictions or descriptions that

27

incite, aid, or abet riots, work stoppages, means of resistance, or any other behaviors that may be detrimental to the safe, secure, and orderly operation of the prison.” (Doc. 234-2

28

at 62.) 12 As noted above, the Court makes no conclusions about language redacted pursuant to

provisions of 914.07 that are unrelated to sex.

- 22 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 23 of 27

1 admitted to molesting his three-year-old daughter. The defendant’s ex-wife filed a civil

2 suit, described by the following redacted language: “In the suit she accused Richards of

3 digitally penetrating his daughter while masturbating.” (Doc. 218-2 at 6.)

4

Having reviewed the articles at issue, the Court concludes ADC’s application of its

5 regulations prohibiting sexually explicit material to Prison Legal News was not rationally

6 related to its legitimate penological goals. See Prison Legal News v. Stolle, 319 F. Supp.

7 3d 830, 842–46 (E.D. Va. 2015). No reasonable factfinder would find that the excluded

8 language in Prison Legal News implicated ADC’s concerns about prison security, sexual

9 harassment, and rehabilitation. The textual depictions of sex in Prison Legal News are

10 informative and educational in nature—some are direct quotes from court opinions. As

11 PLN correctly points out, these descriptions of facts are essential to understanding legal

12 matters, especially ones that involve sexual harassment and/or assault in prison.

13

Furthermore, ADC’s exclusion decisions concerning Prison Legal News were

14 arbitrary and inconsistent, supporting a finding of irrationality. As mentioned above, ADC

15 initially excluded additional issues of Prison Legal News, but ultimately allowed them in

16 their entirety upon reconsideration—thus implicitly conceding they did not threaten ADC’s

17 penological interests.13 The Court can discern no meaningful difference between the

18 allowed text and redacted text—either in factual content or writing style. Below are

19 examples of text from Prison Legal News that ADC allowed to be delivered:

20

 In reporting a Ninth Circuit case that was factually similar to the Tenth

21

Circuit case described above, ADC allowed the following text concerning

sexual encounters between a prisoner and guard: “Shortly thereafter,

22

Martin entered Wood’s cell and ‘cupped her hand on [his] groin . . .

23

enough to excite [him].” Wood pushed her away and said “you need to back off on this. . . . After Wood ended the relationship, Martin again

24

entered his cell and ‘grabbed ahold of [his] penis and started to stroke it.’”

25

(Doc. 220 at 74.)

26

 ADC allowed in full an article titled “Kitchen Supervisor Gets Prison Time for Sexually Abusing Two Prisoners,” which described the abuse:

27

28

13 Defendants also admit that prisoners have access to a number of sexually explicit books in the prison library but provide no explanation as to why sexual text in Prison Legal News

threatens penological interests but sexual text in books do not.

- 23 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 24 of 27

1

“E.D. was heard asking Evans and J.I. if they were ‘ready to suck some

2

dick.’ Evans locked the door, and the trio then had mutual fellatio on top

of some food sacks. . . . Evans exacerbated the relationship when he

3

became ‘aggressive physically,’ according to E.D., asking him to take off

4

his shirt and then proceeding to play with his nipples. . . . E.D. estimated that Evans performed oral sex on him 15–20 times. Once, E.D. alleged,

5

Evans brought K-Y gel and placed a condom on him, and the men briefly

6

engaged in anal sex before E.D. had a change of heart.” (Doc. 220-1 at 21.)

7

Having reviewed and compared the different issues of Prison Legal News, the Court 8

is persuaded no reasonable factfinder would conclude “the redacted text is significantly 9

more graphic and explicit than the much more generic descriptions in the [allowed] 10

publications,” as Defendants argue. (Doc. 250 at 18–19.) As such, PLN acted 11

unconstitutionally in censoring the October 2014, April 2017, May 2017, and June 2017 12

issues of Prison Legal News. 13

Finally, neither party briefed the constitutionality of ADC’s exclusion of Celling or 14
provided the Court with passages of Celling that led to its exclusion.14 The Court therefore 15

makes no ruling on PLN’s as-applied challenge with regard to Celling. 16

Accordingly, 17

IT IS ORDERED Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 233) is 18

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED PLN’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 235) 20

is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than March 22, 2019, the parties shall each 22

file a statement, of no more than three pages, containing the proposed language for final 23

injunctive relief regarding the claims on which PLN has prevailed. 24

25

26 14 Defendants make no mention of Celling in their argument concerning PLN’s as-applied

27

challenges. PLN, although it briefly discusses Celling in its argument, does not apply the Turner test in full and does not argue why its exclusion is constitutional. (Doc. 235 at 21.)

28

Further, Celling was apparently excluded pursuant to a prohibition of materials that may incite riots, which has nothing to do with sexually explicit materials and was not briefed

by the parties.

- 24 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 25 of 27

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 253) is

2 DENIED as moot.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED PLN’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 254) is DENIED as

4 moot.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 257) is

6 DENIED as moot.

7

This matter is ready for trial. Accordingly, the Court enters the following orders.

8

IT IS ORDERED all Motions in Limine are due August 29, 2019. Responses are

9 due ten days afterward. No replies are permitted unless ordered by the Court. Prior to

10 filing any Motion in Limine, the parties must confer and discuss the contents of each

11 planned motion. No Motion in Limine should be filed if the other party does not oppose

12 the relief requested.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order, if not already

14 filed, is due September 27, 2019.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall review the Court’s standard Juror

16 Questionnaire (available on the Court’s website) and submit NO MORE THAN FIVE

17 PROPOSED QUESTIONS EACH to be added to the standard Juror Questionnaire with

18 the Court’s approval no later than September 10, 2019. Each proposed question shall stand

19 alone and shall not contain sub-parts.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall submit a Joint Statement of the

21 Case, of no more than a few short sentences for the Juror Questionnaire, no later than

22 September 13, 2019.

23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall submit a second Joint Statement of

24 the Case, of no more than two short paragraphs to be read to the jury, no later than

25 September 27, 2019.

26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than September 27, 2019, the parties shall

27 file and submit via email (silver_chambers@azd.uscourts.gov) in Word format proposed

28 Jury Instructions in compliance with the procedures available on the Court’s website,

- 25 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 26 of 27

1 including but not limited to: 1) a joint set of proposed jury instructions where the parties’

2 instructions agree; 2) a separate set of instructions (one for each party) where the parties

3 do not agree; and 3) legal authority supporting all proposed instructions whether the parties

4 agree or not. Where the parties do not agree, the opposing party shall clearly state its

5 objection to the proposed instruction and the proposing party shall clearly state its response.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties will jointly file a proposed form of

7 verdict, or if the parties do not agree, they may separately file proposed forms of verdict

8 no later than September 25, 2019.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than September 25, 2019, the parties shall

10 deliver to chambers excerpts of the deposition testimony they propose to present at trial, in

11 compliance with the procedures available on the Court’s website (found in Deposition

12 Designation Procedure for Judge Silver), including but not limited to: Plaintiffs

13 highlighting in yellow the portions they wish to offer and Defendants highlighting in blue

14 those portions they wish to offer. If either party objects to the proposed testimony, a

15 specific and concise objection (e.g., “Relevance, Rule 402”) shall be placed in the margin

16 adjacent to the proposed testimony.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a final pretrial conference is set for October 18,

18 2019 at 2:00 PM, at which time the Court will review Juror Questionnaires. The parties

19 shall meet and confer prior to this date regarding the Juror Questionnaires and email to the

20 Courtroom Deputy no later than noon on October 17, 2019 a list of any jurors they agree

21 should be stricken for cause, along with any objections to jurors they do not agree should

22 be stricken for cause. The parties shall not file this list. The Court will rule on any

23 disputed jurors at the final pretrial conference.

24

The parties will be supplied a disk containing the questionnaires approximately

25 one week prior to the final pretrial conference. Counsel shall bring a copy of the

26 questionnaires to the conference for review. Counsel are required to return the disk

27 to the Courtroom Deputy and destroy all copies of the questionnaires no later than

28 the last day of trial.

- 26 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 260 Filed 03/08/19 Page 27 of 27

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED trial to the jury is set for October 24, 2019 at 8:30

2 AM. Estimated length of trial is two days.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall comply with the Exhibit Procedures

4 found on the Court’s website at www.azd.uscourts.gov / Judges’ Information / Orders,

5 Forms & Procedures for Hon. Roslyn O. Silver.

6

Dated this 8th day of March, 2019.

7

8

9

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

10

Senior United States District Judge

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 27 -

 
 Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 304 Filed 10/02/19 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Prison Legal News,

No. CV-15-02245-PHX-ROS

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

11 v.

12 Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

15

The parties have filed a Notice of Partial Settlement (Doc. 296) and a Partial

16 Settlement Agreement and Release (Doc. 300). The parties request the Court dismiss

17 certain claims but retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of their settlement. The parties

18 have also filed a joint statement reciting their failure to agree on the language for the

19 permanent injunction (Doc. 301).

20

The Court will dismiss some claims and retain jurisdiction over the partial

21 settlement stipulation. The Court will enter a permanent injunction in the near future.

22

Accordingly,

23

IT IS ORDERED the terms of the parties’ Partial Settlement Agreement and

24 Release, filed with the Court as Docket No. 300 (the “Partial Settlement Stipulation”) are

25 incorporated herein by reference.

26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the

27 terms set forth in the Partial Settlement Stipulation.

28 / / /

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 304 Filed 10/02/19 Page 2 of 2

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the trial scheduled for October 16-17, 2019, and all

2 associated pretrial deadlines and hearings, are hereby VACATED.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s claims for damages under the Due

4 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Ryan and Olsen in their

5 individual capacities are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Defendants Ryan

6 and Olsen are hereby DISMISSED as Defendants in their individual (but not official)

7 capacities WITH PREJUDICE.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief, and any

9 ensuing damages, under the First Amendment related to Defendants’ refusal to deliver
10 Plaintiff’s publication The Celling of America are hereby DISMISSED WITH
11 PREJUDICE.
12 It is expressly determined that there is no just reason for delay. It is therefore
13 directed that this Order be entered as a final judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims for damages
14 under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Ryan and
15 Olsen in their individual capacities and Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief, and any
16
17 ensuing damages, under the First Amendment related to Defendants’ refusal to deliver
18 Plaintiff’s publication The Celling of America under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion for fees and costs pursuant to the

20 Partial Settlement Stipulation shall be filed after final disposition of the remaining claims

21 in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2), unless otherwise agreed

22 to or settled by the Parties.

23

An order entering a permanent injunction will issue in due course.

24

Dated this 2nd day of October, 2019.

25

26

27

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

28

Senior United States District Judge

- 2 -

 
 Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 300 Filed 09/20/19 Page 1 of 2

1 Mark Brnovich

Attorney General 2

Michael E. Gottfried 3 Assistant Attorney General

4

State Bar No. 010623 2005 North Central Avenue

5

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-1592 Telephone: (602) 542-7693

6 Fax: (602) 542-7670 E-mail: Michael.Gottfried@azag.gov

7 Attorneys for Defendants Ryan

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 10

11

Prison Legal News, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center,

12 13 v.

Plaintiff,

No. CV15-02245-PHX-ROS
NOTICE OF FILING OF PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTAND RELEASE AND LODGING ORDER

14 Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

17

The parties, through undersigned Defendants’ counsel, give notice that pursuant

18 to the Court’s Order they are this date filing their Partial Settlement Agreement and

19 Release, attached hereto, and lodging a proposed order which, among other things,

20 dismisses the claims that are the subject of the Partial Settlement Agreement and Release

21

RESPECTFULY SUBMITTED this 20th day of September, 2019.

22

MARK BRNOVICH

23

Attorney General

24

/s/ Michael E. Gottfried Michael E. Gottfried

25

Assistant Attorneys General Attorneys for Defendants

26

27

28

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 300 Filed 09/20/19 Page 2 of 2

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on September 20, 2019, I electronically transmitted the

attached document to the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System.

3

This document and the Notice of Electronic Filing were served on the same date

4 on the following, who are registered participants of the CM/ECF System:

5 Lisa Ells

6

Caroline E. Jackson Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld LLP

7

50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2235

8 Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

9

Sabarish Neelakanta Daniel Marshall

10

Masimba Mutamba Human Rights Defense Center

11

P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460-1151

12 Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

13

David J. Bodney Michael DiGiacomo

14

Ballard, Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300

15

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555 Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

16 s/Michael E. Gottfried 17 #8217111

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 300-1 Filed 09/20/19 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 300-1 Filed 09/20/19 Page 2 of 8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 300-1 Filed 09/20/19 Page 3 of 8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 300-1 Filed 09/20/19 Page 4 of 8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 300-1 Filed 09/20/19 Page 5 of 8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 300-1 Filed 09/20/19 Page 6 of 8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 300-1 Filed 09/20/19 Page 7 of 8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 300-1 Filed 09/20/19 Page 8 of 8

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 300-2 Filed 09/20/19 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

6

Prison Legal News, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center,

7

Plaintiff,

8 v.

No. CV15-02245-PHX-ROS
ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF DUE PROCESS AND THE CELLING OF AMERICA CLAIMS

9 Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

10

Defendants.

11

12

The parties having filed a notice of partial settlement on September 13, 2019 (doc.

13 296), and a stipulation and joint motion for the entry of an agreed dismissal order,

14

IT IS ORDERED:

15

1. The terms of the parties’ Partial Settlement and Release, filed with the Court

16 as Docket No. 300 (the “Partial Settlement Stipulation”) are incorporated herein by

17 reference;

18

2. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms set forth in the Partial

19 Settlement Stipulation;

20

3. The trial scheduled for October 16-17. 2019, and all associated pretrial

21 deadlines are hereby vacated;

22

4. Plaintiff’s claims for damages under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

23 Amendment against Defendants Ryan and Olsen in their individual capacities are hereby

24 dismissed with prejudice and Defendants Ryan and Olsen are hereby dismissed as

25 Defendants in their individual (but not official) capacities with prejudice;

26

5. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief, and any ensuing damages, under the First

27

28

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 300-2 Filed 09/20/19 Page 2 of 2

1 Amendment related to Defendants’ refusal to deliver Plaintiff’s publication The Celling

2 of America are hereby dismissed with prejudice;

3

6. It is expressly determined that there is no just reason for delay and it is

4 therefore directed that this Order be entered as a final judgment as to these claims under

5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

6

7. It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for fees and costs pursuant to the

7 Partial Settlement and Release (Docket No. 300) shall be deferred until after final

8 disposition of the remaining claims in this action pursuant to Rule 54(d)(2), unless

9 otherwise agreed to or settled by the Parties.

10 DATED this ____ day of September, 2019.
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 
 Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 305 Filed 11/06/19 Page 1 of 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Prison Legal News,

No. CV-15-02245-PHX-ROS

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

11 v.

12 Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

15

On March 8, 2019, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part

16 each party’s motion for summary judgment, and ordering the parties to submit proposed

17 language for final injunctive relief regarding the claims on which Prison Legal News

18 prevailed. (Doc. 260.) On April 12, 2019, the parties submitted proposed injunction

19 language. (Docs. 265, 267.) On September 20, 2019, the parties submitted a joint statement

20 regarding injunction, notifying the Court they have been unable to agree on a joint proposed

21 injunction. (Doc. 301.) The parties requested the Court consider the parties’ submissions,

22 issue a permanent injunction, and enter final judgment.

23

The Court, having found that the Arizona Department of Corrections’ (“ADC”)

24 policy prohibiting sexually explicit material is facially in violation of the First Amendment

25 to the Constitution of the United States, and that the censorship of the October 2014, April

26 2017, May 2017, and June 2017 issues of Prison Legal News was unconstitutional, hereby

27 issues the following injunctive relief:

28 //

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 305 Filed 11/06/19 Page 2 of 3

1

IT IS ORDERED within ninety (90) days of this Order the Arizona Department of

2 Corrections and the State of Arizona shall amend, modify, or revise Arizona Department

3 of Corrections Department Order 914 (“Order 914”) to establish bright-line rules that

4 narrowly define prohibited content in a manner consistent with the First Amendment; limit

5 the discretion available to ADC’s employees and agents; and ensure consistency in the

6 exclusion of sexually explicit material.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED within seven (7) days of the amendment,

8 modification, or revision of Order 914, Defendants shall file with the Court a copy of the

9 new Order 914 and notify the Court that the Arizona Department of Corrections website

10 has been updated to reflect the new Order 914.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendants shall email a copy of this Order and the

12 new Order 914 to all staff persons employed in ADC mail rooms. Such email must also

13 inform such staff about the best practices for successful compliance herewith. Within sixty

14 (60) days of the amendment, modification, or revision of Order 914 each staff person

15 responsible for any part of the receipt, collection, or delivery of U.S. Mail must sign a

16 written acknowledgment that they have received and understood this Order and the new

17 Order 914.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED to the extent Defendants withhold a portion of any

19 material sent to ADC prisoners per Order 914, the remaining portion(s) thereof shall be

20 delivered to their intended recipients.

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendants shall, within thirty (30) days of this

22 Order, distribute complete copies of the previously censored October 2014, April 2017,

23 May 2017, and June 2017 issues of Prison Legal News to current ADC prisoner-

24 subscribers.

25

The Court finds that the relief herein ordered is narrowly drawn, extends no further

26 than necessary to correct the harm to Prison Legal News requiring injunctive relief, and is

27 the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.

28 //

- 2 -

Case 2:15-cv-02245-ROS Document 305 Filed 11/06/19 Page 3 of 3

1

The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of Prison Legal News

2 and against Defendants Ryan, Rittenhouse, Hood, Olson, Riggs, and Guzman in their

3 official capacities.

4

Dated this 5th day of November, 2019.

5

6

7

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

8

Senior United States District Judge

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

 
 Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 1 of 29
APPEAL,CLOSED,PROTO,STAY−APPEAL,STD
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:15−cv−02245−ROS

Prison Legal News v. Ryan et al Assigned to: Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver Case in other court: Ninth Circuit, 19−17449 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/06/2015 Date Terminated: 11/06/2019 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Prison Legal News a project of: other Human Rights Defense Center

represented by Caroline Elaine Jackson Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission St., 6th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: cjackson@rbgg.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

David Jeremy Bodney Ballard Spahr LLP − Phoenix, AZ 1 E Washington St., Ste. 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004−2555 602−798−5400 Fax: 602−798−5595 Email: bodneyd@ballardspahr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jenny Yelin Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission St., 6th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: jyelin@rbgg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lance Theodore Weber Human Rights Defense Center P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−360−2523 Fax: 866−735−7136 Email: lance.weber@newlinlaw.com TERMINATED: 01/19/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 2 of 29
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Ells Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission St., 6th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: lells@rbgg.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Masimba M Mutamba Human Rights Defense Center P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−360−2523 Fax: 866−735−7136 Email: mmutamba@hrdc−law.org TERMINATED: 01/29/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sabarish P Neelakanta Human Rights Defense Center P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−360−2523 Fax: 866−735−7136 Email: sneelakanta@hrdc−law.org TERMINATED: 09/26/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Glenn Spore Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 50 Fremont St., 19th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94105−2235 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: aspore@rbgg.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather Elizabeth Todd Horrocks Weiss Brown 6263 N Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 340 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 480−327−6650 Email: heather.horrocks@weissbrown.com TERMINATED: 07/11/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Krista Stone−Manista Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 50 Fremont St., 19th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94105−2235 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: kstone−manista@rbgg.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 3 of 29

Michael Anthony DiGiacomo Ballard Spahr LLP − Phoenix, AZ 1 E Washington St., Ste. 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004−2555 602−798−5400 Fax: 602−798−5595 Email: digiacomom@ballardspahr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Charles L Ryan in his official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections and in his individual capacity; dismissed with prejudice as to individual capacity per [304] Order / terminated completely and substituted with David Shinn per order 316 TERMINATED: 12/17/2019
Defendant Gail Rittenhouse in her official capacity as Division Dierector, Support Services of the Arizona Department of Corrections and in her individual capacity

represented by Daniel Patrick Struck Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC 3100 W Ray Rd., Ste. 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 480−420−1600 Email: dstruck@strucklove.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Carl Brachtl Office of the Attorney General − Phoenix 1275 W Washington St. Phoenix, AZ 85007−2997 602−542−8170 Fax: 602−542−7670 Email: mark.brachtl@azag.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Evan Gottfried Office of the Attorney General − Phoenix 2005 N Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004−1592 602−542−4951 Fax: 602−542−7670 Email: michael.gottfried@azag.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Love Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo PLC 3100 W Ray Rd., Ste. 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 480−420−1600 Fax: 480−420−1696 Email: RLove@strucklove.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Patrick Struck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Carl Brachtl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Evan Gottfried

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 4 of 29

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

Rachel Love (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jeff Hood in his official capacity as Deputy Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections and in his individual capacity

represented by Daniel Patrick Struck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Carl Brachtl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Evan Gottfried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rachel Love (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Alf Olson in his official capacity as an employee of the Office of Publication Review of the Arizona Department of Corrections and in his individual capacity; dismissed with prejudice as to individual capacity per [304] Order

represented by Daniel Patrick Struck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Carl Brachtl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Evan Gottfried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rachel Love (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Unknown Parties named as: Does 1 to 20 (inclusive)

Defendant
James Riggs in his official capacity as an employee of the Office of Publication Review of the Arizona Department of Corrections and his individual capacity

represented by Michael Evan Gottfried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Love (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 5 of 29

Defendant Jamie Guzman in her official capacity as an employee of the Office of Publication Review of the Arizona Department of Corrections Defendant David Shinn Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections / substituted in place of Charles L Ryan on 12/17/19 per order 316
Movant Richard Hedinger Ashby, III

represented by Michael Evan Gottfried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Patrick Struck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Carl Brachtl (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Evan Gottfried (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel Love (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Hedinger Ashby, III #117661 FLORENCE−AZ−EYMAN−ASPC−MEADOWS MEADOWS UNIT P.O. BOX 3300 FLORENCE, AZ 85132 PRO SE

Date Filed 11/06/2015 11/06/2015 11/06/2015 11/06/2015
11/10/2015 11/10/2015 11/10/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $400.00, receipt number 0970−12313460 filed by Prison Legal News. (submitted by David Bodney) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(REK) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
2 SUMMONS Submitted by Prison Legal News. (submitted by David Bodney) (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons)(REK) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Prison Legal News identifying Other Affiliate Human Rights Defense Center for Prison Legal News. (submitted by David Bodney) (REK) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
4 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970−12313460. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Bridget S. Bade. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV−15−02245−PHX−BSB. Magistrate Election form attached. (Attachments: # 1 Magistrate Consent Form)(REK) (Entered: 11/09/2015)
5 SUMMONS Submitted by Prison Legal News. (Horrocks, Heather) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
6 SUMMONS Submitted by Prison Legal News. (Horrocks, Heather) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
7 SUMMONS Submitted by Prison Legal News. (Horrocks, Heather) (Entered: 11/10/2015)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 6 of 29

11/10/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/12/2015 11/13/2015 11/13/2015 11/13/2015
11/18/2015 11/19/2015
11/19/2015 11/19/2015 11/19/2015 11/19/2015
11/19/2015

8 SUMMONS Submitted by Prison Legal News. (Horrocks, Heather) (Entered: 11/10/2015)
9 Summons Issued as to Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons)(BAS). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. (Entered: 11/12/2015)
10 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Lisa Ells on behalf of Prison Legal News. (BAS) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
11 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jenny Yelin on behalf of Prison Legal News. (BAS) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX165045 as to Lisa Ells. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX165044 as to Jenny S Yelin. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
12 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 10 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 11 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
13 Party Elects Assignment of Case to District Judge Jurisdiction. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
14 MINUTE ORDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(b), a request has been received for a random reassignment of this case to a District Judge. FURTHER ORDERED Case reassigned by random draw to Judge Roslyn O. Silver. All further pleadings/papers should now list the following COMPLETE case number: CV−15−2245−PHX−ROS. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MAP) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
15 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Sabarish Neelakanta on behalf of Prison Legal News. (BAS) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
16 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Lance Weber on behalf of Prison Legal News. (BAS) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 70, receipt number PHX165370 as to Sabarish Neelakanta, Lance Theodore Weber. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
17 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 15 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 16 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
18 ORDER − Motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) are discouraged if the defect can be cured by filing an amended pleading. Therefore, the parties must meet and confer prior to the filing of a motion to dismiss or a motion for judgment on the pleadings to determine whether the motion can be avoided. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff(s) serve a copy of this Order upon any Defendant(s) who have not yet appeared and file notice of service. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 11/19/2015. (TLB) (Entered: 11/19/2015)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 7 of 29

11/20/2015
11/20/2015
11/20/2015
11/20/2015
11/20/2015 12/09/2015 12/10/2015 01/08/2016 01/12/2016 01/19/2016 01/20/2016 01/20/2016

19 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Prison Legal News: Return of Service re: Summons; Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Jury Trial Demanded; Civil Cover Sheet; Corporate Disclosure Statement; Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge Instructions; Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge (signed); Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge (blank) upon Gail Rittenhouse on 11/18/2015. (Horrocks, Heather) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
20 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Prison Legal News: Return of Service re: Summons; Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Jury Trial Demanded; Civil Cover Sheet; Corporate Disclosure Statement; Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge Instructions; Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge (signed); Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge (blank) upon Charles L. Ryan on 11/18/2015. (Horrocks, Heather) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
21 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Prison Legal News: Return of Service re: Summons; Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Jury Trial Demanded; Civil Cover Sheet; Corporate Disclosure Statement; Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge Instructions; Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge (signed); Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge (blank) upon Jeff Hood on 11/18/2015. (Horrocks, Heather) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
22 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Prison Legal News: Return of Service re: Summons; Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Jury Trial Demanded; Civil Cover Sheet; Corporate Disclosure Statement; Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge Instructions; Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge (signed); Consent to Exercise of Jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge (blank) upon Alf Olson on 11/18/15. (Horrocks, Heather) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
23 NOTICE re: of Service by Prison Legal News re: 18 Order . (Horrocks, Heather) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
24 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer (Stipulated) by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 12/09/2015)
25 ORDER granting 24 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, and the time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint is extended to and including January 8, 2016. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 12/10/15.(MAW) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
26 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan.(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
27 ORDER SETTING RULE 16 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Scheduling Conference set for 3/11/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver. See document for further details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 01/11/2016. (REK) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
28 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Krista Stone−Manista on behalf of Prison Legal News. (BAS) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX167381 as to Krista Stone−Manista. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
29 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 28 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 01/20/2016)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 8 of 29

02/05/2016 03/01/2016 03/03/2016 03/07/2016
03/11/2016

30 Letter from Anthony Terranova. (GAR) (2 pages) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
31 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Rule 16 Scheduling Order)(Ells, Lisa) (Entered: 03/01/2016)
32 STIPULATION FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE by Prison Legal News. (Weber, Lance) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
33 IT IS ORDERED granting 32 the parties' Stipulation for Plaintiff's co−counsel, Lance Weber, to appear telephonically at the March 11, 2016 scheduling conference. Mr. Weber shall dial chambers at 602−322−7520 no later than 10:00 AM (AZ time). The call shall be placed from a land line only; no cell or speaker phone appearances are permitted. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 3/7/2016. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (ROS, kb) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
34 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver: Rule 16 Scheduling Conference held on 3/11/2016. The Court directs counsel to confer regarding the issues discussed on the record. The parties shall submit no later than 3/18/2016, a revised proposed scheduling order and a stipulated notice as to the legal issues to be briefed. LATER: Magistrate Judge David K Duncan having been randomly drawn, this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Duncan for purposes of a settlement conference. Separate Order to follow.

03/14/2016
03/18/2016 03/18/2016 03/21/2016
03/25/2016 03/25/2016 03/29/2016 04/25/2016 04/29/2016

APPEARANCES: Lisa Ells, Heather Horrocks and Lance Weber (telephonic) for Plaintiff. Michael Gottfried for Defendants. (Court Reporter: Elva Cruz−Lauer.) Hearing held 10:06 AM to 10:56 AM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (KAL) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
35 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED this case is referred by random lot to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED counsel shall jointly contact Judge Duncan's chambers at (602) 322−7630 no later than March 25, 2016 for further instruction. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 3/11/2016. (KAL) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
36 *NOTICE and Stipulation Regarding Legal Issues to be Briefed re: 34 Scheduling Conference by Prison Legal News. (Stone−Manista, Krista) *Modified to correct event on 3/21/2016 (REK). (Entered: 03/18/2016)
37 *Additional Attachment to Main Document and Revised Joint Proposed Scheduling Order re: 36 by Prison Legal News. (Stone−Manista, Krista) *Modified to correct event on 3/21/2016 (REK). (Entered: 03/18/2016)
38 ***AMENDED by (Docs. 57 , 101 , 149 and 150 )−−SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 11/18/2016. Dispositive motions due by 1/17/2017. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 2/13/2017 [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 3/21/16. (MAW) Modified on 11/17/2016 (ATD). Modified on 3/13/2017 (LAD). (Entered: 03/21/2016)
39 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
40 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Stone−Manista, Krista) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
41 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER − Settlement Conference set for 5/2/2016 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 305, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Magistrate Judge David K Duncan. (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 3/29/16. (LAD) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
42 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Prison Legal News for proceedings held on March 11, 2016, Judge Roslyn O Silver hearing judge(s). (Stone−Manista, Krista) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
43 NOTICE of Appearance by Rachel Love on behalf of Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Love, Rachel) (Entered: 04/29/2016)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 9 of 29

05/02/2016
05/03/2016
05/06/2016 05/06/2016 05/10/2016 05/10/2016 05/24/2016 05/25/2016 06/08/2016 06/09/2016
06/14/2016 06/16/2016 07/05/2016 07/06/2016

44 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David K Duncan: Settlement Conference held on 5/2/2016. PRESENT: Lisa Ells for Plaintiff with client representative Paul Wright; Michael Gottfried, Mark Brachtl, Rachel Love and Jeanette Miller for Defendants with client representatives Brad Keogh, Karen Hellman, Michelle Wilkerson and Cynthia Kellway. A telephonic settlement conference will be scheduled within one week. (NOT RECORDED.) Hearing held 1:30 PM to 5:26 PM.(LSP) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
50 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of SCHEDULING CONFERENCE proceedings held on 03/11/2016, before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. (Court Reporter: Elva Cruz−Lauer). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/24/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/3/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/1/2016. (RAP) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
45 NOTICE re: First Notice of Discovery and Settlement by Prison Legal News . (Ells, Lisa) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
46 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
47 First MOTION for Extension of Time for Defendant Ryan to Repsond to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents by Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
48 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED the stipulation (Doc. 47 ) is GRANTED. Defendant Ryan shall have through and including May 25, 2016, to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 5/10/2016. (KAL) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
49 Second MOTION for Extension of Time for Defendant Ryan to Respond to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents by Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
51 ORDER granting 49 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant Ryan shall have through and including June 8, 2016, to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 5/25/16.(CLB) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
52 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
53 ORDER granting 52 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant Ryan shall have through and including June 15, 2016, to respond to Plaintiffs discovery requests. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no further extensions will be granted as to these requests by Defendant Ryan. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 6/9/16.(CLB) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
54 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
55 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
56 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Extend Case Management Deadlines by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ells, Lisa) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
57 ***AMENDED by 101 , 149 and 150 )−−ORDER: IT IS ORDERED the motion (Doc. 56 ) is GRANTED and the deadlines set by the Court's March 21, 2016 Rule 16 Scheduling Order (Doc. 38 ) are extended. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/5/2016. (KAL) Modified on 11/17/2016 (ATD). Modified on 3/13/2017 (LAD). (Entered: 07/06/2016)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 10 of 29

07/14/2016
07/21/2016 08/01/2016 08/01/2016 08/05/2016 08/12/2016 08/29/2016 08/31/2016 09/01/2016 09/02/2016 09/06/2016 09/06/2016
09/12/2016 09/12/2016 09/14/2016
09/16/2016 09/16/2016 09/16/2016

58 NOTICE of Filing Evidence on Behalf of Plaintiff which May Support PLN Claims Against Ryan, et al having more Evidence Request for Court to Notify Plaintiff Combined with Declaration, Exhibits) submitted by nonparty Loretta Ann Greer. (6 pages) (REK) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
59 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Weber, Lance) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
60 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
61 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
62 STATEMENT of Discovery Dispute (Joint) by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Joint Statement re Discovery Dispute)(Stone−Manista, Krista) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
63 ORDER Defendants need not comply with Plaintiff's Notice of Entryonto Land (Doc. 62−1). Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 8/12/16. (CLB) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
64 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan for proceedings held on March 11, 2016, Judge Roslyn O Silver hearing judge(s). (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 08/29/2016)
65 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Stone−Manista, Krista) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
66 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Bodney, David) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
67 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Settlement and Discovery Statement by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
68 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
69 ORDER: Pursuant to the Parties' Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Joint Statement Concerning Settlement Status and Discovery Progress, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED the motion (Doc. 67 ) is GRANTED. The Parties shall have through September 12, 2016, to file their joint statement concerning discovery and settlement. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/6/2016. (KAL) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
70 MOTION for Protective Order (Stipulated) by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Protective Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 09/12/2016)
71 *Second NOTICE of Discovery and Settlement re: Second Joint Statement re Status of Discovery and Settlement by Prison Legal News . (Ells, Lisa) *Modified to correct event on 9/13/2016 (REK). (Entered: 09/12/2016)
72 ORDER: The Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 70) is GRANTED. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) that the following procedures shall apply to confidential documents and information produced or disclosed in this case: See Document for Full Details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/14/2016. (REK) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
73 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
74 OBJECTION to subpoena duces tecum by Defendants Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan, Objector Michele Frame. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
75 OBJECTION to subpoena duces tecum by Defendants Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan, Objector Alejandro Salazar. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 09/16/2016)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 11 of 29

09/23/2016
09/27/2016 09/29/2016 09/30/2016 10/04/2016 10/07/2016 10/11/2016
10/24/2016
10/24/2016 10/24/2016 10/24/2016
10/28/2016 10/31/2016 11/01/2016 11/01/2016 11/01/2016 11/02/2016

76 * MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lance Weber ISO Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, # 2 [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint)(Ells, Lisa) *Modified to add document link on 9/26/2016 (REK). (Entered: 09/23/2016)
77 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Bodney, David) (Entered: 09/27/2016)
78 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
79 RESPONSE to Motion re: 76 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint and Notice of No Objection filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
80 NOTICE re: Confidentiality Previously Disclosed Documents by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan re: 72 Order on Motion for Protective Order . (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
81 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (DiGiacomo, Michael) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
82 ORDER: Having considered Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 76 ), and Defendants Response and Notice of No Objection to Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 79 ), IT IS ORDERED the motion (Doc. 76 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file and serve the First Amended Complaint on all parties under Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Order. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/7/2016. (KAL) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
83 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Prison Legal News filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C, # 2 Exhibit D−F, # 3 Exhibit G−I, # 4 Exhibit J−L)(DiGiacomo, Michael) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
84 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Andrew Spore on behalf of Prison Legal News. (BAS) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX176822 as to Andrew Spore. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
85 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 84 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
86 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (DiGiacomo, Michael) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
87 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (DiGiacomo, Michael) (Entered: 10/31/2016)
88 NOTICE of Errata re: 83 Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages Under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Prison Legal News.. (DiGiacomo, Michael) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
89 NOTICE re: Service of Defendants' Offer of Judgment by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan . (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
90 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
91 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (DiGiacomo, Michael) (Entered: 11/02/2016)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 12 of 29

11/02/2016 11/03/2016 11/04/2016 11/07/2016 11/07/2016 11/08/2016 11/10/2016 11/14/2016
11/15/2016
11/16/2016
11/18/2016 11/21/2016 11/21/2016
11/22/2016

92 STATEMENT of Second Discovery Dispute (Joint) by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 11/02/2016)
93 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time (Stipulated) to Meet and Confer per Protective Order by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Stone−Manista, Krista) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
94 STATEMENT of re Third Discovery Dispute Joint Statement re Third Discovery Dispute by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Stone−Manista, Krista) (Entered: 11/04/2016)
95 * ANSWER to 83 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan.(Gottfried, Michael) *Modified to correct filers on 11/8/2016 (REK). (Entered: 11/07/2016)
96 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (DiGiacomo, Michael) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
97 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (DiGiacomo, Michael) (Entered: 11/08/2016)
98 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Extend Case Management Deadlines (Joint) by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
99 ORDER: Pursuant to the Parties' Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to Meet and Confer Per Protective Order Paragraph 6, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 93 ) is GRANTED. The Parties shall have through and including November 17, 2016, to meet and confer regarding Defendants' notice of confidentiality filed on October 4, 2016 (Doc. 80 ) and through and including December 1, 2016, to resolve any remaining disputes, in accordance with Paragraph 6 of the Protective Order (Doc 72 ). Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 11/14/2016. (KAL) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
100 AMENDED BY DOC. 101. ORDER: Pursuant to the Parties' Joint Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED the motion (Doc. 98 ) is GRANTED. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 11/15/2016. (KAL) Modified on 11/16/2016 (KAL). (Entered: 11/15/2016)
101 ** MODIFIED BY 149 and 150 ** AMENDED ORDER: Pursuant to the Parties' Joint Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED the motion (Doc. 98 ) is GRANTED. The deadlines set by the Court's July 6, 2016 Scheduling Order are extended as follows: Discovery due by 2/21/2017. Dispositive motions due by 4/17/2017. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 5/15/2017. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Parties shall submit a revised Rule 16 Scheduling Order no later than Friday, November 18, 2016. See attached Order for details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 11/15/2016. (KAL) Modified on 3/9/2017 (LAD). Modified on 3/13/2017 (LAD). (Entered: 11/16/2016)
102 NOTICE re: Revised Joint Proposed Rule 16 Scheduling Order by Prison Legal News . (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
103 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Rule 12(c) Motion to Dismiss by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan, James Riggs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
104 FILED at Doc. 114 LODGED Proposed Motion to Partially Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. 83) re: 103 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Rule 12(c) Motion to Dismiss . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Gottfried, Michael) Modified on 12/22/2016 (LFIG). (Entered: 11/21/2016)
105 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 11/22/2016)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 13 of 29

11/23/2016
12/05/2016 12/07/2016 12/07/2016 12/16/2016
12/20/2016 12/22/2016 12/22/2016
12/22/2016 12/27/2016 12/28/2016 01/03/2017 01/03/2017 01/05/2017
01/05/2017 01/05/2017 01/06/2017 01/09/2017

106 AMENDED RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 2/21/2017. Dispositive motions due by 4/17/2017. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 5/15/2017. See document for details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 11/22/16. (EJA) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
107 RESPONSE to Motion re: 103 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Rule 12(c) Motion to Dismiss filed by Prison Legal News. (DiGiacomo, Michael) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
108 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
109 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
110 *NOTICE of Service of Discovery re: Defendants' Expert Disclosures Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) by Charles L Ryan, Gail Rittenhouse, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs . (Gottfried, Michael) *Modified to correct event and add additional filers on 12/19/2016 (REK). (Entered: 12/16/2016)
111 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
112 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
113 ORDER granting the 103 Motion for Leave File Excess Pages. Defendants shall have leave to exceed the page limitations for their combined motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 12/22/2016.(LFIG) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
114 MOTION to Partially Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. 83 ) by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(LFIG) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
115 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Stone−Manista, Krista) (Entered: 12/27/2016)
116 *NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal by Prison Legal News. (Weber, Lance) *Modified to correct event and incorrect Ex Parte designation on 12/28/2016 (REK). (Entered: 12/28/2016)
117 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Partially Dismiss by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Stone−Manista, Krista) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
118 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (DiGiacomo, Michael) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
119 ORDER: Pursuant to the Plaintiff's Stipulated Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages Re: Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Partially Dismiss First Amended Complaint and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED the motion (Doc. 117 ) is GRANTED. The Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Partially Dismiss First Amended Complaint may exceed by no more than 5 pages the applicable page limits of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona Local Rule 7.2(e)(1). Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/5/2017. (KAL) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
120 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 114 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
121 REQUEST re: Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Partially Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 120 ) by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
122 NOTICE re: Third Notice of Discovery and Settlement (Joint) by Prison Legal News . (Stone−Manista, Krista) (Entered: 01/06/2017)
123 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Jeff Hood. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 14 of 29

01/10/2017
01/12/2017
01/18/2017 01/19/2017 01/19/2017 01/19/2017
01/20/2017 01/23/2017 01/23/2017 01/31/2017 01/31/2017 02/14/2017 02/16/2017
02/16/2017 02/21/2017 02/22/2017 02/24/2017 02/27/2017

124 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 114 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims, 120 Response in Opposition to Motion by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 01/10/2017)
125 ORDER: Pursuant to the Defendants' Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants' to Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Partially Dismiss, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED the motion (Doc. 124 ) is GRANTED. Defendants shall have through January 19, 2017, in which to file their Reply to Plaintiff's Response. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/11/2017. (KAL) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
126 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
127 *NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney (with Consent) by Prison Legal News. (Weber, Lance) *Modified to correct event on 1/20/2017* (REW). (Entered: 01/19/2017)
128 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
129 *(Filed at Doc. 132 )−−LODGED Proposed Reply in support of Motion to Dismiss re: 128 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) Modified on 1/23/2017 (LSP). (Entered: 01/19/2017)
130 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
131 ORDER granting 128 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Defendants may exceed the page limit by five pages, for a total of no more than 16 pages. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/20/17.(LSP) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
132 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 114 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (LSP) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
133 NOTICE of Deposition of Paul Wright, filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
134 NOTICE of Deposition of Designee of PL Prison Legal News, filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
135 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
136 STATEMENT of Joint Statement re Fourth Discovery Dispute: Request for Protective Order re February 21, 2017 Deposition (Accelerated Consideration Requested) by Defendants Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
137 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
138 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
139 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
140 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 02/24/2017)
141 ORDER re: 136 Statement filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. The parties are having difficulty scheduling a deposition. The deadline for completion of discovery has passed, but assuming the discovery is

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 15 of 29

03/02/2017 03/03/2017
03/03/2017 03/07/2017 03/07/2017 03/07/2017 03/08/2017 03/09/2017
03/10/2017
03/22/2017 04/17/2017 05/08/2017 05/09/2017

proper, the Court will allow the deposition to occur no later than Monday, March 6, 2017. The parties shall meet and confer to arrange a mutually acceptable date to conduct the deposition. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 02/27/2017. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (ROS, sg) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
142 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 141 Order and Clarification by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A & B)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 03/02/2017)
143 ORDER: Defendants asked the Court to reconsider its February 27, 2017 Order. (Doc. 142 .) Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED no later than Wednesday, March 8, 2017, Plaintiff shall file a response of no longer than three pages to address the arguments Defendants raised in their motion for reconsideration. [See attached Order for details.] Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 3/3/2017. (KAL) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
144 Third MOTION for Extension of Time of Case Management Deadlines by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Revised Rule 16 Scheduling Order)(Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
145 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
146 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
147 NOTICE of Errata re: 145 Notice of Service of Discovery by Defendants Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan.. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
148 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 142 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 141 Order and Clarification filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sabarish Neelakanta ISO Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Clarification)(Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
149 ** REVISED by 150 ORDER ** ORDER granting 144 Third MOTION for Extension of Time of Case Management Deadlines. Final Discovery Supplementation extended to the later date of: (1) May 8, 2017, or (2) 14 days following the disposition of all outstanding discovery disputes. Dispositive Motion Deadline extended to 30 days following the later date of: (1) the Final Discovery Supplementation deadline, as described above, or (2) the disposition of Defendants' 12(c) Motion, Dkt. No. 114 . Pretrial Order and documents extended to the latter date of: (1) July 14, 2017, or, if dispositive motions have been filed, (2) 30 days following the resolution of the dispositive motions. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 3/9/17. (LAD) Modified on 3/13/2017 (LAD). (Entered: 03/09/2017)
150 REVISED RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 2/21/2017. All dispositive motions shall be filed within 30 days following the later date of: (1) the Final Discovery Supplementation deadline, as described above, or (2) the disposition of Defendants' 12(c) Motion, Dkt. No. 114 . Unless permitted by Order of the Court, only one dispositive motion is allowed to be filed by each party. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 7/14/2017. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 3/9/2017. (KAL) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
151 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
152 *Joint STIPULATION/REQUEST to Request Magistrate Judge to Mediate Settlement Conference by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) *Modified to correct event on 4/18/2017 (REK). (Entered: 04/17/2017)
153 NOTICE re: Joint Fourth Notice of Discovery and Settlement by Prison Legal News . (Stone−Manista, Krista) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
154 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 05/09/2017)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 16 of 29

06/12/2017 07/25/2017 08/04/2017
08/07/2017 08/07/2017 08/07/2017 08/11/2017 08/11/2017
08/17/2017 08/17/2017
08/21/2017 08/21/2017
08/22/2017 08/23/2017 08/25/2017 08/31/2017

155 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
156 NOTICE re: Pending Motion Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(n) by Prison Legal News re: 114 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims . (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
157 ORDER: The Parties' Joint Stipulation to Request Magistrate Judge to Mediate Settlement Conference 152 is GRANTED. This case is referred to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference. Counsel are to jointly contact Judge Boyle's chambers at (602)322−7670 no later than within 10 days for further instruction. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 8/04/2017. (REK) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
158 ORDER: Plaintiff's request to depose Ms. Guzman 142 is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 8/04/2017. (REK) (Entered: 08/07/2017)
159 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED Defendants shall produce the documents Plaintiff requested for the time period of January 2014 to present. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 8/04/2017. (REK) (Entered: 08/07/2017)
160 ORDER Defendants shall produce the documents requested by Plaintiff. To the extent that Defendants believe a specific document infringes upon a specific privilege, then Defendants shall create a privilege log. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 8/7/17. (CLB) (Entered: 08/07/2017)
161 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sabarish Neelakanta ISO Plaintiff's Motion to File Surreply)(Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 08/11/2017)
162 * (Filed at Doc. 177 ) LODGED Proposed Surreply ISO Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss re: 161 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) Modified on 10/2/2017 (LAD). (Entered: 08/11/2017)
163 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
164 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER: This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle for aSettlement Conference. Settlement Conference set for 10/16/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 302, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Magistrate Judge John Z Boyle. See document for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Z Boyle on 8/17/2017. (REK) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
165 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Neelakanta, Sabarish) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
166 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 158 Order on Motion for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, MOTION to Reopen Discovery by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sabarish Neelakanta ISO Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration or to Reopen Discovery)(Spore, Andrew). *Added MOTION for Discovery on 8/22/2017 (REK). (Entered: 08/21/2017)
167 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Supplementation by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
Remark: Pro hac vice motion granted for Daniel Marshall on behalf of plaintiff. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
168 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 161 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−E)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 08/25/2017)
Remark: Pro hac vice motion granted for Masimba M Mutamba on behalf of plaintiff Prison Legal News. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 17 of 29

08/31/2017 08/31/2017 09/01/2017 09/05/2017 09/06/2017 09/12/2017 09/30/2017
10/02/2017 10/02/2017 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 10/16/2017
10/29/2017

169 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 161 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Reply Declaration of Paul Wright in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Surreply)(Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 08/31/2017)
170 *LODGED Proposed Amended Surreply ISO Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss re: 161 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 08/31/2017)
171 AMENDED MOTION for Reconsideration re: 158 Order on Motion for Reconsideration (or in the Alternative, to Reopen Discovery) by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sabarish Neelakanta ISO Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Reconsideration, or to Reopen Discovery)(Spore, Andrew). (Entered: 09/01/2017)
172 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 167 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Supplementation filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Andrew Spore in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time)(Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
173 NOTICE re: Joint Fifth Notice of Discovery and Settlement by Prison Legal News . (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 09/06/2017)
174 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 167 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Supplementation filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 09/12/2017)
175 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 114 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The facial claim under the Fourteenth Amendment is DISMISSED AS MOOT. With regard to the as−applied challenge under the First Amendment, the individual claims for damages against all Defendants and the official capacity claims against Ryan, Rittenhouse, Hood, and Riggs are DISMISSED. Prison Legal is GRANTED limited leave to amend its First Amendment claim. If Prison Legal chooses to amend to conform to evidence discovered thus far, it shall have until no later than Friday, October 13, 2017 to file a Second Amended Complaint. The remaining arguments in Defendants' motion are DENIED. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/29/17. (LAD) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
176 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED Prison Legal's motion for leave to file a sur−reply (Doc. 161 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall file Prison Legal's proposed sur−reply (lodged at Doc. 162 ). (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/2/17. (LAD) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
177 SUR−REPLY in Support of Response (Opposition) to 114 Motion to Partially Dismiss First Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (LAD) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
178 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 175 Order on Motion to Dismiss Counts/Claims for Reconsideration or Clarification of Dismissal of Plaintiffs Facial Due Process Claim As Moot by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
179 AMENDED COMPLAINT (SECOND) FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against All Defendants filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C, # 2 Exhibit D−F, # 3 Exhibit G−I, # 4 Exhibit J, # 5 Exhibit K−O, # 6 Exhibit P−Q)(Ells, Lisa) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
180 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge John Z Boyle: Settlement Conference held on 10/16/2017. Present were: Attorneys Lisa Ellis and Masimba Mutamba on behalf of Plaintiff; Corporate Representative Paul Wright for Plaintiff; Attorneys Michael Gottfried and Rachel Love on behalf of Defendants; Paralegal Jeannette Miller and general counsel Brad Keogh for Defendants. A court reporter was not present nor the Settlement Conference recorded. A settlement was not reached. Hearing held 10:00 AM to 3:30 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (JZB, rb) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
181 ANSWER to 179 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan.(Gottfried, Michael)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 18 of 29

11/06/2017 11/20/2017 11/27/2017 12/08/2017 12/18/2017 12/21/2017 01/08/2018 01/11/2018
01/12/2018 01/18/2018
01/24/2018 02/13/2018 02/14/2018
02/15/2018

(Entered: 10/29/2017)
182 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint) by Prison Legal News. (Ells, Lisa) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
183 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 182 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint) filed by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
184 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 182 MOTION to Amend/Correct (Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint) filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
185 NOTICE OF PARTY'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan: Arizona Attorney General's Office, 2005 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85004−1592. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
186 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
187 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
188 NOTICE re: Joint Sixth Notice of Discovery and Settlement by Prison Legal News . (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
189 ORDER denying 178 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Order Dismissing Plaintiffs Due Process Claim as Moot and 182 Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. Defendants' Motion for An Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Doc. 167 ) is granted. The parties shall finally supplement all discovery by 1/24/2018. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Request to Depose Guzman or, in the alternative, Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery (Doc. 171 ) is denied. Interim Rule 16 Status Conference is set for 3/9/2018, at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver. Parties shall file Dispositive Motions no later than 4/13/2018 and a Proposed Amended Scheduling Order no later than 1/12/18. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/10/18. (DXD) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
190 NOTICE re: [Proposed] Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order by Prison Legal News re: 189 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct . (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
191 SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 1/24/2018. Dispositive motions due by 4/13/2018. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 4/20/2018. Status Report due by 3/2/2018. Interim Status Conference set for 3/9/2018 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver. See Order for further details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/17/18. (DXD) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
192 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
193 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time for Defendants to Finally Supplement Discovery by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 02/13/2018)
194 ORDER granting the parties' 193 Stipulated Motion for an Extension of Time for Defendants to Finally Supplement Discovery. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Parties shall file an Amended Scheduling Order with the new deadlines no later than February 19, 2018. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 2/14/18. (CLB) (Entered: 02/14/2018)
195 NOTICE re: [Proposed] Amended Rule 16 Scheduling Order by Prison Legal News re: 194 Order on Motion for Extension of Time . (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 02/15/2018)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 19 of 29

02/20/2018 02/20/2018 02/26/2018
03/02/2018 03/06/2018 03/06/2018 03/07/2018
03/07/2018 03/08/2018 03/09/2018 03/12/2018

196 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
197 NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
198 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 2/20/2018. Dispositive motions due by 4/13/2018. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 4/20/2018. Status Report due by 3/9/2018. Interim Status Conference set for 3/12/2018 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver. See Order for further details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 2/26/18. (DXD) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
199 STATEMENT of Fifth Discovery Dispute re: 160 Order by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Andrew Spore ISO Plaintiffs Statement Re: Fifth Discovery Dispute)(Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 03/02/2018)
200 STATEMENT of Supposed Fifth Discovery Dispute re: 199 Statement by Defendants Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
201 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 200 Statement by Defendants Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
202 ORDER − If Defendants have failed to provide a privilege log reflecting those documents withheld on the basis of privilege, Defendants are in violation of the Court's prior order and must produce such a log by Friday, March 9, 2018. Plaintiff's request for leave to file a motion for sanctions pursuant will be denied at this time. If Plaintiff makes a sincere effort to resolve the matter with Defendants and Defendants have still failed to produce the privilege log, Plaintiff may raise the matter again at the March 12, 2018 Interim Status Conference. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 03/06/2018. (KAS) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
203 MOTION for Leave to Appear Telephonically at March 12, 2018 Interim Status Conference by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ells, Lisa) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
204 STATUS REPORT (Joint Status Report re March 12, 2018 Interim Status Conference) by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
205 ORDER granting 203 Motion for Leave to Appear Telephonically. Lead counsel for Plaintiff in this matter, Lisa Ells, may appear telephonically for the Interim Status Conference. [See attached Order for details]. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 03/09/2018. (KAS) (Entered: 03/09/2018)
206 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver: Status Conference held on 3/12/2018. By 3/22/2018, the parties are to file the undisputed facts that each party will offer in their motion for summary judgment.

03/22/2018 03/22/2018 04/13/2018

APPEARANCES: Lisa Ells and Sabarish Neelakanta appear telephonically for Plaintiff. Michael Gottfried for Defendants. (Court Reporter Elva Cruz−Lauer.) Hearing held 1:31 PM to 1:51 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CLB) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
207 STATEMENT OF FACTS (Undisputed) by Defendants Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
208 STATEMENT OF FACTS (Plaintiff's Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment) by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
209 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Summary Judgment by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 04/13/2018)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 20 of 29

04/13/2018 04/13/2018 04/13/2018
04/13/2018 04/13/2018 04/13/2018 04/13/2018 04/13/2018 04/13/2018
04/13/2018 04/13/2018

210 **FILED at (Doc. 233 ) LODGED Proposed Motion for Summary Judgment re: 209 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Summary Judgment . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) Modified on 5/14/2018 (DXD). (Entered: 04/13/2018)
211 **FILED at (Doc. 234 ) LODGED Proposed Statement of Facts re: 209 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Summary Judgment. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) *Modified to correct event on 4/16/2018 (DXD). Modified on 5/14/2018 (DXD). (Entered: 04/13/2018)
212 **FILED at (Doc. 234 ) LODGED Proposed Additional Attachments to Main Document to 211 Statement of Facts re: 209 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Summary Judgment. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−G, # 2 Exhibit Attachments 1−6, # 3 Exhibit Attachments 7−9, # 4 Exhibit Attachments 10−12)(Gottfried, Michael) *Modified to correct event on 4/16/2018 (DXD). Modified on 5/14/2018 (DXD). (Entered: 04/13/2018)
213 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Summary Judgment by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) *Modified text on 4/16/2018 (DXD). (Entered: 04/13/2018)
214 **FILED at (Doc. 235 ) LODGED Proposed Motion for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Summary Judgment re: 213 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) *Modified text on 4/16/2018 (DXD). Modified on 5/14/2018 (DXD). (Entered: 04/13/2018)
215 *NOTICE re: 214 Lodged Document Motion for Summary Judgment as to 213 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) *Modified to correct event/linkage on 4/16/2018 (DXD). (Entered: 04/13/2018)
216 **FILED at (Doc. 236 ) LODGED Proposed Statement of Facts re: 213 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Summary Judgment. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) *Modified to correct event/linkage on 4/16/2018 (DXD). Modified on 5/14/2018 (DXD). (Entered: 04/13/2018)
217 DECLARATION of John L. Clark ISO Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment re: 214 Lodged Document Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) *Modified linkage on 4/16/2018 (DXD). (Entered: 04/13/2018)
218 DECLARATION of Andrew G. Spore re: 214 Lodged Document Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. A−N to Spore Decl., # 2 Exs. O−U to Spore Decl., # 3 Exs. V−W to Spore Decl., # 4 Exs. X.1 − X.4 to Spore Decl., # 5 Exs. X.5 − X.9 to Spore Decl., # 6 Exs. Y.1 − Y.16 to Spore Decl., # 7 Exs. Y.17 − Y.24 to Spore Decl., # 8 Exs. Z − BB (Part 1) to Spore Decl., # 9 BB (Part 2) to Spore Decl., # 10 BB (Part 3) to Spore Decl.)(Spore, Andrew) *Modified linkage on 4/16/2018 (DXD). (Entered: 04/13/2018)
219 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 218 Declaration (Exhibits BB (Part 4) − LL) by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
220 DECLARATION of Paul Wright ISO Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment re: 214 Lodged Document Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. C to Decl. Wright, # 2 Exhibit Ex. D−E to Decl. Wright, # 3 Exhibit Ex. F to Decl. Wright, # 4 Exhibit Ex. G to Decl. Wright, # 5 Exhibit Ex. H to Decl. Wright, # 6 Exhibit Ex. I to Decl. Wright, # 7 Exhibit Ex. J−O to Decl. Wright)(Spore, Andrew) *Modified linkage on 4/16/2018 (DXD). (Entered: 04/13/2018)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 21 of 29

04/13/2018 04/13/2018
04/16/2018
04/16/2018 04/17/2018 04/17/2018 04/18/2018 04/18/2018 04/18/2018 04/19/2018
05/09/2018 05/14/2018
05/14/2018 05/14/2018

221 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 215 NOTICE (Certificate of Service) by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) *Modified text on 4/16/2018 (DXD). (Entered: 04/13/2018)
222 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: Documents 213 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 , 218 , 219 , 220 and 221 . Documents not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) − Forms of Papers. Please note for future filings; Party names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case type. No further action is required. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DXD) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
223 RESPONSE to Motion re: 213 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Summary Judgment and Notice of No Objection filed by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
224 RESPONSE to Motion re: 209 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Summary Judgment (Statement of Non−Opposition) filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
225 NOTICE re: Non−Electronically Filed Exhibits by Prison Legal News re: 218 Declaration of Andrew G. Spore ISO Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 04/17/2018)
226 MOTION for Leave to File Non−Electronically Filed Exhibits to Declaration of Andrew G. Spore ISO Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 04/17/2018)
227 NOTICE of Errata re: 210 Lodged Proposed Document by Defendants Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan.. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
228 NOTICE of Errata re: 211 Statement of Facts by Defendants Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan.. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
229 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 228 Notice of Errata Attachment 1 by Defendants Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
230 NOTICE of Errata re: 218 Declaration, 216 Lodged Document and Notice of Filing of Corrected Exhibits by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E to Spore Decl., # 2 Corrected Exhibits Y.17−Y.24 to Spore Decl., # 3 Corrected Exhibit BB (Part 3) to Spore Decl.)(Spore, Andrew) *Modified text on 4/20/2018 (DXD). (Entered: 04/19/2018)
231 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 214 Lodged Proposed Document, 210 Lodged Proposed Document, summary judgment motions by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
232 ORDER granting 209 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting 213 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting 226 Motion for Leave to File Non−Electronic Exhibits; granting 231 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The Parties shall have until 6/4/2018, to submit their respective Responses to the dispositive motions. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 5/11/18. (DXD) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
233 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (DXD) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
234 STATEMENT OF FACTS re: 233 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−G, # 2 Attachment 1−6, # 3 Attachment 7−9, # 4 Attachment 10−12)(DXD) (Entered: 05/14/2018)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 22 of 29

05/14/2018 05/14/2018 05/15/2018
05/29/2018 05/30/2018
06/18/2018 06/18/2018
06/18/2018 06/18/2018 06/18/2018 06/18/2018 06/18/2018
06/18/2018 06/28/2018

235 MOTION for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of by Prison Legal News. (DXD) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
236 STATEMENT OF FACTS re: 235 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (DXD) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
Disc − As outlined in Plaintiff's Notice and Index of Non−Electronically Filed Exhibits to Declaration of Andrew G. Spore in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 225 ) has been received and will be stored in the Phoenix file room. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (NKS) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
237 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 233 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 235 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
238 ORDER granting 237 Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The Parties shall have through and including 6/18/2018, to file their Responses and through and including 7/11/2018, to file their Replies on the cross Motions for Summary Judgments. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 5/30/18. (DXD) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
239 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 06/18/2018)
240 **Filed at 248 per Order 247 **LODGED Proposed Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 233) re: 239 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) Modified on 6/28/2018 (REK). (Entered: 06/18/2018)
241 DECLARATION of Andrew G. Spore ISO Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment re: 240 Lodged Proposed Document (Plaintiff's Opposition). filed by Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 06/18/2018)
242 OBJECTION re: 234 Statement of Facts (Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections Re Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendants' Separate Statement of Facts) by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 06/18/2018)
243 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 240 Lodged Proposed Document (Certificate of Service Re Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment) by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 06/18/2018)
244 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Plaintiff's summary judgment motion by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 06/18/2018)
245 **Filed at 250 per Order 249 **LODGED Proposed Response to Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motion re: 244 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Plaintiff's summary judgment motion . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) Modified on 7/2/2018 (REK). (Entered: 06/18/2018)
246 STATEMENT OF FACTS re: 245 Lodged Proposed Document Controverting Satement of Facts and Additional Statement of Facts by Defendants Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 06/18/2018)
247 ORDER: The motion 239 is GRANTED. The page limitation for Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be increased by twenty−three pages, and shall be no longer than forty pages. The parties are advised, should they choose to file a reply, the Court will not grant permission to exceed the page limit. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/26/2018. (REK) (Entered: 06/28/2018)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 23 of 29

06/28/2018 06/29/2018
06/29/2018 07/11/2018 07/11/2018
07/16/2018 07/27/2018
08/03/2018 08/03/2018
08/10/2018
08/17/2018 12/13/2018 03/08/2019

248 RESPONSE to Motion re: 233 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Prison Legal News. (REK) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
249 ORDER granting 244 Motion for Leave to File. Defendants may exceed the page limit in their Response to Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Motion. The parties are advised, should they choose to file a reply, the Court will not grant permission to exceed the page limit. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 6/26/18. (CLB) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
250 RESPONSE to Motion re: 235 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (REK) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
251 * REPLY to Response to Motion re: 233 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jamie Guzman, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) * Modified to correct filers on 7/12/2018 (LAD). (Entered: 07/11/2018)
252 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 235 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Andrew G. Spore ISO Plaintiffs Reply ISO Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Plaintiffs Evidentiary Objections Re Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Objection/Response to Defendants Controverting Statement of Facts and Additional Statement of Facts, # 3 Certificate of Service Re Reply ISO Motion for Summary Judgment)(Spore, Andrew) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
253 MOTION to Strike 252 Reply to Response to Motion Exhibits−Evidentiary Objections and Declaration by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
254 * CROSS−MOTION to Strike Defendants' Evidentiary Objections 246 and RESPONSE in Opposition re: 253 MOTION to Strike 252 Reply to Response to Motion Exhibits−Evidentiary Objections and Declaration filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mutamba, Masimba) * Modified to correct event; attorney noticed on 7/30/2018 (LAD). (Entered: 07/27/2018)
255 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 253 MOTION to Strike 252 Reply to Response to Motion Exhibits−Evidentiary Objections and Declaration filed by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
256 * AMENDED REPLY to Response to Motion re: 253 MOTION to Strike 252 Reply to Response to Motion Exhibits−Evidentiary Objections and Declaration (Amended) filed by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) * Modified to add text on 8/6/2018 (LAD). (Entered: 08/03/2018)
257 * RESPONSE in Opposition to 254 MOTION to Strike and MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections (doc. 242 at 3−8) filed by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) * Modified to correct event; attorney noticed on 8/10/2018 (LAD). (Entered: 08/10/2018)
258 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 254 MOTION to Strike filed by Prison Legal News. (Mutamba, Masimba) (Entered: 08/17/2018)
259 NOTICE re: Notice of Similar Pending Issues in Other District of Arizona Lawsuits by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan . (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
260 ORDER − Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 233 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. FURTHER ORDERED PLN's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 235 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. FURTHER ORDERED no later than March 22, 2019, the parties shall each file a statement, of no more than three pages, containing the proposed language for final injunctive relief regarding the claims on which PLN has prevailed. FURTHER ORDERED Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. 253 ) is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED PLN's Motion to Strike (Doc. 254 ) is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED Defendants'

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 24 of 29

03/12/2019 03/12/2019 03/14/2019 03/14/2019 04/12/2019 04/12/2019 04/12/2019 04/12/2019 04/15/2019 04/15/2019 04/24/2019 04/24/2019

Motion to Strike (Doc. 257 ) is DENIED as moot. This matter is ready for trial. Accordingly, the Court enters the following orders: ORDERED all Motions in Limine are due August 29, 2019. FURTHER ORDERED the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order, if not already filed, is due September 27, 2019. FURTHER ORDERED a Final Pretrial Conference is set for October 18, 2019 at 2:00 PM. FURTHER ORDERED Jury Trial is set for October 24, 2019 at 8:30 AM. See document for full details and additional deadlines. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 3/8/2019. (RMV) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
261 *First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Proposed Order Re Injunctive Relief (Stipulated Motion) by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) *Modified to correct filers on 3/13/2019 (RMV). (Entered: 03/12/2019)
262 *First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Potential Motion for Reconsideration by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) *Modified to correct filers on 3/13/2019 (RMV). (Entered: 03/12/2019)
263 ORDER granting 261 Motion for Extension of Time to File Statement Re Proposed Injunctive Relief Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have up to and including April 12, 2019, to file their Statement. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 3/13/19. (CLB) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
264 ORDER granting 262 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendants shall have up to and through April 12, 2019, to file their Motion for Reconsideration in respect to Doc. 260 if they so choose. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 3/13/19. (CLB) (Entered: 03/14/2019)
265 *STATEMENT of Proposed Final Injunctive Relief re: 260 Order, Terminate Motions, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Mutamba, Masimba) *Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3). Attorney noticed on 4/15/2019 (RMV). (Entered: 04/12/2019)
266 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 260 Order, Terminate Motions, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
267 STATEMENT of Proposed Injunction Language re: 260 Order, Terminate Motions, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings by Defendants Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
270 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: 265 Statement filed by Prison Legal News. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) − Party names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case type. No further action is required. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (RMV) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
268 MOTION for Leave to File Complete Motion for Reconsideration by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 04/15/2019)
269 **Filed at Doc 272 ** LODGED Proposed Complete Motion for Reconsideration re: 268 MOTION for Leave to File Complete Motion for Reconsideration . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) Modified on 4/24/2019 (RMV). (Entered: 04/15/2019)
271 ORDER granting Defendants' 268 Motion for Leave to File Complete Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration (lodged at Doc. 269) shall be filed. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 4/23/19. (CLB) (Entered: 04/24/2019)
272 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 260 Order by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) (RMV) (Entered: 04/24/2019)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 25 of 29

05/21/2019 05/22/2019 05/22/2019
05/28/2019 06/26/2019 07/03/2019 07/05/2019 07/10/2019 07/10/2019
07/11/2019 07/11/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019

273 ORDER re: 272 Motion for Reconsideration: Plaintiff's response due 6/3/2019. Defendants' reply due 6/13/2019. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 5/21/19. (CLB) (Entered: 05/21/2019)
274 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 272 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 260 Order, Terminate Motions, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff's Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time)(Mutamba, Masimba) (Entered: 05/22/2019)
275 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: 274 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 272 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 260 Order, Terminate Motions, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings filed by Prison Legal News. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) − Party names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case type. No further action is required. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (SLQ) (Entered: 05/23/2019)
276 ORDER granting 274 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re: 272 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff's response is due 7/3/2019. Defendants' reply is due 7/15/2019. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 5/28/19. (CLB) (Entered: 05/28/2019)
Remark: Pro hac vice motion granted for Caroline Jackson on behalf of plaintiff. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 06/26/2019)
277 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 272 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 260 Order, Terminate Motions, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION filed by Prison Legal News. (Jackson, Caroline) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
278 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: 277 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Prison Legal News. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) − Party names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case type. No further action is required. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (GMP) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
279 * NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS/FIRM NAME by Heather Elizabeth Todd Horrocks. (Horrocks, Heather) * Modified to indicate document not in compliance with Local Rule; attorney noticed on 7/11/2019 (LAD). (Entered: 07/10/2019)
280 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: 279 Notice of Change of Address/Firm Name (Attorney) filed by Prison Legal News. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) − Party names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case type. Please note, you have been previously notified of this issue at documents number 222, 270, 275 and 278. No further action is required. It is not necessary to refile. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (LAD) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
281 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 272 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 260 Order, Terminate Motions, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
282 ORDER granting Defendants' 281 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re: 272 Motion for Reconsideration. Reply due 7/25/19. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/11/19. (CLB) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
283 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsideration by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 07/25/2019)
284 * (Filed at Doc. 286 ) LODGED Proposed Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsideration re: 283 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsideration . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 26 of 29

07/30/2019
07/30/2019 08/08/2019
08/22/2019
08/23/2019
08/27/2019 08/27/2019 08/27/2019 09/04/2019
09/10/2019 09/11/2019 09/13/2019 09/13/2019
09/16/2019 09/17/2019

Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Gottfried, Michael) Modified on 7/30/2019 (LAD). (Entered: 07/25/2019)
285 ORDER granting 283 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The Clerk's Office is directed to file Defendants' Reply (lodged at Doc. 284 ). Ordered by Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 7/30/2019. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (CLB) (Entered: 07/30/2019)
286 REPLY to Response to 272 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 260 Order filed by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (LAD) (Entered: 07/30/2019)
287 ORDER: Jury Trial RESET for 10/16/2019 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver. Final Pretrial Conference RESET for 10/10/2019 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver. Questionnaire questions and joint statement due 8/27/2019. See attachment for details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 8/8/19. (CLB) (Entered: 08/08/2019)
288 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motions in Limine (First Request) (Expedited Ruling Requested) by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Love, Rachel) (Entered: 08/22/2019)
289 ORDER granting 288 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Motions in Limine. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the deadline to file Motions in Limine is extended to September 13, 2019. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 8/23/19. (CLB) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
290 Proposed Voir Dire by Prison Legal News. (Mutamba, Masimba) (Entered: 08/27/2019)
291 Joint Statement of the Case by Prison Legal News. (Mutamba, Masimba) (Entered: 08/27/2019)
292 Proposed Voir Dire by Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Love, Rachel) (Entered: 08/27/2019)
293 ORDER denying Defendants' 272 Motion for Reconsideration. IT IS ORDERED no later than September 11, 2019, the parties shall file a joint statement regarding the status of this case. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/4/19. (CLB) (Entered: 09/04/2019)
294 NOTICE re: Intra−District of Arizona Split On Constitutionality of Publication Regulations by Charles L Ryan . (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 09/10/2019)
295 Joint Statement of the Case by Prison Legal News. (Mutamba, Masimba) (Entered: 09/11/2019)
296 NOTICE of Settlement (Partial) by Prison Legal News. (Neelakanta, Sabarish) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
297 ORDER the parties, as noted in Doc. 295 , shall file a Stipulation of Settlement, along with a proposed Form of Order by Monday, September 16, 2019. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall file an updated Joint Proposed Order re: Final Injunction by Friday, September 20, 2019. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/13/19. (CLB) (Entered: 09/13/2019)
298 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Settlement Documents by Alf Olson, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 09/16/2019)
299 ORDER granting 298 Motion for Extension of Time. The parties shall have through Friday, September 20, 2019, to file a Stipulation of Partial Settlement and Proposed Order. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/17/2019. (CLB) (Entered: 09/17/2019)

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 27 of 29

09/20/2019 09/20/2019 09/26/2019 09/26/2019 10/02/2019
11/06/2019
11/06/2019 11/13/2019 11/14/2019 11/27/2019

300 NOTICE re: of Filing of Partial Settlement Agreement and Release And Lodging Order by Alf Olson, Charles L Ryan re: 299 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Document . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Partial Settlement Agreement and Release, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 09/20/2019)
301 * STATEMENT of Injunction Language re: 297 Order, Set Deadlines by Defendants Alf Olson, Charles L Ryan, Gail Rittenhouse, Jeff Hood, James Riggs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) * Modified to add additional filers; attorney noticed on 9/23/2019 (LAD). (Entered: 09/20/2019)
302 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Neelakanta, Sabarish) (Entered: 09/26/2019)
303 ORDER granting 302 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Mr. Neelakanta is hereby granted leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff, and is terminated as an attorney of record in this action. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/26/19. (CLB) (Entered: 09/26/2019)
304 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED the terms of the parties' Partial Settlement Agreement and Release, filed with the Court as Docket No. 300 (the "Partial Settlement Stipulation") are incorporated herein by reference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms set forth in the Partial Settlement Stipulation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the trial scheduled for October 16−17, 2019, and all associated pretrial deadlines and hearings, are hereby VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff's claims for damages under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants Ryan and Olsen in their individual capacities are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Defendants Ryan and Olsen are hereby DISMISSED as Defendants in their individual (but not official) capacities WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief, and any ensuing damages, under the First Amendment related to Defendants refusal to deliver Plaintiff's publication The Celling of America are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff's motion for fees and costs pursuant to the Partial Settlement Stipulation shall be filed after final disposition of the remaining claims in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2), unless otherwise agreed to or settled by the Parties. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 10/2/19. (CLB) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
305 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED within ninety (90) days of this Order the Arizona Department of Corrections and the State of Arizona shall amend, modify, or revise Arizona Department of Corrections Department Order 914 ("Order 914") to establish bright−line rules that narrowly define prohibited content in a manner consistent with the First Amendment; limit the discretion available to ADC's employees and agents; and ensure consistency in the exclusion of sexually explicit material. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED within seven (7) days of the amendment, modification, or revision of Order 914, Defendants shall file with the Court a copy of the new Order 914 and notify the Court that the Arizona Department of Corrections website has been updated to reflect the new Order 914. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of Prison Legal News and against Defendants Ryan, Rittenhouse, Hood, Olson, Riggs, and Guzman in their official capacities. (See Order for full details.) Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 11/5/2019. (SST) (Entered: 11/06/2019)
306 CLERK'S JUDGMENT − IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court's Order filed November 6, 2019, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Prison Legal News and against defendants Ryan, Rittenhouse, Hood, Olson, Riggs and Guzman in their official capacities. (SST) (Entered: 11/06/2019)
307 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Costs, Fees, and Expenses [First Request] by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mutamba, Masimba) (Entered: 11/13/2019)
308 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED the Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 307 ) is GRANTED. (See Order for details.) Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 11/14/2019. (SST) (Entered: 11/14/2019)
309 *First MOTION for Extension of Time to Deliver Publications (Stipulated) by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Charles L Ryan, Gail Rittenhouse. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) *Modified to add

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 28 of 29

12/02/2019 12/03/2019 12/05/2019 12/11/2019 12/11/2019 12/15/2019 12/17/2019
12/18/2019 12/18/2019 12/19/2019
12/30/2019

additional filer; attorney noticed on 12/2/2019 (SST). (Entered: 11/27/2019)
310 ORDER granting Defendants' 309 Stipulated Motion to Extend Time to Deliver Publications (first request). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendants shall have through January 6, 2020, to deliver copies of the October 2014, April 2017, May 2017, and June 2017 issues of Prison Legal News to current ADC prisoner−subscribers. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 12/2/19. (CLB) (Entered: 12/02/2019)
311 NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 305 Order, 260 Order, Terminate Motions, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings, 306 Clerks Judgment by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. Filing fee received: $ 505.00, receipt number 0970−17694514. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
312 USCA Case Number re: 311 Notice of Appeal. Case number 19−17449, Ninth Circuit. (EJA) (Entered: 12/05/2019)
313 Consent MOTION to Stay Bill of Costs and Motion for Fees and Related Non−taxable Expenses [pending appeal] by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mutamba, Masimba) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
314 ORDER granting 313 Stipulated Motion to Stay. Plaintiff's Bill of Costs and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Non−taxable expenses are stayed until 60 days after the conclusion of appellate proceedings, including any potential Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, in this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 12/11/2019. (MMO) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
315 MOTION to Stay re: 305 Order, 306 Clerks Judgment Pending Appeal by Jamie Guzman, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, Charles L Ryan. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 12/15/2019)
316 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED any motion requesting an extension of time to deliver copies of the October 2014, April 2017, May 2017, and June 2017 issues of Prison Legal News to current ADC prisoner−subscribers must be filed by noon on December 19, 2019. Any response will be due December 23, 2019, and any reply will be due December 30, 2019. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Rule 25(d), David Shinn is substituted for Charles L. Ryan as the Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 12/17/19. (CLB) (Entered: 12/17/2019)
317 NOTICE of Errata re: 315 MOTION to Stay re: 305 Order, 306 Clerks Judgment Pending Appeal by Defendants Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, David Shinn.. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 12/18/2019)
318 MOTION for Extension of Time to Deliver Publications (stipulated) by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, David Shinn. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 12/18/2019)
319 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED the Stipulated Motion (Doc. 318 ) is GRANTED IN PART. Should this Court grant Defendants' Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal (Doc. 315 ), Defendants shall deliver the October 2014, April 2017, May 2017, and June 2017 issues of Prison Legal News to current ADC−prisoner subscribers within 30 days of the lifting of the stay. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED if this Court denies Defendants' Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal (Doc. 315 ), and Defendants do not file a motion for a stay pending appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals within fourteen days of this Court's denial, Defendants shall have forty−five days from this Court's order denying a stay pending appeal (Doc. 315 ) to deliver the subject issues of Prison Legal News. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED if this Court denies Defendants' Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal (Doc. 315 ), and Defendants file a motion for a stay pending appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals within fourteen days of this Court's denial, delivery of the subject issues of Prison Legal News shall be stayed until either 30 days after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' order denying a stay pending appeals, or 30 days after the lifting of any stay issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 12/19/19. (SLQ) (Entered: 12/19/2019)
320 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 315 MOTION to Stay re: 305 Order, 306 Clerks Judgment Pending Appeal Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for a Stay

Case: 2:15-cv-2245 As of: 05/05/2020 12:48 PM MST 29 of 29

01/03/2020 01/07/2020 01/09/2020 01/13/2020 01/24/2020
01/29/2020 01/29/2020 02/07/2020 02/10/2020
02/19/2020 02/24/2020 02/28/2020 03/06/2020 03/10/2020

Pending Appeal filed by Prison Legal News. (Ells, Lisa) (Entered: 12/30/2019)
321 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 315 MOTION to Stay re: 305 Order, 306 Clerks Judgment Pending Appeal (stipulated) by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, David Shinn. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 01/03/2020)
322 ORDER granting 321 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply re: 315 Motion to Stay. Reply due 1/10/2020. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/6/20. (CLB) (Entered: 01/07/2020)
323 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 315 MOTION to Stay re: 305 Order, 306 Clerks Judgment Pending Appeal filed by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, David Shinn. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 01/09/2020)
324 NOTICE to the Court by Richard Hedinger Ashby, III re: 260 Order. (13 pages) (GMP) (Entered: 01/14/2020)
325 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 315 Motion to Stay. The previous stay regarding delivery of the previously censored remains in place. The remaining portions of the Court's Order (Doc. 305 ) and the Clerk's Judgment (Doc. 306 ) shall be stayed pending the final resolution of Ninth Circuit Case No. 19−17449. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/23/20. (DXD) (Entered: 01/24/2020)
326 Consent MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mutamba, Masimba) (Entered: 01/29/2020)
327 ORDER granting 326 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Mr. Mutamba is granted leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff and is terminated as an attorney of record in this action. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 1/29/20. (CLB) (Entered: 01/29/2020)
328 *MOTION for Clarification and MOTION for Reconsideration of January 24, 2020 Order by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Ells, Lisa) *Modified to correct event; attorney noticed on 2/10/2020 (SLQ). (Entered: 02/07/2020)
329 ORDER Defendants shall file a response no later than February 19, 2020. Among any other matters Defendants wish to address, their response must also address the merits of PLN's argument and reflect the nature of Defendants' understanding of PLN's position with regards to Doc. 318. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED PLN may file a reply no later than February 24, 2020. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 2/10/20. (CLB) (Entered: 02/10/2020)
330 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 328 MOTION for Clarification MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, David Shinn. (Gottfried, Michael) (Entered: 02/19/2020)
331 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 328 MOTION for Clarification MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Lisa Ells in Support of Plaintiff's Reply for Request for Clarification and Reconsideration of January 24, 2020 Order)(Ells, Lisa) (Entered: 02/24/2020)
332 ORDER re: 328 Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration. Defendants shall file a surreply no later than 3/6/2020. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 2/28/2020. (CLB) (Entered: 02/28/2020)
333 *SUR−REPLY to 328 MOTION for Clarification, MOTION for Reconsideration by Defendants Jamie Guzman, Jeff Hood, Alf Olson, James Riggs, Gail Rittenhouse, David Shinn. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration, # 2 A−D)(Gottfried, Michael) *Modified on 3/9/2020 to correct document linkage (MSA). (Entered: 03/06/2020)
334 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 328 Request for Clarification and Reconsideration of January 24, 2020 Order. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 3/10/2020. (CLB) (Entered: 03/10/2020)