Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/09 Page 1 of 12

ClAIM ·#1

i

rE titiONE~ CLAIM, cl£l="Et-ldAt-t.\.s \.l.z:oWEs hzs rfiEE

I . FXERCLSE

P-lzGh\-s, A-;;

O<.ALz.IJEd

IN +-hE \=z ~51-

A-Mc~-Jd-

~EtJ\ 6f' +-hE" U.-5. CoNGh ~otzorv ~ REUt:J:z:olJ5 I="~EEdo""

fts+cp,A\-zoN AcJ of' 1993~ th£. ~f.Lzcr~ov~ LA-r-Jd U5e 4Nd

,fltvstz-1-u~.:coNA \...rzed PERSON AcJ of"' 20oo;., ANP hzs F"oul<tEEtJt-}-. AME,..r::h·"EN~- DuE PPtJce:ss CIA-u5G=' - tho5E
j'oDJdJ:.t--iC1 hbE~t-j zl-lttf>Es}~ o~ buE PPot::.£ss. oF" Cod~:
l(lf' \lrN:i.uu.A ~ Ii-J.s~.\-u~::m"'AL ~ lzc.rcs Af.id A .C. A.

!S!Af.kiA~J5 * o~ dE14'/:ziSJ hz:::M fllEL.Przoo> #JEwsftfcl.~

~hz:ch ::t:.5 E55Et-.l~z:AL to f~Ad-:z.c..rr-.1'7 ~$ ~:z.fh Ai-J.J

IIR£L£qro~J. ThzG dEf.-\zAl.. hM cPIEA~Ed l'r svhs+A-~~zAL
buP,clf:N DN fEh}rONE'R, t-hEPIEhy p~hzh.z.tz~o..~'f ~ ol='

fAA-cJrc.r~ hz:G }:A:z::J-h A~ AElrep:oN.

i

rEhh::ol\lf:~ s}A+es_~ h£ hAs f,EC..Ez=..!Ed -l-hr5 SAM~ .l>tJqz:-

~\>S N'Eu..i.6fA-fE:t...
~EL"'\2 \dEE~>.

At P,EJ OrJzON
\Ur-Yhoci- tll\)E

>PT,EAfT>iE~tJf,ksd:e>tN='"1BJ~C1I2A.J-.o~t'/sf:ft..

)1\P- b:d· P..A-A-z.l'/ dEcz:JEd -b dE~- fl>E fEAtcd\.i- +hE

NE. '~s fA P~"· 'ihz:~ pob)rcAbi'J :r.~ A pfACNEd .frnl-'9hou+-

i-hE "-lrP,q:z:f\l~A bEfMl-M&.d- ~~ CoP,f,Ecl-:mJo.JS. A-N!> h~

if'Ostd t-.\) fA5t, fAEsEI-\~, o(Z, h:>4-uPtE -\-hftEA-} ~ ~E" >au -

lfu.+i oA oAdt:~\..J ofr=MbtJs 6~ 1-hc zJ.1s.J.z.Ju..f.z::r:N.7'7iz.s

IIG ..4 PIE lz:cr.:z:o.;~ ;>ubJ:rcA/z:o~- ...Jc.f flk>mol.:..o.J'l jA-N9

fA-c!z~.J.y, r \)ZO ENc..E I .ztJsvA/!trdz:oN/ I-E~/?OI1Zi5J.. !kkvzly

IC.Z.v:t:L lJJJP!Es) o~ frtJy +f..r/Jtf -ffiA.f ~.s A d~

I

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/09 Page 2 of 12
PG.Z D~ +~~£At- -kl ~t-~.s}:d-u}xw .
.f£-l-z:-b:vr-lEA btl r::E\fES hE s:-l-.o\JlJ bE" I A~Ud h.M> Pr ~hi­
to bE /i£\rE,!Ed Of' f-h:z> 5()b6}A~tr.+L k.{JEN .::r:m-
: ~Ed ufoN hz:-~ bj dE~EiJdA/...Ik / 'i:z:A hz:s ~1'\s} AMEJJch.'\E~t RzqhJ-s; t:Ou~tEEJJ+h A-ME~MEtJ+ ~:rqhk;, i-fnos~ hz:Ndz:-N1 LzbEAfj .x.)..ik~a:Js CJA-Aou}£cd ~
l5fA-le: LA,.Ll Arv.t> I)Jsl-z-.J.u-b:o 1'-!Al poL.z:a:es.

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/09 Page 3 of 12
CLAIM# 2
PEtz-\--z:otJ£~ C\Az.M 1 dc-r-EI-ldAtJ+s '-Jzo)M£s hzs fiAsf--
AMENdMEI-lt !Zlzqht of" F'"AEc Ebl'E~C.ZS~ ClAuse or
r~EEdoM or: }hE Pf>E'SS Af.J.d ~z:s F00Ntt~-Ji-'h 4MB\d-
. MENt ~.z:9hts ~v .buE fAOCE.Gs- As rf. RELA-1-E +c
i~ECET'>lZI--19 fiE\zqZOJ.G f.Jb)z:cAb,s At-.td o+h~
,JPobb:cA~zoN~ '-J:c.A MArl- 6M£~ - Af...Jd 1--h>.Gt; bdzNC)
ih: 'PEAt'/ .D-ltE~~ o~ Codt: 6~ \fz AG:zf..J:z::t9 A+rP
ht '\kAG:z:NrA h:fARtM~:i- ar GMEd-:Z:ONS r=:)z-o::E.r ~
~Ef.EA~-Ed lj dtM'/z 1'-lf hz:.s !f't:: ~ fvb)rcAh:rY"S
1\~NJ afJ.-~e~ Atfl-Jrc.Af..f- AMERzc:/1-f-l pvbl:rcA.J.-.z::o,..,s;,. A-
1)1\.r<JN- bz~ed b..[ V-z.f!.qzr..JLA- kfAMMt:.J.Jf o~ CcP.P.Ec..-
~~~.Z:CNS f6lrCLES ANd froCEcJoAES.
i''j
J~.z:s AEfEAf-at dE1Jz.AL bi dEt=""ENCfAN.~~" Af"~ ~
ilfEAmt;J.hNG) +hE puHuAh:.oNs fOR 'fEAP.s- ciJeAJ-e 4
:.II5J,o}Ar-..~\-.zAL ~~dEN u{ON fEkh:oNr:l< fAAc.tze;z:.No, hz:.s
''rA-.rl-h ~ tliE Jrq~N I AtJj> f>ECEx-b:k.fCJ cuiJuRAL fuMk;~AbNs. lNE it> P1t=J ONzcN STAT"£ fliz.sr;!V ~7 A ~NZ.\-z:<J~ ~t.'jAt<jAhotJ UNZJ.-; f&lzkotJ~ .zs · N1J ~~~­
fd -Ia A.JicNcl AE!z-7w.K fj2!}J~~ a;~zJ& hzJ cal. 7h~
fzJJ.>Ix-J..v./zaJ - -fhos& .zJ SE<jA~- .z:s '"Loc)(ccf-dot.du ''
,IR~- 2t./ h:v!ls .4- dAtf Tlhtfh ;;z;,...r.shl-(..>iz/\J ~holLis /{&fz,ic:J'Zo.d V'L:dE6S '12::74 C~ Cz,< C0.cJ fcf E'/'z:5,zr;rJ · fo J<JAk-1
. I
!lf'hr>f~ /I'JOAE fMI EzyiJI-j- !Z.vtr feec?N/ CJ+ .Sr;yAt"-
ictJJJ:roN do NO!- Ok/N IE/~~- m~ Cho/14:zN S{;:lZVzc~
; j
!

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/09 Page 4 of 12

- PG. 2 ~

•J)EfMtMI:"-1~ do!;S ~ fAm~dc tvof<.. 6 ('~.<. tv-A-fm,v

Bf !D'F .z:s IAm RE lt:9roo> MA}E RzAL

~ECE~z:~ fvhk: ·-

;pA t.zotJ~ +hA()v!Jh mAz:L- \t:JhEtnE;( dcwPrJ.t=d ol!.

;;fuPtcnA.s£d- :z:~ f-hG oNi~ JL..IAY f,;4zko~EJ2. (ANd

1oJ-het<.s AJ P>Ed ONzcw) CAtJ fR.Aci:r.ct: hz:s ~
I AN;!) P.,E Lzcp=oN . Thzs dcl\lz:AL c AEAfE.::. A .5t.>Ps:l-Af-.l fz:;(}L
I b.J"'ch~N. z}- LS. N6J thE L€As:l- "Es4Az:cJ~d. /YYE:ANS..

IPttztzotJE~ bE)z:E~E> hE ~AS A &qhJ k bt;- Ar=/Lr E'JEd o'(' ~'Es~ \f.z:olAbt-J>" hy dE tEt·~dhl.~ s /of'
hr> h P.,~} ANd t=Cu ,Q.J-EE~~ A MEN-d MEN+ /?z;'1hJ~,
bJA~ i-hosi: bzNch.~ Lz: beP-f-'j z".d EAE>J.r ~JE1--1dt=d
or .SlATE: LA ILl. ANd Vz P.,Ga. 1\.}:r..A 'DEfM+MEP-tf
f="o AAec}zo N s; fo k:c.z:ES AMe! fADCEdoA£>.

. I'
I
, I ; !

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/09 Page 5 of 12

CtA I f\1 #- 3

:'

if£+z h.ol-lE" c\A:z::M I dt. }E)..}.d A t.Jts ..JLu LA l-Es hz:.s ~sJ

o;: MEWd ME~t f'1rr:CJh.J->

f4EdflEs.s or:- CJALE-...tA"-lCES 6,r-

9avEANmENt [ .zf.Js~.z:..J-.JJJzot-.~) fZJulES1 flE~o(AbN5r poJ:z::c-
!J:E~ ,At.J.d fl-ocEdof->~::s- b"f dE~~ ~ +hE />E~~

idJcoMEr-4-k +hA+- '\LIO~lJ ENAh}E hz:n, ..fo t:z.LE" <=j&E=vAIVW

IA~d APfEALs o~ f{),zsat./s dEc.z;sZ!:':>t>J~/ fldes, iiECjuJ4-
ibN> 1 fblz:.CI:E.s At>J6 fP-DGEdui.Es- ~ .__fz:oiAfes
I fEh+:z:()J-JE?Jt5 FUu~ ~EEI-i-111 AMEf-ldH/Et-.l+ {2,z:Cjht5 C:l.f'
ffur= fP!JcE5> 0~ Lr.bEr<+-f :LI-ltE#(~s F:L-1-Et...~.dEd b.{
:pWE LA\(.t ANd \fr.P,G,-zJJZ:::J4 ~fA~-).ME~-J} <St CoMR-
)bNs polr:a:Es A~ ff-ocEdu As

!
i
IDEVE~dA~ hA-.JE dEf...lz:Ed fEt.d.mt-Je.( hz:.s /'1E}z:cpr;us

J~h ILe-A kN Ai-l.d 6~C'1f cul-1-vi<.AL fubl:a:AtzoMS J vJ=Tt

d~cr .sz:o r-.{> f1Er-.ldE't<-trd b'-f :r:f.Jsh:kbNs MA ~a

6} Sf::o.:> Plr~ AtJd fub)z::cA}z::oM ~E'J:z:t=lil Ccmrnz..f.Jl*.

+- PE ;t: .\--.z:ct-.1 e-l hA~ f'r b.a-.0r.4 Lr: bE M-f zi-J tt=.~Bf - Wtc
~ft:X..E:55- h> 'kl~ 9/tr.E'J'A~>J c~s f!t;...U} AffEidls .x.tJ ofF -

.}:IbN iz> :Z.N ~+z:·h.JfZCNS dEo::s.zu'\1.>, l>Er-E~JAt-.~~s

fu hA---JE

tA.z::.Lr=d 1

zN

rnANt.(

cAusc=s-, 1o Aclot<JJ fh:JI~

d.ocu (Yl£"...t-k .to A-~~ td dE t-.lz: hlu A}.z:t> N> , +hEf>Ebj

EN~Z'*1 ptk~N8(. +hE Pr:z:J'lf- k /!EdAE>S. a~

'1o\1~mt:Nt ~ +-ha.sf bz:N J:z::rv<J lr.bt;f.H z.tJJ-~-ES.Jr.

Thz:> hA'-> Cf,EAtEd A s.v~.StAt-J.f..LAL .h;P.Jr=,._, ON fE~z-

hoNeR.

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/09 Page 6 of 12
- PG. 2-
PEtz:b:oi\JE~ bE b:E'-!Es. he hAs A ALCjhJ.. h bt-
PlE \rE'iEd 0~ trJEst; ...Jz:c \Ai-.oJt-~5 ]:,..../ dE FE~/wfs 6~ hr.:' . ~,')sj. A~d l;Ou~ta:N'HJ AMH-dMEt-J
~9h+s) A~d ~ bz~dz:4 LrhEPJi .z~~~ecsJ.r
E\l:te~dt:J J:.-/ ->tAft LA\Lf Af.Jj} thosE <J~ \fz:Pl}z:JV&
bEfAAtl'llEN1- <r( 0:-AAEc.Jw~.

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/09 Page 7 of 12

I

cLA I f\1 # LJ

iipE~z:tzo~E~
\ rJfJ.. tEEt--~4-Y!

d.A:z:M 1
AME,_jd

dE~Et-JdA"-1~> "'lz:olAfer hz::s
MEJ.J~ ~hh- bvE fPocEs~

CJAu%_,

I:A- hz:1-.1d:z:~ Lz:::-beR.+-f I"-l~EAe~ 6'f" ~ EliA-t=~e-d

\lbi i--hE ~~.5}- AM&JdME~--Lt of" ,}-he- 0/Jz:.Jed srt+-r£>

l~stz-hb,v/ LA\Lls of 11~E SlATE \Jz/J6zt-ldl; A-Nd

!'ALL Vz.P.,Grz:.t-Jz::A bEfAAtMEt-J+ Ot CoAAEct:zct--Js A>les/

I h:"Cf->lAhoN.>, AMcl ~ )z;:;crES A+.lcf f.AocEdu!>fi.S . I>Es=Etl-

ft: i At-.lts dE~

fz: tzcrJ ~ J.hE ftzqhh. b pt<Ac.Jzcr:>

i h.z:.> ~:z:.tJ, A~ AT:;. lrCj:COf'l \Lizftru~ zN f1<zJ.!Cjt-IYIEt4-J-

!:Of.... .svbsMMlzAL ki<..~/J ~ A~d .fo

'
I' fossE»

A-1-..\cl hAJG

r'lEI:Dj:ZW~

Al...ld

ofd~ /tECE:z:.J~:/
cvtJ-vI ~L cbet>-

1tne:;& 1 fi.J 'tJft:cA J..zz, M 5 7 M cf rYJPrG A- Zz/-1£>,

!
. lbe rE-t-..ICIAt--ih hA"E

AE feAJ.EdL'f dEmEd fEk.+~e-.e

1
:

~E\Zt]~~

(JvbluAbtJs AMd

Ct...l..lRAL MAGA"Zz.JJ£-i

i\L\z::~t }/vr= ::SU~J-z: Fl:cA:t;z.CN o~ A fE,.,J.o~9z:cAL

l e~~e/JsJ, ~+ AAP1ri, A +rtoLo(F~cAL Atvd fhdcw hz:ctJ. dz: ~f EP.EIJCE ; Al4<1 b...J LAbtJuJj A-t...tLJ Jhz~ ~

!j ASSOcz:.Ah::d v.Jill p,A-(J fYNsz:c ~ u IZhAt-.l co l.\vR.4L

'1f1AN~ AE LAJ..&:J.'l1b dEI--1titl h~ dEt2tJclA-I-.l-h })AJ-e-

(l::tl'l ~1-tz::NqEJ upaf.J fEk~e-6 Pn:qhk, A-s o,A.k;JJ:d

/:t:JJ T~ h: PI$} A-N.b \=Ol)~tEEIS \11 AMEN:d ME'Mt'b ~

:~TE LA\LJ, A--~cl 'b:.ACjZJ.-!z.::f) Sx.fA 11-tME,...d- (it CuAA~1b"'_s ~\JlE5 A~d At:9tll Abf'Js-/ fO lzc.za 1+1-J.d f~c~ -

jd;"E'f1 4-hE~t b-J .z:TY'fzMJZIV<j 0jkJAJ fE.fz-l:zr>,JE~S ~11/5
i h EJ.t=/(C£5G f7r.5 htlz:HJ ;41Jd iJJEizrtz.oJ/ Af<.kcf

I

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/09 Page 8 of 12

~ pc,. 2-
~EC..E.DJE .. ~Eiz..9.rous 1-..\E~fA felL 1 CD"l~~~
A~'b ~hetZ.. AEitt-4-z:t-i'} fY)~EfrzA.ls

~A-ZrNl;:)

PE}:z:~~ bfh:E'-18 h~ hAs A ~h) k h~ At=-

Lz:.E'-IEd of +hE '\f~IA 610s o( dt:: t="ENciA~+s;. cf" hzr

~P,h£r-Jth

AMENC:lt--I)Et-Jt

1
6~ h.>~ f~>5 0~ Lz:..b~-4

. A~ t\--.cs~ bz-f..ldz~ L-z:he~<._+-j -z.-t-J+I=AE-st E)LtENcltd -

k(. SlATE LA\Lt A10d thos~ o~ +hE \lz.AGj:t:Nz::A

~E fAPJMEN.'t-- cf"" CoAAE~s.

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/09 Page 9 of 12
CLAIM# 5
?t.tztz:of.JEfl dA:z:"-·\ cleV'a-ldAI'-It.s '-.lmlM~s b
.fz9nth AH\Et-..ld MENt ~r9h.J.:s o~ bc:r~9 sub-
-::sEcJc:d -k c ~UE L AtJd \)N\) suAL rvNZ6hrviE~--t~-
16t:.cAuSE- ot' p{;t.z;h:otJt:l{s .(1-.~::;\-z:;c:r,:z:{PS bE\rEf'S_..
dE~E~dAI'-\}s SEE}'is to dEf~t ~,__, o~ ~E\:z:qr-
at=- OVS MA~E~~A-L As A \=VAfVl o~ fuNz.sn fVl&4~ j
js't:<:jl'l -b cuAb tJ:z::S bEh.A-JzO~. PE 1---z horJ~ hAs AN
IE r9h} h AMEtJci MENt 1\:r'lh} tn bt:: rAE~:: ~ CAva.
.jAN.P lJ1'J0svAL roiV:z:shmet-tJ.. 1hz:> vznLA kcJ h../ cfE r-Et-Jb].4J..l~ hAs CAvs~d fEh-\-ro~~ ~tt\Es~ ~h~1 At-J
!hAs cAEA-\EJ A $VbsL~~b:M. buMEtJ Vf'rJ fEhtzuJER.
.IrE b:: }]:\)rJtf. .s}A~Es, pA-zLR .J-o (.)!)~~ 1-o flEet 0 1\h:.oN
!SIA·n~ P~5oN,. hE hPr> 4Lv:.~A-cf> .f/IELEz;-.JEJ AEb:qZP->
. ~/Ek/ft I}M.d Cuitvl!.kl l"t'WG/lZzAJEf. As~:VJJBd
,k.\~!-h h:D Ht.z:% ~ k~X=cA-u- ft/tl~z:cA-d CCJifuul
ff .!(_ ThBf AA~ A k-Jd ...J-nf<fj)<jhlJJ Y-z..N:,zt-J:zo:f!- ~41<J -
,Mr::t-\t of CoME=~~- fEtz:.}:z:6r-.lefl :7~-tdu, ht hAs ~Ec~ .z:•,n:;J ..X,W (Y)A}EA~ ,4~ }JE:'i.JS fafoc rolZ ove>L /fD.>f(}EE'fV A--N'b A \-,M~ '(I?M.->,.. f'Jt:-Jf:f2_ hM:z:Nj OtJE :L$Svt;:: ]d.a.tt:~J) vt-~kl r AM-c-rfci A-J- f,&J ONVJN SJA-TE
, fhLSoN fekbrvl::l1- VJA> sEF-\~ -k AEd uN:z::otv 1=0/l.. . Afo) .:rt-J h{A c/-z:o,v A-~.>oCz::Prf~J ~?t.c./-11 flo At:!z'jz-r-r
• bEf:c£? t ft'iAc-lzc:p 1 .411--1') p!W<j/2-M'Yl. A A- I'IESvl-1/

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/09 Page 10 of 12

- PGJ. 2-
dE; ~E:J-.Jd Ar-..1} 5 fiEld{ .\o t="0 ~ t h~ fu Nr5h h:z::m
)o~ dE~ Lj:rfv'9 ~ hz:-> fJ E) 1:Cj J:.G0S /'YlA}~
A-rrt> 10i-hei2 Cu ltv~~L /Y)A-GiA Z.z:tJ E~;. FOs.J-~ CAo~L AN.cl otv u s.v tJ.L fu tJ:z:.->n I'Y7EN-l

f£-b:::}mrJef2 'M>f-.}}1~ stA}Es1 li~E ~IZtEEt-J-tn A ME~ !YIE"-l+,

A:.
h~::-

~~Ecl :z.I\J
hA-':; ~ t:..r~

rP-u:r:s, ftz::Ghf to br;- f~+EC.J-:Ed Fh,-()1 C~(;J f#..Ld

U!'llHvAL /utJr::.>htY\Et--J..f- A-s A-t-....1 E;z::qh.ftl AMEt-J.d-
. N)Er-lt Az:CfhJ-1- ~+~ thos~ Lz:..beil..J-j zt-11-Efllcc.>J-J
c~ tet-JdfJ \Jr. A- C0d~ of- "-Jr:t2yr.l-lz=1l I}J>..Jcf \ld-fjz:tvw

:t>ErA/tt ME1-..Jt ~~ (1a_,~,~c..6Ns /lv/EJ A-1-Jd folz.c'-t=r/

AtJ'D pt:oa~~-

•PE h b~e-fl hE lr;EJ E-' hE hRrs A ~hf- 1o be
.f/lEiz::E\ffd 6-;- fhti ~rc) PrbN 6 t dEfEtJdAu~ ·D~ h~s Erqh.J-h AMt::l--ldmBJ:t Az:-~) A-t-J.d
.llist ~9hh t=:ik~EJ vz:=t::t t>~ pM-~&.u+- of
.Co /Z(J., E ckoNs· ful z::C'JEf AFJ.J fi&J Cf clu~ ti--> _

. '
'

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/09 Page 11 of 12
CLAlM#b
YEhh:a..H:JZ- dA-z:M, dE ~Ef-ldA"-f~S '\[Z-o\4ttrS hz.s
~A}EEw~}tl AMENd MBJf - · E:Ou~L PA:>-l-Ec.h:-ol'l
+mN H-t . ~9Y\k fu be; ~Et: ~ 'AAU:::.-AL cl:z:s c-...e_2:ftfz::NA--
A-~o\ AE Lt::9 ~ > kqu
VE h:_ .J-:z::ot-..~ et. bt::: It.:.t:'{l::=S J.-j1t dE 1'--lz:fdL of hr.r
.f"E!z::qrovs !i-Md CuLtu~L NAJ-~[5 f¥._r;:- !Yl0~4-
.:sd bj ftAc&L d:z:scltz:mz~--JA-6N A-A.J.d Itt= lZ:7t:ouJ
ira:~~·
j~Ed Or.Jzai\J STAlE PPti:.oN h45 4 LeN.; h:t:.>toRf 1 pJAcjvR
.fi.Ll;t:. t-fl C) A~> ,r+~-.~d .AI) Ecj A- bNs"' Af..ld ~z::t--tdzN.cz__r
~<{ UJcAL, s.J.A-h~ ( A~-..td ~Ed.E~ L Cou~.ff; of ~
. cL":rs c:_R.z:::rnz: N A- .J.-zu,.. !,@ QrVzc,,.. :z.-5 LocA-l-td z:N
. ~AkL South· 5-<JM~E.>i-Y.N '-ldCj~N.cfJ;tA-~d:z=ls
/pe- SHJF.C -4-Mef c?~!ZCA'2~ M~ /Jz:IJEry- J-/z.t-JE
. CE~..JJ- k.Jh~h~ - J.dho ur:-fc;...d.z:iY?e Vcf<..J,4LI:J E~-
. f!AE.>.> /--hE:dZ /{~L 6:r<J0!4f A--/.ul h11M6d J;12..
. 'h/A-cl6; ~>/IJ-1--!:cc.s) AMI bz~/;A.c.z:;()L jll<i1>6tJ/:b .
. 1/J~.rc; 'lrE•4;5 MF hELd bj t'iXJY .zJ-1 MMzAJ::c:Sf.teA-
• h tJ ftf &d C7AJzu/V. f6t<. f/JE-FG A E'JJ.sotv~> .:z:- be -
. f.zrv~ -llu;;- decz.sZlf7/'-' /c kjJEfofe::ILf dt:?Mf ~
. /JEI.z::'fz:r-l ~ 1?7/.fSfo/l?t!- !Hvd CC/lfGifUJ-L /Yl4'j..4-Zz,(.l!if/
. ,lfNc/ LA-/;&Lz.,.,7 ALL u~,q--p t'774-1~,q.L a f!. 1'1A-;J .
, tnuscc /YYI}/~t ~ ,. Cj'AivJ /?!;1/1/-t-d " :z:;-5 j14Cz::;{}Lf.)
---···--····-----------·-·······--

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/09 Page 12 of 12
- fG. 2-
. (Y)oh'fA ~ol A 10d ~~.c:qmv~ b:z::-cyo+r&f· I }>.:wE. ~t£tf .. '\=Q(.l.. ~ U ~E E \.! E(l..~ dA-j t 5:rJ.J.U; C.Om.z:~~ ~
.fled OtvzotJ.
ThES>E A-c.J s d" f>B.e:z:.A- L dt::s-c:Az:.(Y)rN A ~ '-lz::-0-
LA-k:=.> fEtz ~P~ Cz.-..l.z:.L f.>:z::-9h..J.s .A-tJd ks
.\=ov~k:EI'-l+h AMEk.Jcii'IIE"-1~ Al::CjM-J 6t hut; PA~>cws 4-c, bl" p~-i-Ec.k·cf ~ ..su:..h +f.EMMEN} v:z:::l}
,Lz::bea..~ .:z::~}EI>Es} otJB--'d~ bj S~tE L,A;c_l i At-rn \Jz.IZqztJJ:A bEfAA}MEt-J~ <$" CoMEcJ-.z:u.. s: Au!&:r -~ pcLrez:es.
'
.fi 9E~.z:: 4---t:DtJ~ bE [r:e--.!c-> hE ~ 8- ~c;h-J- <b be
: ~E.Iz:E'\1 Ed G~ f-hESF ~Z::O /Ah:DrvJ h,_/ dE.fENd~~
. A--s rn+-Lz.~-JEd z:rJ EQ\JRrL ffob'J.Ech::o,.. Cl~5f:1
C:L.oJ:z_L A:z:Gh}~ AtJ.b teu~~t=:Et-JttJ AMt:"-.LdMw+:.-
: At-11> ~!::L~+:z:N9 :5TA/t:; LAIL! AtJJ> V~X.0.tit
,DE f.4P-.}MEI'l} 6 :(" Co A~Ec;./z:o,.;.s- 1'1ul£:.!:. .4/JJ fo/z:;-c:rt:;:1.
!
I
. '

 
 Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 13 Filed 08/31/09 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Roanoke Division

KELVIN E. BROWN, #207902,

Plaintiff,

v.
TRACY S. RAY, et at.

Civil Action No. 7:09cv00180

Defendants.

ANSWER

COME NOW the Defendants, by counsel, and answer the Complaint as follows:

FIRST DEFENSE

The Defendants deny that the present action is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42

U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(A).

SECOND DEFENSE

The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff has been denied any rights protected by the United

States Constitution or any portion of the United States Code.

TIDRD DEFENSE

This Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

FOURTH DEFENSE

The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff has suffered any cognizable injuries or damages as a

result of any act or acts on the part of these Defendants and demand strict proof thereof.

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 13 Filed 08/31/09 Page 2 of 5
FIFTH DEFENSE The Defendants allege and aver that, to the extent that the Plaintiff has suffered any injuries or damages, such injuries or damages were due to an act or acts by the Plaintiff, or on the part of others not under the control of the Defendants, and for whose conduct they are in no way responsible.
SIXTH DEFENSE The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff has suffered the injuries and damages alleged and call for strict proof thereof.
SEVENTH DEFENSE The Defendants deny that they are indebted to or liable to the Plaintiff in any swn whatsoever.
EIGHTH DEFENSE The Defendants are immune from suit on this claim based upon the 11th Amendment and the discharge of their official duties.
NINTH DEFENSE The defendants are entitled to good faith or qualified immunity.
TENTH DEFENSE To the extent that the plaintiff has failed to allege any direct involvement on the part of any of the defendants in any of the acts or omissions complained of, such claims must fail since respondeat superior is not available in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
ELEVENTH DEFENSE To the extent that this claim alleges negligence on the part of the Defendants, the claim is barred in this Court by the Eleventh Amendment.
2

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 13 Filed 08/31/09 Page 3 of 5
TWELFTH DEFENSE Some or all of the allegations have not been exhausted through the administrative grievance process.
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE As to the specific factual allegations set forth in the Complaint, the Defendants state as follows: I. Plaintiff is an imnate with the Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC"). 2. Defendant Tracy S. Ray is the Warden of Red Onion State Prison ("Red Onion"); Defendant L. Fleming is a Major at Red Onion; and T. Pease is the Mail Room Supervisor at Red Onion. 3. All publications received at Red Onion are subject to review. Red Onion does not remove or censor the material but either approves or disapproves that particular publication. Defendant Fleming does an initial review of all publications and either approves or disapproves. If the publication is disapproved by Major Fleming, it is forwarded to the Publication Review Committee which then meets and reviews the publication. After review, the Committee then either approves or disapproves of the publication. Decisions are notified to the particular imnate and contain reasons for the disapproval. Imnates have the right to appeal. 4. Plaintiffs publications are not being denied based on racial or religious reasons. 5. Plaintiff is not being discriminated against because of his race or religious beliefs. 6. The Chaplain at Red Onion has visited Plaintiff on a number of occasions to discuss his issues. 7. The remainder of the issues were not grieved through the institutional process and therefore Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies.
3

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 13 Filed 08/31/09 Page 4 of 5
FOURTEENTH DEFENSE The Defendants will rely on any and all other properly available defenses to the Complaint which may arise from the Plaintiffs prosecution of this action and reserve their right to amend their answer if at any time they should be so advised.
Respectfully submitted, TRACY S. RAY, et al.
By_ _ _ _ _-'/s/_ _ _ _ __ Counsel
Richard C. Vorhis, SAAG, VSB #23170 Attorney for Defendants Office of the Attorney General Public Safety and Enforcement Division 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Phone: 804-786-4805 Fax: 804-786-4239 rvorhis@oag.state.va.us
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY that on the 31 st day of August, 2009, I will electronically file the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CMlECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing (NEF) to the following: NIA And I hereby certifY that I will mail the document by U.S. mail to the following non-filing user:
Kelvin E. Brown, #207902 Red Onion State Prison Post Office Box 1900 Pound, Virginia 24279
4

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 13 Filed 08/31/09 Page 5 of 5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~/s/_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Richard C. Vorhis, SAAG, VSB #23170 Attorney for Defendants Office of the Attorney General Public Safety and Enforcement Division 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Phone: 804-786-4805 Fax: 804-786-4239 rvorhis@oag.state.va.us
5

 
 I'
Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 1 of 20

-.---I.h1 _____u ••_ ••••• _ ••_ _ _ _ _ _•___•••74-..--.-----------.---

nE_1J1SrTE_t>.-SIA'r6._I:E:s!~:t <::ruAr--__.__.__. _...___._______.._______u __

.h_h_._.________ .~hll:\£__~£fl~~___ ~!&C~tj~£_~----.--.-~------______

I
_________________. \__ __.__ _ _. __ d ___ ..h_n__ _h_

'lO.~~t)~~~ZA1o,L ________... __._........______..__.___._._.__._.

CIJII('I OfFICE'u.a. DII1'. COURT

___..·h· __._ .._. ___.__._ . __ .u·.. _._

. -. _-- ........_. ..

. ..- _.-_ ..--.._--- .-~-,--. flOANOI(I,..VA--..- .._-.-.-,-.---------.-.-

.- -_ .-. -_ ' ~K:E L~N _E!--~~MT~-20.'19Q-Q.-----.--,.---.-.-------SEP_7~_---------.··_·___·_·_···_n

~~~_~~=:~_ ..- .. .•....~~l~krr1_ ... _~f_;~;".--~-~~~

,-,.---

+ ~Ac'r5. P,A"-jr-- E AL.
,_____ ._____ ._._ _DEfENclANh______

--___________. _______________ ,.,.... _ P.U s_-nrG'- TI'JrlTI-1-l:'. .. -----._--.--.--._-.----..: _···____h·___·_____· ___·___·___._'.".-

'.(j------Ply

h···· A.. ·"·-F·-rr--.

-~-··-_·----·--'---------·-·-------

1J\1. . . .. .. ...Jj-'l" ... -0 . _._____.____. ___________

. =~--.=.~= ·.CflY't:1\ID)AJ J-bE•.. PL~~hfr,.~- 0r-f~=-~--.~-=~-==

- .... . . _ - , .NEf.,A£frJ>~h .. AwL (;f~pAtir1E.d,OLUme~±LA~_-

_'______________ . _1 i_MM£A~L-t-hh.----AJJs\t.1~-h--.-~"'.~Dkf}cd......h(--.,-C~-Ms&-<tt-------.---

"h'c_-t> i ______. _________._______ I

Ef"E~Ahlk}_ . Q lJ_. kJC{us1. _- ~.lf-2O:R-~------------ ~ ._h__._h____________ ___

I!

, ,
Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 2 of 20

il

'
r

-~~"~,~ -'~-"----<~--.' .~-.- -,--.t,,~-. -'.-- . . ~.--------, _. --- .,.,-,-, ,~~. ".,.--..~.,.,-, '---~ ~- -.-. -~.-... -

.. ,- --- <.

,._- .. ""'_~<__~""'_~'._'>7'"

~ __________. i~".LPB~k~ES".&l-.dblf£_C:OOJJ6ElE..--SSfbJ>J~_k ______

__________________ .. L~L~h:f"f6.___.c..i~M5·,-:. A~ ~E~~" . __~_bJ1lZk1:EcLJ-o__._Co~_~b_______.

_____.._. ___________________ ~. flkNkrr_Qts\.Auq~ ~) ,_2 O()q~___.ftAzMkrr--~nxf:----

__ .__ ...__ .__.._ hz:.s . &=};>UJ\AL~___ ._._._

-______ _..___.__. _____._____._.

-. --_____.___.._ .E5po~$ETDE~~dA~t~ '. b:~Gt_DE1£N:$e_ . -----.---... _..__ _

.---__ .. . P\A.z:~tL.rr.G)-p.1&~- DEJt~A~t~_ .bME_LlJ_~Ed..-.O~M.---

_____

~ fZ. ~5t-AMEt-Jd MEN~ COJJStI~}ZOJAL~bJ- . --k--_f&Ac.-=.---

.-- -.-.. . hz-s; .cVu.: bLItt-Jd ....fJ>EJr~.t..L::-- f"hE£.~~~_.Cl~-~--.--..---_

------ .... -- ....-.

:th:L!:---t:tt~··-·fJAcr=J . UNdeR--ANt/-.s~zA-LhQ-A~!-.... --'--

-------------- -- - E_J;:or-JsJ..~of t-hE-$IAIE of-\£rhfz;~ -C~ELbN-JlJ:1ANd

~-....--..-...-.....--.. ---.h>~q:NElhAZ.N~..-fJ~z:aa~.AN.d-.-.DfEflAbJ.'t-·-fk>C£-cLREb~J~I.L ---

f._.~kjz~,!L.J:>epJ-.-of.CO~.J.~.-. ~~Ef!~--~-.~~--

e~~ ..5Am t!bcMdz:~ ..Lr~. ~}t:~E5t- .. &rjhk--- __~._.~__._____~_._.

-.,,-.--_._ - E_Bt.lzqrQ..)5 LAMd...~. A~-"L~~~Alz2E_,L_.PE~~L~Ac...J::____

------~.--.. --.--.....- ...---..

---~Q .::H t

.. Q!_5,C~_{_2~.

-:cc.='Z{A)...~ A1.6; ..~'A-fEf1~-~-tnl!-~-.----

u~
. u .__

-....-.--. -------.--..-..... .._.~~ ___ A.. _~~N .... ()f~---C'nAflEl-.~--.A:..CIAzn1...~fE~2E~_

- .. -.---.-----.. ..--:St.vkcYAL.p.kcE~.--.~Nd.~O'rJltz:.~_·Affh:f1rA:l£-hJzft-~--_ -'P'EbJme:tJt [06 .~. ~1?,..,l~)A -.GT~zM1---~- A~AJ. __k_c/Azn-:J __ o/t_

.Efe~-. oNdEe,._±~s .~N. sMlL_k1E:.'JoJEttf'lEJ__J~I-.i-l1erpJ.t&Jl

- &> t~ o~ ~AJtl~",'1 uNdet ..AAkdE:_1It:...o_k.___fhE..(ilNSk~_~__~___
---~'----'--"--"--"- -flJ}zNhJr··...~4., 41.J):~·c: ..f.2cg>u_U:~_.!{,4)_.~'NQ--~EiN~-.U>-g---
.-. _.-.. -.-- . --.... £MiishAlL 2:tn.f5E"----h _5J)h5l-A~_kAL____bvI«iE.AL_.oNffrIE.I'E.I~.2._a§fL--:__

---~--- "".---. HO~'fEit9:>tJ .f,f:5l::cirN'jz:N_.._aA_~~_'fa.JJ:' Iz,.M.2ASJzJsi~?_. _

~ dEFhJifJ ..z~ SEch:z:>,v 19970f: -f~ .dz:fle~ evliN . z,;:_/:JJIL. . ___ _

.--..--.--. --. ------ .. - -YEf\)c..Asd.J:f~ ~A Au/£ q~. !:j~~AfIk;cAJ.g~+i.,-.~Nl5S---.-

-.- .... ---.. ----....--. nE_t:pJEM-IYJElJtLoR z-l-s .lHfe/..J/J-dE2~5MAk~tAAl~~.sz~N-_

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 3 of 20

~-~~-~=~- i~hi-=th.~Ad~~~~·~+W-~~~~l1E~_D-~~~--

e .-.-----------

ji
-j . ___._h··

E..Lh:.~rr-!1.. c~E. ANf\ fiE, -l'-J-AL-.~%_~tER,E-s.k.;·-:-Ab(lZd>---.-~-±bE.-l.EAsJ--.££~ .-::

- fC....:t~ :&s~~_cO~-~~~~-.±Mf~t;l~~~_=_=

!mE_I25E...tlJ\."JshwEZ.MfCZ;EtLtc~A..s6L.Md&..1 _oN. __ _

- ~l-z:"ffrn.L -l:hA-+~dEtJz::A-Lc.f._~5~Jw:l~ ~-~+-
_hE'_ Lc~f2,a;l&c~~ .. _MEAIJs~_z:ts__ .±h~ _~JdL.lYl~._____ed_"

~N:5JATE P~IS Afu",z6t: -.. &;E~AEf4~.-1)Nz:.-i:!-.:lJJ&~-~

.-.. -.......- --~--rs;. ~t-l JZJJEcL _b _ hz:s-CE1L--~~.bAs.->-.A_cIh(?_btE~_J.~,tAhJ.£_
----.--. .-.-. ----_ .. b__M\-E~.AH~ _j)fJr~ZDJS .SEA.\1ZU5/~_±Mt._±rJ~_. CiJApJ.~kL5~\C!£.___.

-.--.------ .."--...

------~l.--of~dr- fh>-,Jzd.e:·-oL-..B£,~._A~M .&lrqnv>.~tl1A:*kAlo.r_--.-.

-_______________________ e)AD.~t~~ .-~-L-AEIk~-.-C aAI:J.Jkfr:~A___~-e;lA1~-

--.------.-...--- - ~.__1HEJ\.lA·\zCif.~_ZSJ~; f~ doe5___~t_._6~}(..{ ,fcdEQJj)!~~~P-.---Q£-
-.-._ - p)~~lt5r:A;dttlfJrlrqmN~f~:cbsE---c:z:.&QzJ-..±E~~N;-.-----.-. ...--- .--.-------. MP1A:n!-dcEs.~~er--.f~A:z:.4b:rr:.-~--A~-$f~k±uAJ-.----

---.-- ________ . __ . __ N~~ __a~_~EMeJ4.._____ .._._ ......___ . ____... _..._. ___ _. _ .. __..___..___ .____

----.-------.-----... .Pl~f"I"~. -.--.-~h1---~EAtJS.. :b..s~ .. AhAf2A.s1--...~-l:k:s- .~J;Q~£..._

. .---._ ...--.-.-... . . J'ntnYN.Z;h! .-~JAz::11l-~.·bf.. la.I-~-~-~----~e:P-~

.---- .....-

hz:s.. .~)~~.-.~Nzi{.. IJBdSfAfrt-~-mE-.-~A:L--alL-.l'JE~S.::--.-.. -.-

.----- .'...,". ....--. Me£··J>EfE~cfANh-b~~·&f~tEdJ..4--d.EJ.Jz£d-.fJhdzr:B.-Af:Jzq.r"~.

1-~~·~YJSf'VAl.- .J1b'"-.M5-C&A-kJ..A-8JJs!&J~L~·k1&J;r·---· -.--.-.------.. -.--.---.. fbAl.-~_ Mt-"~E-·-.A::.-Cf--V.Efb.JdJElJilfL-.-C~f~~lzfQJB;N&l.-.-_­

............ '.' ---. {J;..-.--IY~fI&lL-j)·Efbof-C;W. ..-GmfElfz,..t,.-.Il-fIEI1Ii$lL-~--_.~.:...

1Df-.J··:zs,·Aff~"~J-flJJ<pu7fKrvt- :vd~ s-_.!>r¥l.~..a£.(;;~~~.---

~:E. -Iff/,·

...___ _

__,. __._......

E-~.d~~E ,-"eJ~6...&" hl}_JdJ-)JA£zcys. __Af?J4.X>R'__fl________ _

~u -e)~km-._fNblzlA}ZJ>fJJi~--.~~:tlbett.--U!r£.~.. ~.zf!!l--

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 4 of 20
- fiG. 3-

__ ........_____.._.___i±bf.~.j{£ASO~_.. lltA5.~.-~~-MAk&AL~w~E._. co.~lefJl_c..wld. .j).f'.f:..- .dEflk~~
-----..--~ -~rE~lhf;;~la::1(-r'¥'l.~L.a.&lfi!,.. J....sccPJWE;__D'£."!1Lt<:.~::--
_.__..._ .....___. ___~_~lLt:;b{.t-OA. . O.£~EtJdelJ,.8EhA}.r.J.J7'lJ·.bJE__.. EgoR.~ ...C>A_}·~~ . ..5AfE:h{-.._-

.__. ______________ ..._. ._ .... .hEAJ~ ___Qf. ....O!:~EHdEBs_~.f"~" cA... o!:bE&>.~~~.;..-~c~--Af~"'
_......._..__._.__ ._._._._. .~_._±hE__~_.~-J~EeJ.-'..-\-\-..~AJE~.LtMJ _p~ . oA.AJ\lO_~

._.___._._____._._.._.__ \.E:_~)&JQ;..rdzsDp.deA.,;.-:zNGoRAEdm~}~($il-k~f-~&f

--.------ .. - ..... - ..... -.. ~±_._~AIsr-9&uf>F. ohjAJJa.4~~~~r:pif:l!EI·I1.f:N:JrO&
..__. _._........ __..of'"..z.k.ztJs;k:Aob~L "p~.(. k N~~~k~_ br,_ e/~_kr~. __ _

_.. __ ._____ _..... El&NEd __.f'JblcC:Ab~";;-l.l2.-1 !,_Cfj~5Eco.bc!:lda:JCr -~-

.. --.--...~-.--- -- -. . .~tJb-O~._f-Jl~EM~,.- .-. .....-....

-. . - - . -

......._..__..._..--...... ______ D~.-. b&~E_fM;ceJ ..N0 --.~b5¥ltJ-k:AJ····-··f&s,;.r::/ E:\J&ciI:NC~.

.-.-----.-------. .. ~.RtJ-.-.~--.~E;.l-Jf~~L-f_.{l~/gA:~t-!---·fO~aA:--.-fitAf:iJd...h ... . -.

'---... --.---.-.....-. 5Ea;k:Jf._.Li~..Sfl~li1f ..af_~Iz.:~.~~~_.z/::s_...alel<Ah~.·cA:I~;_

.. .. ............... ... E:fc.._rheA~_.. bt4s.),t:a.t }.IU··~t:;;:·..-h. ·~I'I;Kn(,J.o;(.~Bf..-.-...-.

-........---.- .......-.....--flJtL--~bl~,J ...~cA:lE-f-~ttJgt~-~er-~N3t.JJ.A.~~

__..__.__._......_. _____ -1Et&foJ::Sl.~~.ef~~..___~.._h4s__±i1:~...b~.L····~··_/~fjl5/r.~

----.----.---...--.... . ±hA}= Hlrsf~~-·-·-.:.z;s·-·A-~bL~..-.HKJ=ne_ . ~......-.-

.-----......-.- -.-.~--- ... ~,-_of--.YrrJEb1LE:r-~ZG4f5T-- ~J.s,-A55l.kJlk-r~--A.J.AE.?:i

--. -~.-----,.

,~L.snrre_._LA~,J ... ~ek.-fttt:l-ff.L,b~.--h~'j-- hEC:N.-fJE?£~

_.___ ._.___..____~.____ .. ---IN- ,.PfEil Ql.Jzbf') ~ $b'-JLE._m~ ,A1vjL\Jd.~;z;:ArS_j) FfJ:.~-o£ .. ___ .

..__,._......A~~J_msz:NLE... rq''-I'. fm::! .. ·&fl.ilJ.kd...dF:~..Ir~./,~ck{fF.-~- .5C1ZIJ.ti:.

. ____~_______,____. ___"PL.~mpa~-,~~J11aJ.kL-,-~~E.Sl:--(-th6~..~E.__~."M~_b~.-

.. _..___.._____._. ___ _ zJ·k-J ___ kt__ot:bett_..t:NsJ-.z:k!zz~_s. _.~_~._.Y~~J._l>Fif~..(}f:_. ____ .

.. ____ ._.__Pk~t;-).. , __

... _ .______

---.-.--. --..,,--.. . .--tO~atAJ.-o f_,J%~_k._Y1._0S·t:,fJge3 .IS ···~-Afl/IJ-
.--.,,-----....--...----.. &Mt-...:SY~\. ___ df-C.1:Stp~+i1V -J-MJ"fJ/~tJJz.Er .bA? Cj&&lcl
-----.--. -..--.-.-n,t2~dAb\.b_.,detTSlI)N.J~-de#,f(Jbl~cI!~fV I,Ai.J.l ..f:ft~ jJLLhizrA.~

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 5 of 20

________________________;__chc_f',L. __ .f1E'\k:E~.L_,Lommz:}k~--( p.~~___af~-fh>a:~--~Di,-~---------

------------------jtk·-Af1fE1llE"cL---~h::I=-lAh.£Le.- .. .dEUS$~).L_ ~-.l:N=fJhJ-·-Pd~L=--~.-
----______ ._ . --.--lr:s~h~--:":-.£:C A}~E-~. (> '~Mkf':- . ht:1r=EseFJ tne--Af/-ItA4 .. ---

------.---r~n--.9_&=E:~AI-.iG~-f&CEJ..>At:.-~ ~~ka~._ bJi.f-~-LwtiL

___ ..____.__________l~-.£lA:\dEdT.-A+SD-~E~\le.. h f&kcJ--- EACh _c1c~dA~.Fa.mATf,

- . . . __________________.1 ~fON~~lrk:€S~-~.~kls-. . . - . _ .

'-_ _...___ .--.J}1'}ArMhff--~tC57. -+nc- dECt:S~N1o .~I.e-J~-_!41._.V ·$:.C._£J~B'3_.-::__.

___ '..

·-111~-k.""i 4~u ·s c. E 2CCO - 2 [A).rs Affbf~k.CC>It/.r=cl.Af..ti---

_1~eLnEA~ J,AJ:I.(er;:S ,l-hesl:- G::Nsk~ ~t._ ~"'--

_.. _. . . . __ .__ .____.______ ... r.' A-bs._...aro~kJ. .h~bn&J.d~.. .._

_ _

to ____ ..._______ .__ ._______.E~~,.JSE-_. .Sfc.c flJct.--.l>E}t:t.JSI?" .', ..

____ . - .- ...-. -- ...___ __

. _______ - P),Aa;blk.ffsMJ5, .. EAch fA:z:JONelLCO~frN&J+z,111t=:-Vbt~~

_N~~t_~e=pJ-.-tlf-C~.RIS&6N>.. ~. _.Pr~~ .. kqhf--k>- pllAckc..£_._

__

•

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._mm _ _ _ _ . _ .

-.---.-.------_._ .----.-~-PtE~N.--:-±ks-.zs.- oA-lr~ed_2J,J.\)A-_~1>_.()·L__._._
---.-. -----------.------ - PEAA~-+--.£&-cEJ.L~E<BlJL~L mE. N Pdcot-lof:_~IAff1-Z5:...-A--.--.-----.----...-_______._·m.___ .91Eu::q.NZ'2eJ_ ..j,E:l~-s.- -COmraJ-JJ.z:bf--.J£b;;J±b:::N--.-y~~ 1:>_,0:G__,_)JJA-zN::

- .~r-_hA-5A- . -b~uJjl'ruthi-do /J,ECEz.YE'~fO~ef.~.-A:I..«I---.

----------

PuJ~.A~~'>.--/JJIJ.J~It' As ... rNI:WJ€J.2:N _ V.4-.I>·O~L_ .._...__ .

.... _.. _DI!~~~/h>cecbAE ~2.'3A-N_d<?62.1~

.. _. _.. ,___ .

---------.--------- - .E-La.JskiobN ..~ f .. ~-J\E.-.-SWE_a(--V:d'FN~:ll ~MSc~~J _____

--.-------.-.-.---~--~ht---~- A:JIJ)AL .. CZtzZE~lSc~__ J4JJJ .._-/b:6E_ .. co",~s:l .._. ..._____ -.. ----- .--- . .. )(.k-H\r;~ z}-s..fE"ftJA,IZ1RskluIzoNJ.. f~O/UetL___cba _J'K:f .AE1Z7JJjYr/h.__

- . .-. - .....-- hP. -~ s.J:z:fvJofVirl k.r;hl: .jtJ fMcke hz;f .~~l\L .

- ------..---. ---.-. . _~>E.hE. ~ ONh:.#JtJ ..... ..~..,Z.. d~tzI .bJ ...'If ll'S~L..t[ .. ___

--.-. -.. -.-.----.-

'.AE~!fZ!kJ. .l.4NJ .Cbt:,~. .zt.Js.hJol2Dh*lrzE<:f-IENt!S!N-.-Ad::2«>tl,..___

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 6 of 20

____ .• ~.,

_.~~~

_____._. ___ ~.___

._,

___

-J.--::"

" ____,_ _ _..... ' ___.• _,..

_____ ._.. _. __, _

· ____,,_.· __•___ ___ ~""._._,~_·

••- - - ·c,,~,

,~'"

-~----. ----------.------------.-'. ~\\---<1~\jE-W~i--Of_rAA~f~click~-.---O'£----\JA~--~<):~---AltE-~~--=---
_________________________ ~ldu 6l--WA:~-- zN_____ A-CCQ~C&-. _'L.I;cJ11.JL.:~2~._CON~~lzf.m~_&m~_

_____._____ -----lfY\EtJt.1 AMd lYj-_A-Md .VA. STATE _ ~coNsk~Azc>'l\~_~_C$'Ei~~ILa,J-'-
__ __ ___.~________~_____ '~dA~-- - hA\l~_~lAJEd Jl1E---Ar:ttbk--o'(--~f/~~-Ae-------

- - .. ~-hEAk-Jp~t:f'EAJEd4cb.J~-hr~--~-fl<ll~
t~Jdt~.,t_ l:;uE__ ~6?>; ~CAEA.).."&JA:~£b5~Jbukl'E'lY---~~-~
:·.f)~~ft; cLEte~dA,.Jh._. dECt:SLCN- bA2_J1~__mI}Jrc.ZZ:H.l.sr_.t=N~__

~b~A-t . __ ~h does NdJ- Sct.."E: -A-CJ::~nfElbJcj---cp..J~f11~-­
teAs}~ PlAzJ...\kr-~_ ~- A-~J7-Jk----B(t-aJ.&l--AMafqjJ~-=-----

----------- M-tJ-\-eEJ _Ja~-V~~-.-- [Q)".uJzk~Ama.JddlCA.lJ:__1_;--"k-STAIE--------
- ~k4ub~__ [sa:.ho~.LJ~) ,A-Mc:l VA:b.o·(. 'Of~r-tAoce~-~­
--- ------------~----- - & __ ~J,_3(A~.r.cL.~2-!~>-~ hs - fAAclzcf£--ba-----hElt:.o/DN-/~-,~----
------.----------- ----- +~_k.de-h:c~ A~---~~E>~l---~~--J:5!J57/~bI~--.-

tv ,--<:?k.. -

. -- - -

_-_ -. _~ ___

. --------- -. &aldA~ Nwtr Xklc~qL'fT1:~EJkNA-LI ~d~JY1Al~--------­

hA-sz::rr.-r-- ---------------~-- -_._____~blAJ@ ...111t:__l.JZ_JJ·s~L_Lf2t:Po_!J~}_L.AA..!fj. -~EAMd--.%:.A1Sb: =:~_
------- . bAh.u-A-.b>-AcJ·zoQ:;).r :L:1...LibAL:z:...J

--.---------------- .... _SU},~u~-a..d~ OfIJ .-H1e__ ._/r£Jrrpr»_~£::it'dG --~___LjAz:N_:__

--

rs: - #

-~ J)J~ P~Ct8~,

__ ~_______~_._

---.--- -- --*fJdA~- AfrE. ~~ .~.kof:itJ~--sJlJJ€:--4-11d.~~---.

-- -------

M; ...~. J"D--QfbJd it1~f.ft1q-a(__fhE.-~Wf:_fAt4d-.Jh....fJ[-----

------------ - \--~t4_b--s:i1:iEPk! - Lot-i.s.l~~J~_~;.--kol...--~-5W-~---------

-------.--------

_v ---ANP.. ~·J)~_O ~(". jjf~-thx;EJufjti!ArM~~Jfd...:1ll~--.

--~-------- . ... ee~ . . -zN. ~dla.4~t -ANA- dl5CLs'1:tJ~,l_fllliT<-t:Jt-.-~.. --

- PJ~k:rn-_ At:~.}~

.

..-__

. .. ________

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 7 of 20
-f12, ~-

_1;:flE2poJJ~e.k _..:rnL.~.d ....bE~_~. __ .......____.._._._.__.. _. _. __.____.__._... ------.---.--.-.-.

-"'-' .-----

........ -...... -

II·n
.i-r

lA:l:~rr_-_~M:.).B~

..-(jJtJ...o~-.A'~!:~~.Jj~."h~-kJAf--., .---

_._._..______ .___._..__ ~ ~EJ. ,·~1-·-ruEJ\ot..L.~El--~_..U~J~ANSkz:.~.-12p-rJ~:li

Ai:Jz:S~... ~dq e1··~1L5.Jhtnzc1._.f2~1eD"~.._ft.~~.----

.............-..-... -.......-... ~.T~_~_-.U-N(t:-.-~td.-k_h.k)lb~... Xl'I};~~._

.... "'-.-'.- ,.--...... -. .-: ..±nE~Ec£:C-.~Af1:Jl--··A14Jct~_,~Et---~mM~_". .... . __..... ,.. ,-'" '\.LL. P/~ff_ ._.:z:s..•u~.~J I;.J1.LAECEbfE_kt~B.LOAJ:tL"' __sJl!Jrz __.__

~~;.~€ . dA+e: .ON.~ EAd1 .~h1z:cA.kN .. \LlM_._,d1:~E"lL;j/t~,

..__ ..__.....

..NN-Et-.... ~,., .~baJ"-.f)hu-JkFF.~_&!I:l~t;d,_,,d(. fhli_.deJr-Alj .

-- "--'.' E.op~:t,.}y~k~-fJ~g;··· bA.tt. L.--.A-z:I.-..,...k.~-.~-tb~

.--.-."".-.-. ".. _.... ,. . ,(,[.}aluA~. -~·~l:·f6!iEi4,S£CYI4j_--tlM.~M).,-...J:h£_t.DNtkc.l-#tAk.,

.,--..,--.----,.----...., akh-dE~~Mi---..uNa~._._:;t;,~L,_\1Zl>l~-.",'.,d,(...~-...~-:-.-fAF--

... ,. __....
.... ,---.

5.~:~~,.s....,~ . ~~-fE&zxk.. .-ZN-..-~f~l&'-.-\LL~---.--.-.-HCMJed h~ ~.. +he,. p~~cJrbs.-~.- ~_flhtJ--SI.ECz:kC,-

,,__.._..'_._ ..

I~~ 0 -&,C0tJ~~A~~w, ,w..~h-,P)~~kff_-.hA5.1!i?lk;(__._,.

. ,-.... ...-"._'''-,..... -, 5J?A1:0tf~._~_thE~_.clEr~~____.cb::S~_h!~,.~_.___,_.

,-.-.-.,,---,--,-,._-., -~,t!.l-th~-~rs ..,&.,_ho_-~~-;-,th£..A1~t<f·,_(l&:·'-flAnLk-fl:I-,,­

.............. __ ,_' . _,__ Eltq%X)~,- bft~-~...tb~-,..Sfe-t:rW,-,_A~~~~-o~-

.-...,." ,,
.'''--'''-''-~.'

...... tJEldS fA-f~~5lflk,.bu~. ~~-.-{J.J/w:Ju-k~",Ad:Jdr:J.'I,...."..
. ,,, plJ}(J~cli""±ht,~.beJL:"~.,,_~d . ,,.pl~~_ AAc&.._lk:iul.~. _.

,.,"_ .,,,

Jo _~.,.Sitlz:f.MchL;dy". ,~L."AeAJll."2:1V. _chadh:S.riM""o£".",,

""'_'''--''_'".",,, ,,,., ' --=,,,,,,CQn1flAr:AJj_~~ .. ~lfl.AE._,,,b,,_~)A:jE:..~.d~.... ·f,.,)foAJ.·.."kl.kL

,..,,,"_,,,, .." A~ .CAfJ"hliE, . ~J'''''L'~''..'" . ~ . ""'_"""_"'''.'''''_''''''__''''_''''''''''__'''''''''''_

tJ ~,J ~~"2l~!tt,,.IIAZhlkfL ,..$ubmzl:kf.-A-U""A~sld...-M:eJ~
. "". -"",- . .. . CJ ..1l.\J~6IY'A_, f /J.$ ~J.A.J~."-AboV"E,;-,,,:b .r/oJdJ~'fJt,Ir~~L".Vp>N"
buh,"fktf",.cbJbE.~J'r.CZ~,·CA5£",f.A-..<fr ,-sv.b/tJd:j~ ..

"""-"-,,,,.,,-_.. , ~1}~".fjtJ>pl\wt:b f..,5lJAUC,J.z:M,,,AlL~.EzJ~4:.l~~,,

II
Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 8 of 20

- 1'C;. 1-

- - ---_._- _._ ... -_ -_._-..... ..-.. ..-.------..-...----- ~----....~---.

... _------_.----_.... -- .. _.' - -'-_._..-.-"."" ..... ...._..-.-.-_._..- .. -..._- ..-- .-- .

_..- ......... -....-

.-....-..-.-.-- -' ----t\~ E,$~.bI$ E.. k __F..ou&:l::hDilil..t~E~ . . _. _-..-.._.-...--..-.-...--.---....- . -...-_.-_.-....---._.-

_.__._ ._.______.__.l~J./ld:.~£f,.-...:?-b4iE.$7-.-d.\)'f.-.. hL -.bffi~.._..A:c~Srb~k-.·-

_ .. _I.~.f}EIt~.. _MIt: aM~.-tn~L-dcP~_rh.,.J.:.AlsO.....~*'.-=:..
. ..__ .!f:LdAP.&.~A:l~~, .bE:1£bldA,J-k A:c..kN.L hA-\l~\~1~.

_._......____._._ .__._._'.t>j~-kfi.,;-....Lo-N.S-h::-kJ.bN-.A-MB.kLnEtJJ.-~..~z:qb~ ,k .....

....._______________.__ ._t&::6e __.~m-&11oaqmt-J.JJAd1.L; .2:.I_ hA:SL . cA~A .. ~k ~.... -

______..____ ..___-\:PrM·bAl.--~t ..:t:N fuAJ.- ~CO~tf%.NEJ ..-fl~-b:a.: _ ~~"

)Jo\ .8~1~()z::,(h _&'e- .-fu::~hk'. AtJl>.~ ~~-. aJaLdlid.hy-

... _____ . ___ .. _ .. ____ . VS·C9I'l_s.}. ,_AmEN-d ._.~j_I' ANt> -tF.t~/· \J~~ $TA.,...E-.-.-~f'Jsl-,7~·

- --------.--- -- .......~~J~.O-::c.~·,·-·C>f~j}k:Mc,----·l~c~~-. "

~-. -.--. ----- ...-.-... E---&.~L.-CA1~---~gjS-fAf~·· -5a(.\l~-.... As....-~ ~JA<j$ho/ of' ~~
_.___________..._.___ .. ~Jif_~_.$J~--...8E1r..~s.--CCm~N~-;f:!ltE~JZ:Alf···SfZ:b:-~·-·
. -- ... -.-...---...--- .. k~\-.keAcht~5T-~:r:dA,..lCt .._ANP._.vJsibc.bN:~·f_• .1··_hA-s~..al_.

.....--- .- E--r~b~1>-oi -J]..\E .. f-/)Osi. tb)...\o.R..AbJE-.-~lz:5Ab.~mAJ;f ---.-
-.----. -. __.. _. __ . ... ~. _~bt b~-rn~. lhM.,~M?Jf:""Lo.tt:.~_.~.KhAfJ_.',.._:#1E_.~::

---.-.---.-----. -------. k\PE1t--}{Eef~-·-A:JL. JYH='ln'o~...AtJc!_ bfk.el~f&fl6ol&flfA:M.~s1.

---.------.---,---.-- -,.--~~.--~kr--dz;~--·LA~LS7--CO~~.Ac~k~;.-.
....------. ~~bM--~I-~dAMCE../hlJJ1JL-P¥K.. a£.dJ1E'..
,--- "---' ./.t6"Lo~_~1,QfY"-. A-$ -Ar-Com@.w:1f~----.Thz:;...-~i2~.j4i.t-.-.;;t;f..t!J~.-

.--.---- ....-...--.-- ·-··kf-···tnF:{>rNL-.l/~Mkrr.,bA:~ ..h . -.s.My.-.cOJ.lJJtcJ-d7~·~····-
_.. ___..... _,_ . _ . ~_h~J_ .&:~~ti UJ1Y2 d\J~,--~.M.,-!Jed.a~~l.:AA«I_A£Ll!bL£_",_

...-----.-,-------.. ~.I}I.--~cE-IZNsjf11JCkj'!.. -Jblll--d/1~JkJJ.IAbl£~.-..-- .-,

..........-.----....-.--...-.-..... ..~M:!...-..-..... .. ...

-.-."...' ._..-.... .. ..-- ..._._..__._................._..... ........ _..........__....:.._.........

------.....

I£-~ ~.l>Ef~AJ.lh ..usGl~J.o d"BJ'4-··fbJzcA~~~ -M~ ..---.-...

.-........--...-.. U~50Ja~~ __ (AtN~Jov~.. -.AM>.-ckEt... Nf>tj.:z:;N .....Jlrt.Jf'1- .~.-sEi.>le--IJ.-" .. __ .

----------.-.-.-...--.. <1eN~d11attA.\--.1:~:\:CLtffi.L..GP"h~.. ~ f E1V!IdIert.lh&.~~~l

.-. ----..-.....---- ~.~l>·O ..c.;.J:Oy!._ OlJ¥P.JL-/-N~f!L'~1-~ Z$"-'CJ d~l:~ir

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 9 of 20

,_ _ ___,,_ _ ___." ••-,,, ~_""~~,_"_~".

,,_,c_,_~

_~_ _ ,._ _ _,.~ _____ •___._ ..__

."._"_"" __._..._. _ _ _ _ ~~~.

~~~·_._·_".~_~">o·_~,

_ _ ~

"_"'~

•. " " ~"-,,

. ,_. _ _ _ ._,.,.,._,.~~.,_~_,_~,~

~-.

-

..... .. .. ---- ~.~,.,."'--,~,

-----,-.-.,,~~

.-...-,.-,.~._.___._.....LlJNkt.~~dQ~.Lza~..-daJz:e=rl. ~h.t:Q;.J ..f.JC}\ltffihe£ .2OJr~-.~--

. . . .-~-__~.___.____ .~A..th6~-.-1t~L- .:b .~t:.Y'f ~~b-c .. d(;?r:?~L~_..8e_-::__

.------...-..-. -.-.-....--1flt:t.i-···~·h~k"1r· hE1t:E~1 ,·fJAcbs oj-fu~1-f.bds~4----·
-.. -....._.._____..._.Jbt_. bfb~l"QJ{L~ a~_.~E.JJAk~..C£ :t=r/,Q{"t\r~s....--.-.---...-.---..-

_._..__~..__ .. __ jDE*~.dA~k... AcbN~-..-~e'7 :Z:~l i=Ac*;CAIJ>~J .f/~~-.-.-.

._____.._ . _, _._.. H!. , ky.L ..-.-~-fAfJA'b)F

I
. 00m;

:t:..J. hA-~daJ2:EcLhzt)'l .Jht£.. ..

____j~11i .AM).-u,.,M~IFAttjhlrA5.9u~by.-­

... _. _. ... . rp,5 .CoNS).' Arf..e..;.A· 1; t.£ ~ f) s..c. € 2..(11) A c.c-:l., 2!t~·1J,rj· _

......".. ---- .. t[Z~T·Srlr-rt -::'\jd~~. U:JN~l-:!:£fubfw(5E?:~)bl;.. -Af-t!>-.,....-- ...
______ _____'~$~-Q£~- fl<fla:J4e t!J~. .\lA-. t>,O(,,8''f1,~+ @2,~_~tl_.

.---..-..-....--.----..--... :f!(12~J;I"--..h·--"f~Jzce.-hrs..AE:~&.O~...I~ -~.b~ .

-·--~~c---·--· ~.sj~t.l~Jl'1_~.bAJ~-'---1"Jig-G~er -- A1Jd.z~"'S.Jk~....~.......-...-
.. -- ..... ------. --- J.(UJ¥.l~ ·.... C0MffitH6l.~.hEfaJdAJJk ,.;P).. tMl.eJ~1x~~--..-

... - . . . cf(~,J. Af.tj> .. 5..J})I'fJ&,H-Q. d&/=-e=M}l;£ ...rM...hz:J. .behAi.'.~..,
.-.--.-. --------.--- .... -.p~,,~-.~ . --t10~:.--clo~'~'d.~·· ~.1> E~~t...>__ ...A&'~____._

.----..,..-- ..---.-.--.----..(}N.~~~..J~k~U>l~>- .~.MIJMr:.I:d.. .

. ..-. __......

- _ . ~~h--.Me...-.-1hE·--·fML+l:1:f} . A6~S~J~ }:c.,.{.. thtr::J~~(.
.-..-- ..------....-..-- Ai>_ .--.~~~--.-d~.fJ~r-(~---Pifl-L'1~sY9Jl¥'¥.~--'th,i.{A~
.- ... ---...... -... ~~~,k.l.. .. A~SfbMcllf?, ..~. .fhA}T/{AU/$'. ~--C~e.J ~.------

.--.. ------- __..__ . HoH··Q. -#l~(;- ks~~~~k£.I-b L.n~C.fl7A:Jo.Qj---.-.. ... . --.......... -TLP.t;;1}Slr.(lYl.A~§lIfFIWr~7 _.l~ . mIJ:)[E.d~~A£._.__

-.-.-.---~---.--.-----.. f¥lb,ka4~~r .. ll_~.bj.. A-w .--7:N. ~Cc>aJAMCE ..x.f&.H1.~H________ ._..._ _

_.__.___.. _.....___ -.: .1:f.J.s.k+ubN.M--..-f~lzc.rEfl..~k LA ~.L. J4N.J ..COlVchAm~.!::.__......_

.,_.. _As.rJ-:.",;:JA~ h~ .--g,E-EF~.E.C/A<!>~~.-.~~­
.---.-....--..._. k ..ttn;:'._pfJ,P>5 ,.--t>E~~. c:k. ~t. I:&:S~~ ..~{(.~h._.Jtl1!llL...

its 0-·-·---·.---·.. ·-----. "PR:L;~Neil~ 'VEll..i··.~ . J<HJJ.I11Wtft1t;

o/#b£.hIJ14~t;._.

- ..-----..---.-----.... .~dl··(J·p- ..;;e+:5 -.f»H' b SvC/L

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 10 of 20

__ ,_"~~~. _ _ _ _ c _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ <_~._,

__.• ______ ._.". ____ " .._~"...

._" ____ ___ ._ ~_".

•

.

__ _'.~

~_

_

___' __0 _ " _

.~- • • , • •

~,.,,~-.

- , - - - • • -,--'",~-"~- ••••

~~.-.-... -.....-.~. --. --+B85'fO.r-J$E ..~ __rrF.+hE be.r-E~SE~- .. --- -.

.. -.....--. .........-..-..

__ ._.........._........_LLPlAd:b.lhfr_._.~k~~y-.bE£"EjjJANh. ~\U~\ci._.A5~.~ihM:..-.---

J){jhM6p~~EJ-..:DJ ..tJ~fAfel...-.-"%:s h~oili.:Hl r ...c.c~~.L.Qi._. . ir.)~k~ ~._1hEbL\S£l~t~-t·-··ArN'O.. -....to.i't..*he_..A.~-N..~tb.al~:t.-:
.__ ._.. _. .___. ___. . __;}#) t. A£.5fof.l·~~J£.·-··Ae;Az.N f .fho4UE'( ~. __cl~.;c~ ..J~~,\J6.:::.. .. -~ .' fJ~~tl>)) ~~dtcl .. ~1t~AiA·~j··--h>-·fJAc&·±ft·rr.~~'L~... --
;eu.b)~.sh~ _MA-)cIL f/~~ ~~ ~~_~ .............. _._..._ f)~-kf".r ~e} hE hAs PELa\(EJ +he. IZ~AI.(J}JL_.~=
--...... .. f'1~ ~M ~"fE.lCfqt.J()1.1kr.~:eA~_2(J{S~~ ~---.--

........-. ~~j..\J ..~.£?~S5\.1E.dE....rL.E'J -#--. \O..,t.... cstn~. ~k.4u~:":.--.
....._......" .... ~.\1A:,. t>~QY ~ :-. o~h l~tjo~'t..ll ~+eJdA~dt:a.cl.kd -In . _.

...- ....---.... - .. .h.cl~'i~~~:..-nAE_.fO~At-~~.()')~~~.-~f-Jh£..___
............... '... -... . .A-~ .~C: £~JA7Y'/ fri...lAl.CA1L.$.JIfW. jlAfeIt.·. h~. b~.---...--

~*6JJ ~Ct-- . Jf~s-jf"h~LA/zcN.~:ZAJI~ ..... 7h~ ..

·....' .... " ..'...' ...~~ .... ~ .. Nt:vet. ... Ad.\A:x:.A-+tJtl~lYk>J~- ,.¢,~,,".A:d\lz:SRi.--M;>~..-.--..

--..---.---..-...... - Dt .. ~~JaJC£,.qAM1.AGkv~/ ~r.;.iA.Et;;_~} ~/"

·-.. -.--..-..-----.--~h.s.b-.~:tl., C.:l;;\1L.~L.UfJ ~trsd:..tO 1:- .~~. ~_.~.l.J.___

........... _.__ .. _-..... ut'J'~} .. bE~,4;...W&Af....~...ffiF ..sEwk14·-o~_of{d~_~etI.A:::-
.. ... .... bt-lS ',*-\J~ ~ 1)~ 0 .(". ~ .b:>. J£/& ~ A-Ed<:5JJz:o~ ..>Ilf_rlEIAt:;S9~.J.1JjEk:_

· .........

A-5 ~... ·~fAJ.J ·N6Il·····s..fF~ .E~dtpC£:,.__I:a_s,.'¥1i3:l..- .-.--._-

-.-- ....-.

f(Jb/~cA-k:cf'J . CPN.~~b.. ~/dr.;-ko~lt.l.V:£o.ll?)d£Ir:_,t-ArJ1Jf'r--__.·

. -... -......

·CAp5r . It:S5.la!!.l-k~..d:o.~//.z:cJ£.. htE~g~ .A:.JMd(£c:M-sb4-r~.~~~~

...-...... ' ...... -.. -.... QfJ.......pRr>~M~...AGJ~Al .. :d 11. ..f(J)Jz.lzvE ..~Ao/A.J.o.~ ..--QNZif~ . ..

n.JLJl...-['(J'iJV'o.tJ rfl.3)1/U.A.dA(. - JJNMlJ,;. b.~"oJ'h~.f~~-- ... - .
GM~O"f&Cel#r;,. .. AtJ>JofI-~e- ....zN~l-J.1 m4J~L .......
................... .............. .~.oth~._pfJ.es~"'/:~S., [.flA-tN~do~_/QSSIPSS.._.bOlJJ<r. CPN:j-Az2!_~

.~... Mwrl.J;. . tn(i'>~Mj~t.~~...ki.cI~{frL_fYblx,cA-bP~~;> ......... ,_..__. _.

! !
Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 11 of 20

"----"-"---".-------------~!PlAz)..).k..IT .--.-~:i'J~J_-nt:..-~.~t!EQ)---&!L-)J.EL~~---flJf~----_____._._.___.._.____.'-_-~i~k. bti--Af'Rrr4Bi_---~--~~ . I~f'lfL_lEc~~li__~Jl_4m~ ._.Q-dL~

. ~..... - - ;~(JN'k' /'I()..j.tqJg / hE~AEtIalJIO.:JhEtbku!.~ -klEEJli_-~

__• •_ _ _•• _ •• _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • •__••_______c

_~.-::~
'I"

~ D'-l: Z!:ci'-~-(.,)N~J ___~}d~I'9 4-~ __~' ~_..~15__ZQogr'··' .~ErZ.._.rssc1£~

. .-ifsW!:d ------.----------------i4Pf---fAf.~ . ~-. b~___._dEJJr.£:d~-.-~~-1b~----~Jl=Ej~- .~.~S ..

c ••_

-~-

.THE.5ANlec ... x;s'Sv~~~M_ .&d.0I..Iz0I..l....sr~.

----------------------f~hsoN .AA~. --~~fE~J.Ed.--M.-.-clb£g--~+.dub5..--.-.--

._I~~\-)..}. -#Ie -JA· b·o·c

.~ . .... ..-~~

.-------...- -. -' IruE_bE~'&k\Abl.\sh~\~~ -fAtbJ.,cEcL.__OrJE._z:otA__ . D£-f~----'---

----.-----.--------.. :_..._.~_.$ubs~~J~te-- thE~- clA~ ~ __I+:-J1AS-~~-k--~--Kldh--

______.________________ ____ ~labhEttrs_c~t-b-~bh:>1-MM&~~--- z-l-s___ -A&.q%":OJ.5--- ...-_

-------_____________. @}~L_.L~A~19.,-z:lS__Na.fu£L:_.~E:~_ciDzc.E____o£ ___ th-E:-

---------------- ----~)Az:J.Jk~k-- b_~bsckJlE---+OA-~J-ru\k~--I-fM4f-C)A.-h1E--~ilc-~~

~lEJfAz::u-\-6J:u..\.fOtmA~ ~t_ M\lCtCA!k--t-fAetnJ£.-ol.--takA--

_____ ••_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

J

-----------.. ------. -. .s.iL.~._t.-J·:~~--Ac~~!~-t .2:.N.sU~~~-7ek.1t--.~~I-M:-H1~

---.--.---_______.___ ~_~~ ___~___~~~.-dE~--Qf'-.--.--~--J)

-- ---~--~---PJ~f~kdh{.,.A .o~ce "~~:6~'~~zrA,-:--

-'lAs, ----.----.. --.--. tJ--~-r-:I.N----20

t---hME"-.-"- EEN~j..J.r=YCfL~_hAdiI=_.OAJ~_._____

__ "_________._______

so&cldEl.k::EJ__ .."--_. __.__. _______________ z~ "/A-~J>.Q.c~

c_._._ ... ___

.._. ______._____ ._ .. ___..... _.

. ----__ _____;__ .. . . lJfE_ ._A-cd-?_.,..6I-.J.PGhAlf' aJ.. J:>f;;*aJciJw:k.____~!.e..C,4(J~t«I______.___

-----------k.fL/}z&iJ4:R r ZA-I .tf11;#l--ZJ-_. VmltJ.lf?l-}7~~~>-.: .~_&~___ ------------------ -~1M;J.~ .. ~_1l_}J._J}J~AJ:)jB----Az-rjhb--b.--flMck€:.- kr_~j_

--.. --- --.-. -. ----.. -/!J~{IJ··~----j,i?rf\s7_·Ss,Jb5M&.:z::Illjl----/:k~ed--.--. ..

I!
Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 12 of 20

:r :

- P6~ 1\-

I,

__ i
f; i
~=~~~=~=~i===~=_ ~=~_~===~=~=-

----------UPl~r:r--~r;:~ ~--:f !1~Ao$tLhEf9L±o ._aJehs.1i'li--~-

'._'.._. _'.._.. - . Hk ..\)EfE~r> ~.1. ~.A+Z.t:.#_3~.~41)* 5 ,1~.. A!SO ~.......

....__.___..___...J1~.Ib~tJtcl....:z::~~Rm~koN...el~kr£.. fO~Md. hi_. ~RJ. ..

----- . iJOl\L--3JNl:-LJt 2fJRrfEL-/!8J(L5ra:LbfIJ.)E-1£U.~ff: - -.-. .

r - .-- -. - . --- ._._..... __ _....jJ~bAa....r~ .u.t.bA&t~1Ct I ..... ._..._.. . ..._.._... _. . ...... . . . . .,

...

~ ;

~ ,-

--.-.-._..-. ~.. -. fl£SfD~'E . :rn 5E'\/aJih bE~ENS" ~ ..

.' .... .... ...-....

._.___...___.__..Pl~h~£_._$WES>.~~~A-s....~_ .~e-..Lt::RrbJ ~·-f~~·

- ..----~-----.- ...1hrs. -.~L.l.-.-.At:J%"6t-!..-.:JhE~·~~····'%~l+k( .ANd AEf~·
--.---.-.---- . '. 1J-.'-Jzo) A+Eci_._.eJ~~ri._ftqhk . __h..n~F:E..~~~£_.....__ ..

...-.---,,-._..--._--.-. C1M~._.~.._....lf.k.Jr£k......~_._. EA:c.ml&1Z:~N_-:= . ~lL_Cf[~.:_-.--

........ __... _. ...... . '. .~..._.M.&c1_Q1Jp)N.sVr17i"_/l:4orJ... 7JJ~tLAc.k~.--At4} ......

~.

.

..__..__ .._._..........__. .~£__~ri:. coM~_.. bLjtlS.E. __'JZCJJAbN(T··~ct~fl-&:~

-..------.-----.- .. J:h~-. -~.-.~lJ-f1,JEJ .-.~tl.L~=~k}E·~·T}\Bf·h~~-J~\JJ~ ..

--.-.------- ...~ r'fM>~~--.-.1lAzlJki%.---&<jh~~ . .Co 1h~~.~.d ....k . ·.·.n .•..·.

__.__.___..____.__.___ .

._ .._. _f11£ ..~Mt.-:tJ.J ..jh6-.mA±4~-;.....+bEJ.j...~ ~... Kl~~EFd. _

'--'...'.._._.._........ .b.t=S~.~~. -b .. (lE~.. A--I' ...,qkrv~f.J(Je---.41.k.t··/JfIeA1£~~·.- ...

-.-..........-..-..- . hJolti.. b~J&::·..····fftS~AJ~.~~. tE1AL.-~llid.. Jo. . bfkel£- ~-.

---.- . ----... ...t11E\1~p,~ -~~ lrtYbJe,. _.. -. ...-- .._--....... ...

. . - .................. " .

.-.-.,-.----.----- ....ra\~~ j:..I ~.s~~...tklAtcl~-~-.A-IlQtJEif .. ANil.--AffJhJ~.

_.___. _______.. _._~J.._.AJL. AcJzo'WJ_~ t h:>tnr·L! _~I~7--.-~b ..T. RE1!5fc.__TXAt:.Y.

..··_ .._m._._...... ·_. .P1p,y.-hAs.._de.Jzf'd........fLIklJ~-,-A1L. Afllz:cMJJ~.fttx;h~-....\tlh~

'.--'-'.."-' ..- ..'- E _._~:~Al£~Qrf~~ ../Wf> .... dz:rAff~v&1··-·fjA;QJ.~~·ra&IIYJ~L#-
. . --.------.---.-.. -....~Prol;:.. L~-. rl~~ h~l.tC~_& .~-m-.4}+f?ttt·-ZN..-. -.-...

.__.___._. ___ ... _ . ..... J.t.-}\J~-...eOr~i. .u.56.A: ..~~.&b~_-:~ irh ~blP.fl!J;Y..e.-..

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 13 of 20

··-·~,-·~----··",·rmh:cAb.IIl-::..~hANi·~·tW~BkdeIJ~.L\Je'S_.thc: ..

I" "0 .,._..~___. ___ ._..._~_~_~~~.~~~.~'._.. t£ .. J~:lL.Dfhets: .. ~. & .....~~-r...~b-~~..~:-

...--......

! {bluE'_~M ~Lo-.{A:I ~ .\0. ~~.1?5 c:JawN:vlh __ --..

c>, . ....Id~\s

crkENAMC~""A4- ~k.Ju~U..eJGL..L,.-

... . . . __._. . . . . . . .. ._.__..._.__...~...._.. f1E.~ ~... kC-Fft:..'JE4 JJDrfl~} ......:1:J..lQu~.e;1 ~()\......... -'.'''.'' ..~~-: "~a ~ r;;l..ff2D:A.J8/Ld&J£5.C* .~..d~

....._........._....._.......... . ..._..&cco~f:; .. Vk:+n DfeJlA~..-llIJC&!L~ . ~O'2~ ~.~ JJ. ~..JtA£._. . . .

.... ....... '. ."&>-~.Jo . c::>~~ Such.~ r;MJ&.f:o,\.LL>GEL4H:-Ach1Y1~Jr-.....

.iaJdA1JJ... -r:Pa\-Sl:r :z:--,t11 ~. f~~L·.lbDJJ of .f&:i .. -...

..._.____......dtitl,'.Shl:'.IS kSfo~rllt: . ~ ~Y.~... .JnM......~cch

_._....._~. _...._. .1?~~1r;~ ...qd be .. h.u~ E"'cl ~ .L~f:l~ .~lLd ~L... ..

--~.........---. ---.... ALL. __.lYl=±a...lcJAAJk .A-AEf. ~f}/b{ ...A5~N~-:£hk. ... J4Iv1') .. ~_

......._.._................. .. !£ .....Af!O ... ~cI~J ..j~t4f1,e . !Lf£IE~.o~ . jJ/~:J&;;..._

.......... ......

. ..d-:... /l~ Jvthe5l? Efl...{C:IoSa~lAko~fL....._ ..............

- -...--.-.-..... -..~s~-io..-.£z9i11.. J)F f/3J.$-E ~ .....

..._._.__._._............lA%:M-k·rf. ~W:E1~..~l1 ...dEf~JJk. -t11A1f . .};E~~.......

......... .. ...._.... fl4.m.~ ..~ ~J:tt:'J ol-l ...{fJeJlL-dAttn.i.....blJ5..ir"-;l. J!fo"t!._._ ...

. _ ......... _....~. _.l=:llt\lfl'Jth ~dtnBJ.J- MJ fftt;C.cJd.chAlJJje:..ob~~_ ...

......... . -.....- . fk-c-~ .cL~'f.·.f/1~i \l&,;11 . CAtJ.. .k....~rlFd.. ;rM..J1J~ .. - ...

.---......--.-...-........ ~~1rl~,L·. ·CAfA.c.rk~ .. . f/~fJ.. ~lst··.he .. hM ... ~ ......,.~- ..-.

... -....._.-._. . . lrJ-.&.~. ~tJt . Z:~ SU1A.. ()£.tftt~... \JA-:..~:--o .c-) . M.-~... _

.- ..... ----.-~..--..

~I At:jAr.NS+_. .~. _~~{dlz::4. or -E1!ch...dEr~JJJr .-·

AA..t, y .......-....-.--.. - ..t.b/ ..±f.lT{1..k 5~

E t. At.

___.......... ___..__.___. EhLh..l:>EVeJJAIJf.I:SAN ...Acj.aJt . oC' tIt~s~ti A-AIP ~~ ..!h~._.

---.--.

n*'- . ~4b4-:zJ .. A1"\Ej..\d.M~I~~/":z::N .Htet:IL:z:}.hJ~_~~M ....___..,.

• ! Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 14 of 20

Af _________________~t: AC:L.tz:~~::_____N'{)t __AS /IdJ---A-<1~--- Df.. "fhC[__ SW e:L-nt~_--~---

________________ --,"eM--- . b~ ___h~~-----L~Jt'"· ____At:IJ_____ .su:r±_e-&___~--ih~___~N_dz:v~~_

__ ~.j8~~M orAn~ ~ke:<. j~~:~- __t11~$~ ____\l~_~,. _____

_____________ ._.. _ _ _ c. _ _ _ _ _ . . . .

: ~l

~r. - r~ ...,.:":~-.,

_~ __________

, ;
i 1

::~----lji&$~5E~b.b.lih bEH=~~e~ . .

.... ~-

~-(P\A::t::tJ-h.£r:-----~~-T- ~~h-- __hE~~_____Afl-Js~}_CL~~..__

~:lk~ElJhlh:j -hi CfCod rAdtl,dhf::\{-t1\tsl---az.Acf --Ht-8:1L-------
- - I -~ ~~ k~ ::z;r..... . f\CC<>ILclA/¥£, '>£.lz:;.#.. _Q~,Cg~l,,_ ~~~-

-------

~t~LAroM.;~s:h'\-JIr

u.w.$-

~ .4+,s1)

....

'jo'lEW~-~I;l!U;.", r-

--~-------jj'ftfC"'~-- -.as:\I.A-...t\&:C. . 1> E~ Mf<.~ a.b:.41.Ed_fu.

-----------------1 k} --~~L5~1~-T lJlJ-f(J.pf6_$~l!kJJj~--~-. _ .M.JJ~--~-~-----

_____________,___ ._______ -. _._" ~-- ___~_ fl~_b_._g:_____.B-E:Jt:qt%l~J----&t;h-k l k __ s___s~-~______________.

.______ ___ " ._ 6 f~ _ CJC___~ >J-A-ll£ Md VA· ~~o~~ I c1~_~~H- __ .hA\l£----

------ .-.---------- ----- .--S~~_ }o ___ o~~JJ ---~~. -LA14 __ Af.J'_. ___.lV6t __ ~JfS:$]~--~mlM~--

_______. _____ _______ ___~- _~_~----~E---~fi--c+----cpQcL~~------ _ ______________________

----------------- . -DE~~--..ck--&i6t.-8J.";5o:!----- CJUtKJr:!ft.a~w:1f-I-A'i..z1::-----

_______________________ -_:ttlAtE__ln____\lzo_lA6,J __ al __ -f/~Ms J) ~S .~ ~N~l_~_il~ro~_J~__1_____

- -~.c:;-h.l-~~IhE-"~e-- UN A-'L~~A'b1 e_ ~hJsr-'tli~AN+:E-.f~J--¥-------

_____~'____ __vclL_~_~i-hof,1£" ~.Ll'l U 5 .C~€_Z099 cc:./t L~.u..~-r~/._A..·_-:_~7_

----- -.-----..- b6ENdAtk_. bwe----[(~~kf- .--~---~J.f-.--\l~lMEl-.----

.-----------. --- --- .__th~ (AZi:jbk.----1hc'1(---h~'='--.---f2~~-Ed--NO-5;i\l~-----~eM{~---­

--------------------- -k.--~S1foiJ---.~ _cl~~;_ -deuL€1,c- --11Ef~~·-~~-·-----

--------. --- :I:.tJ -f&:.5oN -ft€m~dz:.e=t~J. Du&=": iR9c_E!£s 7---.4£+~--I!I~..tbi:--k-----

-----.--------. ~~. :t:~~JA*')~-~J~~b---,hE~#t£i1:t1.. cJ~.- ___._________

---------------- ----- --DEfuldA\j~ .AP.tF. clot~1Al£J.-.- Jo.. vfho)J .Jh~. ":tuk-~k.bJ---~-----.--

,------------.----.-. od___ }JAfY\E_oJ:_~ ~~_W~ __ihEt/-~£i ..~ _. do~~~~----------

II
Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 15 of 20

1Jw ..- ...,...........•. _m._......... ~ECt)Ce_;S.'i··_·~·_···.mA\t:(ttl.bli7----t11fr~~1~tu.%;S"h--~..- .."'.-. --~-'
-~ ......-........--........ .t.I.•ftm~Nb~--kM) .. _shA-ILk_~.-A~~~~-~-~--
.... ....J}:;,~ 5 NEqlUj~cEJ ..~.1A¥l.r_..\,Ah%;Ch-.tb.Bf...~.s),IJ.Q~.k.....-..
.--- - . .-.--- \1I' ., ..J~~\~'-~-- ~-~---~~=-~~-----~~---:

--~. r-- .~E5po,~.~~. fil .·TE~thbEt~~~~~-_~~_~-._~_.. . ._-:~

. . l !P1A:.tJ...\h:f£ s Wrs} -r~ b01a..\4s .~v\'Ll1zI. k ..~N.dlf?/._.
.......-.... ..J~.; ~rATt;~ ... ~-~ .~4.-\d.E~.~_·kslkcl:...C£.\1~ZJ.\I~--

.. .._.....__.. . ~':, IIotJ Xi~lf_!!'~"] -1E_~£'LthtIt:~6.1lMl'le£1.._..£ __ _

---- ........~.. -tEf~~~,TAAc"'S~~.(~~;-L~

..-.. --. - ........-.....Jl..ml}~.Q{t_c_4_.5E.at!~~--~....-r:.J?-,=-A5e . [ .../YJIJ..dAJf).m~f--f.Il ':"_........_.. ........'~) '.. eJAWk fi".hA-s.....ES~b......'tHl~...il~JI£_.Q.c. ~..._.... _

............. :d~l\,kh1··.JbEt:Ilcluk~, ~w~iLkt£.... AfvO_..z:&voJ~t?~

.... ....._...._... .. E:k1~......~...}he'6 '.J.o)Ab~.l L ..flE1}5E....h5'EL...k ...._.sM:il.._._ . _.....

~fY)~..,..... _ ...m •••• _

• • • • • •: . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . .

' ••

........ ............

.. ....... _....

... m

....................... '_ ............................. _

. . . . .- ._ _. . . . . . . . . . . . . m . . . . . . . . . . ._ _ _ _. . . . . ._

............._

._.. __.__..._....._..... .....~...fu.-... ElE~.LE.•..tfu.... ~£..I......................._........ _.............._

.

=..._ ..... .~ }Az:t.Jkf"h:.....~iA-Je.r ~5 ..~k~l.... _~.J)z;:L_ft.~J~l.....k.._.~~.

n .... ......_... .W"(~ ... 6..v~1d:.~ ..&t:qh.J1'L .. E.r~t t.. hE--..n.. J\.9?c_~'L.~.

_...........__ ......,}h~ ... $+t¥k..~. ~J:::P....~. ,.C>I1-..--'V~=.t>~-':,.~-"'~/j~4:thElt,.{bz;s...........

.............-..--.. -........ E .- ._:t:N~..Es.-...~E:.-.z:1'f~~-A-~L~~lA6~s__~"._. bE£~.kr

. '._ ...._..__., ... ..AM>... bE:rt:t...h_._..~:d:-~.. ~~k___".r~.._tl~___ .~__

, ". ... . . fAc~-... ~1.~.t-Ur-.,5~i6r.~~S'w£.~."~t ....

....... ...... _.... .~ \J A- .. t> ~o·c, Ms.~t-J~Jl?J.. ...Jhfi~li ..~ __fo.._.P~._. "..

-. -."~.......-.... . bBa\dA~... ~.&......~lAJ~i_1:hem_f..th"EtE!i.sJ1A-JJ .~.-..hE1dJ.............

_..........................-.-...... . ~\l~ciN~li·---hE~NS4I(:·) ... ..... ... ...............

. ....... -." ....... ~ ............... .

, I
Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 16 of 20
•

--_~--:~iHE5fOJ..lSE:Jt?- T'Ik\£\"'L~liE':__ -_

.-

.___.________. __ LPJ.~~k.fL.~t~j-hE-hA5..-. J;:¥h~s:k,LJ\t;>._ht~~-.-

tv .----- .. -....... ·H=rAr.e\lAMCE- ···f·~t:E~I aNN. ~t'Y\~s J,Jz::cA.rbe._d~s7.~~___

..____._____....~_...~jJb~A~,. b\E._hA5...ch:>5~.._._k._l}d\.lAMCE..___ ~ S:r:1~.~-.c~.......-.

_____._._. _...__.jt~..d~~t~. _.=_.X1n~ch .. Z2ub$J.A~~ ht::-s ..cJ~~A<.-.

. . . _ ..__.... _.~ .

...

tCd~
;.r

__

~._.o~'A-l.r".EkbN

....

b.E~M.k

hMlr. L~~f~· ~llJ

· . -------- ......-...... r[detJUcl.--~ti1ZIkSfc./XJJt;CAb~~-!=OLO(eI1.··-leN.·~·t~'Ll····-

. . -.. . r[~t=\I~.TI\E MA44E?1l h~ b~ .. fJt1.BJ~(~} yajlJ•. t~~~d ..
~--.[fP)A:tJ-.Ih.~s: .~'h4ksr #e ~~~~/.J.r:t;nlAM.'I<:--­

-------( /{Q>C~<;A.} . hd.wro~ Gh4-ke~ . rs~$51i f1AJaIrli.:,_ - .
.---.------. -------,_~-.-ArJ.tl-2~:NlwbNA.'J~. drf1A,+.e:f-.J·~ .~de-A-7 ~f~~ .~

-..-..----.-- -da~-·fksQ1Jetl---·~·-f~-ca;~' ~··1/Q:.evAt..4Cf?;, .'

.--.--.........--- ...... -..A(J~s-~cL.uLh:mA-l~T-Cr\l.c:J._.AC~$- lb·~-fiaCf5C-Z:;C-4.-

.--.-..-..--........ -. :hAtn~. _~ _ta.~+Oco\.l~~ vl--eAcl1.otir frtl.I'KJ./J§.~L._.AM. ---..-........-.-- . d~··_·P~)..J~·L.h;~.f~es~:- . A--s zd--. ~~JD f~~-·········-

_____..__._...__. _._.. _~s-~-.-.~:z:a~'-~--k--.sI&-l~ihE1dLclA:rrf\( 4fy(.). __Ml~ __ .. .

-----:--..-. -. ~~.-~-.-f~f.£&¥--.d~£EM:L.~.sIdy:e.~kM~.~. ~h.c~-...__.
.--... -..-._.___.__...._...~.! ~k~._N~~.}.Jt)J.:..J:~s1.lr\{~~d.t:;\/t:&iM ....d_04~. __

_._._. ____ ......___..Yn., :rk NEd6tJ\...Jhc}thE"-~AvS~·~ .o~tr-~~ __~g .._.. _

--.-.-~-.._._.. ......~lt..-. ~Els~.-th£. 5MY\t;:~CP1~ME. Mv.~/IJM. _...,.._.

--,-,---.,-__._,_" .. -A.Jsta.: CN..~N'~·~fJJvm~_u.:: ~.5"E-E.AH:Aeh/!!~)~..~"___. _

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 17 of 20

.--.. .~.-. ~·-·tr·-~s .... ........-.....~---,""'-"'''-',',"''"","",-,",--,,'~--,--- ,,","""'--,," """'~-"'-'---"' ",-"",-","" ,",-.", ~" " """"" ~ - '''"''''~
~"-"--,-""",-,-"-,,-,,,-,t,,f\E,,_,,,F"o~sE,,,,~_,,_,,Th:tj~1EEH,lb,,,DE£ErJ£C "--,-,"--",,,,,,,,,,-,,,,, "','," ",.,-,,- --", """ ""'-'...

"__,",___,____,__,,_,,,,_, ,J&z.t-.L~Zrr,·,~h:\JE~~Jk~dANJS__,CQQM~E: J-Cz.}:Ed,9O-~£iAM::::_-

.______ ,____"""""'__ , __'"',. ~,--po\z:C~,.-Qf['-lAJ).D".C~"caOZ.'!,f~~mE~h:-d--f:>tLO{--""

..,",- . , . ~_"," AlfJ:)"s\-~pu\A!e },,:.--A"fU~bN- .stnou':-'oc-.dz.sAf(~d-;r;+:--". .,___ "'__,.~_,,..__, "_.~.kE.j3asotJ"Ah~,~:doD.l.Mc~kJ,,'. ,.COtJ.iAz:t4.,. ,'" .,~,,'.

_,...____.".__"_'" "Anlkt'"+=,bAs_c..bA-i~~d_,_J)Ef'OOANt50~ +h€",_'JZ:.}AL ",,-,:.

, "-------"-'-- ,AJ..sd_.PtVJ.h:tJ±Z::c.1;.~ ,t)f,lhEz.'<,C\~C!,_PI~krf"",bA-s_~KEJ__

\)aE1JdA~ -\-0.. f~CE ~ffobkNJE~k~lA"'''.
,_'''",_."',., , , b k ~h ciA-~_"(.sEe-MMckdoc.(.)ro~_;,\(j~h,,Z5.__

-""---,-.,-"-,.-,,,,,,,--,,,,,,, 'A'-fAA}-,.,_of'.",+hE.tuE."f/1cc.Es5""" 0"; -:H1£"'~A~~,,"lAt/C1lL,,~,,,~.""_"'''_____.____''__._ s_"._(.OfE~-fPocEdo/)e:.-$ot.,,,,~,,AJ.J.d "' ~1J)b) I ,
__'__,________ ,_ :.DE~~dAf.J~"_,,, bA-iE-,llEf~AlE-d\i,-d&.jl:aL-flArhlkm:-,,,,. 6E~ rn~_,,_

• . __~._._.: )~'l2la:AbN<; 'r. Gz;.~~~h dA.:::tYl5 .Jh.~.t;:':U5 ckskpk.J.£
",'" '"--,,-" -'- "k-+hEc>PtdEA)i---OPEJ,~y..J.$ '" c~" fh=SO,J/~AN.d %oJ f~

"-----,---------.---"". ..-"""Ad~~ ,.-'-J%o\~~~, tef,fQP5z:sm" .,.Ar..lCLM±ACks,oJJ__.-qaJE:~::,
. ----------____.____,,_1 _ eM~+{;Jc-,~r"ThE$E--CJA:z:tn5, hA'\I c-" beE~ ... 'lEheN)EJ..1t 4--~,\al
-----J-~f!.l»Jrcf\-~I'l··:I:S ····AffPGNcd .. ±hIW~_ ~A,j).OL",, ___

-'---'. "''''-,..---.----'. t--l~Eg--.hA.~~9--0t4~.-:z:$Pt",,--~d_SzJJCE._.:zd:'s,___,.~f:. __._.__

--,---.,---_,_.,_________,_ IbJo}zS;~J.,..l9· - ,. 1~ ; . J:t- hAs ~E'i ER "bEE~__.lz"t--\){edkt . -A$f;>~-.,-.-

__"_....._.___",,._.___.
-.,,-.- .""'''-''.,,

.. c::-d \Llr\:+\ .oR. ,Cbr..1~~W. fp,4-S$A:oJ k-~L aM:~,
f I
.". .ce4o"f.. -. ~~;--funs~.-E5CAfF:>,r;- ·ob;.&fb~L .__k __ ,__._

----.--,----.--,,-.. -. - .t)-&1dI~'''.-~£f...ebM~_.k.",~~. ":.b~Q~c~---f1~$:,.,,-,,.BMh~r-,,~J:~...______,_'.

,-------"-''''''''',,,----,,.. rne;~~ ". .±'EAcl..-·,-·~---.th~-o.pfO$~*.~--:t±- hAs""i1elJ, _UE;..JeJ..., __"""

-, ,.. _""

L:!.J:Ed b~.J_cCAL,st-A-k ~fEJ(;Af)L~E~Al~~."._As..A ___".__

--_.."...-...,-............... ~~~z:s+ ~c+~t: __Lc..EIl), p.b~J~. n\E _WA~~ oJ;_ ._ ...

__ ._,_~ ... ,____ ,,_. _ lA:m hAs bEE~ ~ AroeAz:.cA, SztJ.CE- _iq eo A~ hAs ~~~ l
----".,--,,-,----,-- - _'i:t2.CMt(toA. . fPotn::AEA~.~. AJ.Jdf~"k~k>~,.---" ......

I

-

II

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 18 of 20

"__""_." __ """"___ .. ".lDE}£~ ~ .". d&dl>....AhE"~~o}o)sT_~l!~."AMcLcb}(.Ul~

---~----ll~'1hl.de-~ E&~"1 .\.c .. ~IAz;f..lkft5 ~~~~­
"-------"--'"il b~tE~At.-\.k AAc I$JAm - f hobz:cS!).PlA-~b.llz£+=" _"i5---L~-""
".""-"""" ..... llk . hE\t:E~E"I b~d J.)F~""~.·.~}--r-DE-r-SJd.A:N.b-_""_JY}().~.-----
--- -I :~csAh . bE*,•.J.:L_~l~_ A1Jcl·-ffrn=.dc,>.~~Jd,---

_I~ EyPll: ~~ Md~~k/_I~A\E4~ - .......

(S\Q~E~tJ.z:~'f fo'lr:c.'l0f \(A ·b.o ·C,"Sffi~€>_""¥1W:._.bfn£~= __

___ "'"HM"

••

'-"-"-""_._. 1,. ~ CUJtJ5~ o:kd, \JD\<lE\I~"""~~.__.Mre:"_. ____._

--~.-.!iMh:crAA/.d-l ~\~ ~c.11 AMd hAs.hc:fCAkd1l_d~~-c---

._""--""" ...... '! "lAr~;z~~s:.-~Eb:q7Zl-ls".f.uh}~~~".~ ~""."~ . AMa .. """""."_.

. _"---""-"""--"" ._"., " . Nd"p,~~)_~ "toE- lk>cE55_-:._.\U~".ul~ .. ____.._."..

""-""'""-""--'-""- E.~S__.to".~lAhL~..--c(._.f!~b("K".--"Q~~": Co~k\.~..Ad\~d_:-..L __.

."_ .".- ~'t'~(j.~.f:r.~ ..CoM$.\-..AtYJEtJd.~. Cs€cb~> ..~~. ~," ___AIJ..c!,_AJl"___"".""

-""""".' .. hc~ctv..l~ .. G::bElt-h( -:o.l-kA~at:&.ld Ed""~~/ . \fA::.I>~Q&C,." .._."."._._.__
·fb lZO:;e> A~ .. OIEAAkN 9j ··f~CEcL.f{6_"_- .""..,-"-.-,-- ..-.. --""- .........-. -,-.~

."-,.-"".- ..-~

-.-,----~"~,~-,,--..

--------

----,-_. __.. __.

_- __ -, - ....------ .. _. ---._-_ .._"-_.... _. .__.

j AZ:JJ.·b:::f"£AIso -~le7

- .. _--

.. ... --- --'-~" .-.--

- .--.-'.------

... .. ..- -.,---.~-

-~~---.---.---,.,,~.--.-,-, -~,-,----

+bE'~_c,~ zsJAi!1.L-f.h:;1:sc.::----

-"-"--"-'--'---'-'-- h~.-~~... 5'El~~-""j)E,Ii:AN,c£:t,~~:.dEJr~.bt-. ~d.A&l__.

_._-.....__ . _..... "- slA-mrc.loAse- -.~ ·}-\o~/·"Q.,M~-· .-:ti1::s·~~~-%S-·s~"

, _• • •

n,""

,.,.cbh.-.)(.r-d ~~. .$>E'}84cfAJJ~t\dboJYL_d¥t)S.t:_~~J ~

_. . .....- '. ~b~\ko~~AN.d-fA.AdzcES""-{)tJJJ,Eiffe5l:S1~c._jl~:ttQ~.J_·-

. . AtNhtr ~lA ~'E5~., ..."A' L~4oko.~Al·-.cMf.J~., ~., ~l-Jl'i_.""~.+-~­
& ~ .. ~d~k<~ ..\0. h2:m.C»lc.t::"T--8¥AJ~""+&s:~-"""---.-.
hAp)~ N"Lt-c.bE\\ hAS ba::~(J,ek~ k A%J..,pJAz;...thZ"_.___ ""..
~'" ..~proM--~r dUE kJ·'(t:S ~.C>~~ .. j)e:(E~~_iJE_h1s.____.
fA r·_·--· .. --· .._-"···_·,···· \S2:.~E:J._if..lIO~,.J~.vE-~WHI¥~..JhAi:.--~d~eyj. ,hE,_.hLlS ....

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 19 of 20

__ ,_" _~"

____._... _+~>,_~_, <_._~

,'f _.1 ,"-.L_,,__ . ,.,~ ._

~'_~"'._.'"_ ~ - ..~, --_"_',._ "'__ "_.'____ .__._,_ - ~.-.

-~

,,,. -

.-_._-_."

. . . ------~~

~.--

.• .. -------~--- ----.-.--."~~.--."~-.,~-- --~.

~

-~--.- .. ---. '"-,"~--- ',- .• , ..,

__ ... _._..___ ._.___.1_.1 J~:rdtd.l~kF£ __m£if__Z5' _~__.~lzbMAt__~r:: __

..-.-.-..-.~--..-~-. - ...._. !I.~E"n...4ttAL..CbAplrb.L-~l>-1-fAo~.~bE-

·.·· . . --..

I~sf:¥'et(., ~ mt.o~~tf ...~&L.O~E_ .. OC~~.4.

·--t~~~- AP:£... ~~~L~~~~_ .. _

-------..------- . - ··-'l~k.J'E . Au--.cl.EfP¥..-:z.M- ~S._roa+~e&_._...

. ."

. -·..------·-----· .
-....~-..--.- .-....

-·rr·-,tP~J·)E~5kf~"~r-

..~h,~(}ls-\-..~lC..Pofrf:.itI.cS-.1d'A.\{tn__-_.\__.f. AG. k~+_ l~._>G_"_" ~ 'A,._nlC ~ . h t AA e: --..

.

.-. .. ...... ···Pfl~ hJ.b .~~€J ~. -A~~~T~~.sl-t-tnAkAJ:4do.dl~-·

........ ······I~m.J-·~·Bh ,Ch4fI~L. hAs.- ~~o£~,(o,:-_ ···!I~~·~eJ. AN<{_NM,,zl»,Lof"-Z:SJAtn ~5J . . . ..

....-.--_ .._._________.. :~lu.~\ -~.El~.-- .b.. _lJAz:N.kr;~~_chAplPr~.. doES.~~.

- ...----..-.---... . :..-~~~.z:sJ~--~dS>lJ>:'-i·j)·-.-·\lz::A·-·c1c5~ ...~zj. .-.

-..... - .......... -lE1Wes:l.~L.ChApl~L.. _~s-~ .' ~h·-·l4~TJ:C-:: ..~JJthi--

..-.- .._.... _-... 6p..... tY1ctJ+h~ ..~~~$ .. -ZJ.Jk ·f~·~·~~1-·-Qt)AL~.- ...... ..
.---..... -_.--_ ........~ . ±hESt;-.... fa\.bDtJJT.A.~ .. J41!:~ ..--dc:~l-aL...lJ~~.

... --.--..-......--..----..&~&Ah .-~},)~citkltN;7"~S-.hA:S--. -cAeA).E::d.A-S-hs.~~L.- ..

-.:--..------- .~-----~~---f~~:)· \JmlAlES-1k5.... wF.--fh>ca;$.____ .___.._.._._

b-t:s-_.__ .--.....--_____.___________ ..iALSE._-j_..

O.~$!·CaJJ.5.1-..:.AaE=zJJ:_ a...___FfiE.E... ~)ltlCti-~---_...-.... _--.

z. .... ........ __.._...___... ..... J:8.i5E7' .:fu>.st:____ ~hk- c:r+ .. 4 _.12:_~~~:-._t[ 2.(J)1:;)~C.~._.({E~:a>~.L...--

.. _ _ . _ ... .........--. :..-- ... LAd .-U5e".... A~.Z:~kJ.u~lrz.lEd__-f~----AcJ..~.~~--.·.

--- . -.-... --.-.-..-'\fA~-.S~tE"--CO~~.--~-.~!4--1!o).;-.-8JJcL--.AJL-.qtN~.-.-.
-.---.--.......---.----.... .-f0}zCZt5--LfA~dlJgEf--r£.~A~.-h.O~c.!..-- DEH=~~.k-_M£._

.... ....--.. E·f~rY.A~~·="L~~.AwLEt.Ich.6bAlL~..­ .. . - . - -...:. . Ekl.. fxes{b~:,z,},J~.:z:N.--- 'i11W- ~~L...c~±e.~---..-.

, !
Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 15 Filed 09/14/09 Page 20 of 20

_.._._------------_.,

..-.---.--.- - ---.~--,-.-

.... -.~.----.-

__ _---,-,_ -,.".-..... .._-, ..

.._.._...."." ._-, ._. ,-..-..-~ ..... ,,--,,--.-..-- _.

-

--,--.-.--.--...-.----..~-,---- -. .... ......-.-----.-,--.--&~fEcJ~\\4.,-~~rndkJ--....... -... -.

_. _______• _ _ _ _ _ _••___• _ _ _ ,_____ •••• _ _ _ _ _ _ - ____ •••• ,

-

_.

._

._

-

-0>-

,_.

~_

~ _ _ , __ ,, __ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , " . _ • • " _ _ .,._~_._

--.-..,-,--., ..--.......- bEA£b{ . LEfIrtt£'/_ ...Jhlti-..ON...-J.hE.....iO.~.o[__ .&Ep}-EM.JHl..__.__. _

.________.__:___ _____ .2J:i::f1, 2 ,.lLJz11_.suhOJd_._ fhzsf1E~I io ... CIEIJKf.J~ _C~.(J.,f

~.-___.___._,.._ oJ~~_.ll.S-:....k1Bl_E~4.._Dzs~~_ .D~ ..\fzhaz~ ...AtJ.d..__OAiE..._._........_

~~~-- -Njo_&.INsEl.o(._~L.I~~·f1Acrd.1hcs- .-....
. __.....c:.._ ... .M~L . .aJ1:M.sk.jub~AL.MAti...tOtJ-sArcldMel-~d.-~

.,---..-.....-.

._ . E~~ A-IM~._AE5~Sz:bJ:.Iz-h;_1a _11~1_._.

...........--.-.~. M:-...

................................-. ...._-...-..-....... ..

__..__ ._________._._ JJz:rO-STArE5....lZs..t&=dCWAl- ._... ._

..._.._...... _..

~.~~).l ..~.~ ..of~~A... ............._.. ___ . __ _

_.____.__:(fz:ce= .~. rfl~CIEA~
_._._.__._.._. __ . _. 2.~_Q~. eoX . Lg3~r ..

__.. ____.____.___._. .~oKE /. ,'a::.AG-z-J..-IJPr2 J.jCJJte

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

KELVIN E. BROWN, Plaintiff
v.
TRACY S. RAY, et al., Defendants

)

) Civil Action No.: 7:09cv00180

)

)

)

OPINION

)

)

By: PAMELA MEADE SARGENT

) United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff, Kelvin E. Brown, an inm ate held at Red Onion State Prison near Pound, Virginia, (“Red Onion”), filed this action pro se for m onetary damages and injunctive relief under 42 U .S.C. § 1983 a nd the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq., against various Virginia Departm ent of Corr ections, (“VDOC”), officers and officials. Jurisdiction over this matter is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This case is before the undersigned magistrate judge by transfer based on the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

The defendants have filed two separate motions for summary judgment,1 to both of which the plaintiff has responded. Basedon the arguments contained in the parties’

1The defendants filed one motion for summary judgment, addressing only Brown’s claim that the defendants violated his constitutional right to freely exercise his religion under the First Amendment and RLUIPA by disapproving various issues of a Nation of Islam newspaper. (“First Motion”) (Docket Item No. 25.) The defendants filed a separate motion for summary judgment, addressing the remainder of Brown’s claims, arguing that Brown has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to those claims. (“Second Motion”) (Docket Item No. 17.)
-1-

briefs and the accompanying affidavits and exhibits, I find that the defendants’ First Motion and Second Motion should be grante d in part and denied in part. The defendants also have filed a Motion To FileDocument Under Seal, (Docket ItemNo. 24) (“Motion to Seal”), which will be granted as to this proceeding only.
Brown filed his Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his constitutional rights under th e First Am endment and RLUIPA. 2 Brown’s Complaint contains the following six cl aims: (1) his weekly Nation of Islam 3 newspaper, “The Final Call,” is being denied by VDOC officials based on racial and religious discrimination; (2) he is bei ng denied access to Nation o f Islam religious services; (3) he is being denied the necessray documentation to appeal the Publication Review Committee’s decisions regarding his dsiapproved publications; (4) he is being discriminated against based on his race a nd religion; (5) the Publicati on Review Committee does not afford due process; a nd (6) Major L. Flem ing is denying him access to his publications based on Brown’ s race and religious views. Brown is seeking the court’s permission to receive his “religious and cultural publications,” and he is seeking monetary damages in the amount of $1,000.00.
In their First Motion, the defendants arguethat Brown’s first claim, i.e. that The Final Call is being denied based on racial and religious discrim ination, should be dismissed for the following reasons. First, the defendants argue that Brown cannot
2Brown also alleges violations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, (“RFRA”). However, the court notes that RFRA is merely the predecessor to RLUIPA.
3The Nation of Islam movement is “based on the [Qur’an] as interpreted by Elijah Muhammad and ministers within the Nation.” Cooper v. Tard, 855 F.2d 125, 126 (3d Cir. 1988).
-2-

make a valid claim under the First Amendment because the issues of the disapproved newspaper constitute “[m ]aterial that prom otes or advocates violence, disorder, insurrection or terrorist activities against individuals, groups, organizations, the government, or any of its institutions,” in violation of VDOC Oper ating Procedure, (“OP”), 803.2(V)(L)(7), and because they constitute “[m]aterial whose content could be detrimental to the security, good order, discipline of the facility, or offender rehabilitative efforts or the safety or health ofoffenders, staff, orothers,” in violation of OP 803.2(V)(L)(12). The defendants argue that these policies are related to prison security, which is a recognized com pelling state interest, and which is left to the discretion of prison administrators. They argue that the fact that The Final Call also is a religious publication is incidental to the security threat that it poses under t he applicable Operating Procedures.
The defendants also argue that Brownfails to make out a claimunder RLUIPA with regard to his first claim. Specifically, they argue that he cannot show, as he must under RLUIPA, that the government’s action has created a substantial burden on his religious exercise. Moreover, they contend that, even if he could show the requisite substantial burden, the government has shown the necessary compelling interest that is furthered by the least restrictive means. In addition, the defendants argue that they are entitled to im munity from claims for monetary damages under § 1983 in their respective official capacities, and they argue that they are entitled to immunity from RLUIPA claims in both their official and individual capacities for monetary damages. Finally, the defendants contend that theyare entitled to good faith qualified immunity to the extent that Brown is seeking m onetary damages because he has alleged no conduct that violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
-3-

reasonable person would have known.
In their Second Motion, the defendants argue that summary judgment should be granted in their favor on Brown’s rem aining five claim s due to his failure to exhaust all available administrative remedies with respect thereto.
I. Facts4 and Analysis
A. First Motion for Summary Judgment
Brown, a member since 1993 of the religious community known as the Nation of Islam, (“NOI”), is an inmate who has been incarcerated at Red Onion since June 2008.5 Brown began receiving the weekly NOInewspaper known as“The Final Call” beginning in August 2008 at Red Onion. He had received this sam e newspaper at other penological institutions, including Augusta Correctional Center, for more than 14 years, with no issues having ever been disapproved. Sometime around November 2008, Brown stopped receiving The Final Call atRed Onion, despite having paid for a subscription to the newspaper. When Brown inquired into the reason for this discontinuation, he was initially inform ed by defendant T. Pease, the Mailroom Supervisor at Red On ion, that the newspaper had not yet been received by the mailroom and that it would be forwarded to him upon receipt. However, on or about December 2, 2008, Brown was informed by defendant Major L. Fleming, the Chief
4For purposes of deciding the motions for summary judgment, the facts will be viewed in the light most favorable to Brown.
5Brown was previously housed at Augusta Correctional Center. -4-

of Security at Red Onion, that he had reviewed and disapproved The Final Call Vol. 28 #5,6 as it violated OP 803.2(V)(L)(12), and he had forwar ded it on to the Publication Review Committee, (“PRC”), for a final decision as to whether Brown should receive it. Thereafter, on January9, 2009, the PRC advised Brown that it had disapproved Vol. 28 #5 due to a violation of OP 803.2(V)(L)(12). Specifically, the PRC found that Vol. 28 #5 constituted “[m]aterial whose content could be detrimental to the security, good order, discipline of the facility, or offender rehabilitative efforts or the safety or health of offenders, staff, or others.” Brown was advised that he could appeal this decision within five days through the Inmate Grievance Procedure. The following day, Brown subm itted a Regular Grievance form complaining of the disapproval of this publication. On Febr uary 10, 2009, the Warden at Red Onion, defendant Tracy S. Ray, responded to Brown’s grievance, finding it unfounded. Brown was advised that he could appeal this decision within five days to the Deputy Director of Operations, John Jabe, which he did. However, on February 24, 2009, Jabe upheld the Warden’s decision, finding Brown’s grievance unfounded, as the PRC’s decision was made in accordance with OP 803.2.
Between January 9, 2009, and May 18, 2009, Brown received notice from the PRC that it had reviewed the following issues of the Final Call and had determined that he could not possess them: Vol. 28 #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19,#20, #25, #26, #27, #28 and #29. The record reveals that the PRC disapproved Brown’s possession of all ofthese issues based on a determination that they violated either OP 803.2(V)(L)(7), OP 803.2(V)(L)(12) or both. Brown
6The Final Call will hereafter be referenced in this Opinion only by the volume and number of the particular issue being discussed.
-5-

properly utilized the Inmate Grievance Procedure at Red Onion to appeal the PRC’s unfavorable determinations regarding Vol. 28 #4, #5, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #20 and #25. However, these decisions all were upheld by both the Warden and the Deputy Director. On May 15, 2009, Brown filed his Complaint with this court. Brown eventually exhausted all of his administrative remedies with regard to each of these disapproved issues of The Final Call by July 18, 2009.
With regard to a motion for summary judgment, the standard for review is wellsettled. The court should grant summary judgment only when the pleadings, responses to discovery and the record reveal that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); see, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). A genuine issue of fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the m otion. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. Thus, the court will vie w the facts and inferences in the light m ost favorable to Brown on the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. In order to be successful on a motion for summary judgment, a moving party "must show that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case" or that "the evidence is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Lexington-
-6-

South Elkhorn Water Dist. v. City of Wilmore, Ky., 93 F.3d 230, 233 (6th Cir. 1996).
1. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e m aking it m andatory that a prison inm ate exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a civil rights suit based on prison conditions. This section states:
No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in a ny jail, prison, or othe r correctional facility until suc h administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West 2003). This c ourt previously has held that the exhaustion requirement of the PLRA applies to inmates seeking monetary damages, although such damages are not available through a prison grievance system. See Osbourne v. Deeds, Civil Action No. 7:99cv00774 (Jan. 24, 2001). The United States Supreme Court also has addressed this issue, holding that under the PLRA, a particular remedy need not be available through the prison’s administrative process in order for the PLRA exhaustion requirement to apply. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001). The Fourth Circuit has held that an inmate’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that must be raised and pled by the defendants. See Anderson v. XYZ Corr.Health Servs., Inc., 407 F.3d 674, 681 (4th Cir. 2005).
I note that Brown had not actually exhausted his administrative remedies with
-7-

regard to the following issues of The Final Call at the time he filed his Complaint in this court: Vol. 28 #11, #16, #17, #20 and #25. However, Brown had exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to the denial of the other eight issues withheld prior to filing suit. Also, Brown exhauste d all of his administrative rem edies with regard to all of the issues by July 18, 2009,more than a month before the defendants filed their Answer. Additionally, the cour t notes that the defendants do not contest that Brown has exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to his first claim. Therefore, to the extent that the defendant s could have raised this issue before the court, it has now been waived. See Anderson, 407 F.3d at 681. That being said, I find that Brown has properly exhausted all of his administrative remedies with respect to his first claim.
2. Immunity
a. Absolute Immunity
I next will address the defendants’ immunity arguments before turning to the substantive First Amendment and RLUIPA claims. I first note that the Fourth Circuit has clearly held that RLUIPA does not authorize a claim for money damages against an official in his or her official capacity. See Madison v. Virginia, 474 F.3d 118 (4th Cir. 2006). Thus, to the extentthat Brown seeks such remedy,7 the claims against the defendants in their official capacities m ust be dismissed. Moreover, The Fourth Circuit recently held in the case ofRendelman v. Rouse, 569 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 2009),
7Brown does not specify in his Complaint whether he is suing the defendants in their individual or official capacities or both.
-8-

that if jurisdiction under RLUIPA is based on the spending clause, RLUIPA does not authorize a claim for money damages agai nst officials sued in their individual capacities. The court in Rendelman recognized that Congress had the right to enact RLUIPA under the spending clause to control the actions of state and local entities and officials who receive federal funding. See 569 F.3d at 187-89. The court further noted that RLUIPA itself recognizes that Congress also has the authority to act when actions at issue affect interstate commerce. See Rendelman, 569 F.3d at 189 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(b)). The Rendelman court emphasized that when Congress desires to impose a condition under the spending clause, “it is Congress’ burden to ‘affirmatively impos[e]’ [the] ‘condition in clear and unmistakable statutory terms.’” 569 F.3d at 189 (quotingVa. Dep’t of Educ. v. Riley, 106 F.3d 559, 563 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc) as quoted inMadison, 474 F.3d at 125)). The Fourth Circuit inRendelman held that “in simply defining ‘government’ in § 2000cc-2 to include a ‘person acting under color of State law,’ Congress did not signal with sufficient clarity an intent to subject such a person to an individual capacity damages claim under RLUIPA.” 569 F.3d at 189 (citing Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman , 451 U.S. 1, 17 (1981)). Thus, Brown cannot rely on RLU IPA’s spending clause basis to pursue a claim for individual capacity damages. Since Brown’s Complaint does not make any allegation that the defendant s’ actions affected inters tate commerce, it m ust be assumed that RLUIPA applies to the defendants based on the VDOC’s receipt of federal funds. That being the case, again, to the extent that Brown seeks m onetary damages against the defendants in theirindividual capacities under RLUIPA, the First Motion should be granted, and judgment should be entered in the defendants’ favor as to those claims.
-9-

Next, the defendants argue that theyare immune from suit under § 1983 in their official capacities for m onetary damages, as such suits are not cognizable under § 1983. I agree. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989). (holding that state officials sued in their official capacities are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983.) Thus, to the extent that Brown seeks to sue the defendants in their official capacities for monetary damages pursuant to § 1983, such claims must be dismissed. Both the Suprem e Court and the Fourth Circuit have held that state officials sued in their individual capacitiesare “persons” within the meaning of § 1983 and are not absolutely immune from personal liability under § 1983 solely by virtue of the official nature of their acts. See Hafer v. Melo , 502 U.S. 21, 30-31 (1991); White v. Gregory , 1 F.3d 267, 269-70 (4 th Cir. 1993). Nonetheless, governm ent officials may enjoy qualified im munity from civil liability for perform ing discretionary functions only insofar as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Thus, the court m ust determine whether the defendants are en titled to good faith qualified immunity on Brown’s First Am endment and RLUIPA cl aims for dam ages in their individual capacities.
b. Good Faith Qualified Immunity
Brown alleges that the defendants violated his right to the free exercise of his religion under the First Amendment and under RLUIPA. As stated above, it is wellsettled that state officials performing di scretionary functions are shielded from liability in their individual capacities for monetary damages if they can demonstrate
-10-

that their “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818. A claim of qualified immunity is evaluated using a three-step analysis. First, the court must determine “whether plaintiff’s alle gations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 736 (2002); see also Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).8 Second, the court m ust “inquire whether at the tim e of the alleged violation [the right]was clearly established.” Collinson v. Gott, 895 F.2d 994, 998 (4th Cir. 1990) (Phillips J., concurring). Third, the court must determine whether a “reasonable person in the official’s position would have know n that his conduct would violate that right.” Collinson, 895 F.2d at 998 (Phillips J., concurring).
First, I will determine whether Brown has alleged a constitutional or statutory right that has been violated . Brown claim s that his constitutional right to the free exercise of his religion under the First Am endment has been violated and that his statutory right to the free exercise of religion under RLUIPA has been violated. Courts have held that although inmates lose some constitutional protections upon incarceration, they retain the right to freely worship while in prison. See McManus v. Bass, 2006 WL 753017 at *4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2006) (citingO’Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545 (1979)).
8The recent Supreme Court opinion in Pearson v. Callahan, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 808, 818 (2009), held that the sequential inquiry of Saucier is often appropriate, but not mandatory. Instead, the Court held that the judges of the district courts and courts of appeals should be permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand. See Pearson, 129 S. Ct. at 818.
-11-

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ...” U.S. CONST. AMEND. I. In order to establish a right under the Free Exercise Clause, Brown must make two threshold showings. First, Brown must show that he sincerely holds his religious beliefs. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16 (1972). Second, Brown m ust show that his claim s are rooted in religious belief and are not “purely secular.” Yoder, 406 U.S. at 215-16. Evaluating a statutory violation under RLUIPA involves the same threshold issues as invoked by the Free Exercise Clause for the m ost part. RL UIPA provides that “No governm ent shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden . . . (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc-1(a) (West 2003). The term“government” as used in § 2000cc-1 is defined broadly to include: “(i) a Staet, county, municipality, or other governmental entity created under the authority of a Stat e; (ii) any branch, departm ent, agency, instrumentality, or official of an entity listed in clause (i); and (iii) any other person acting under color of State law[ .]” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc-5(4)(A) (West 2003). RLUIPA defines religious exercise as “a ny exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a sy stem of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc5(7)(A) (West 2003). “If a plaintiff produces prim a facie evidence” of a RLUIPA violation, “the government shall bear the burden of persuasion on any element of the claim, except that the plaintiff shall b ear the burden of persuasion on whether the [policy] or government practice that is challenged by the claim substantially burdens the plaintiff’s exercise of religion.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc-2(b) (West 2003). “As to
-12-

these elements on which it bears the burden of proof, a government is only entitled to summary judgment if the proffered evidence is such that a rational factfinder could only find for the governm ent.” Smith v. Ozmint, 578 F.3d 246, 250 (4 th Cir. 2009) (citing Gooden v. Howard County, Md., 954 F.2d 960, 971 (4th Cir. 1992)) (“[W]here . . . the movant would have the burden of persuasion at trial, the summary judgment burden is a correspondingly heavy one.”).
As under the First Amendment, although prison officials may not question the truth of an inmate’s belief, an inmate must demonstrate that thebelief is sincerely held in order to establish a protected right under RLUIPA. See McManus, 2006 W L 753017 at *5 (citingCutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 725 n.13 (2005)). Under both the First Am endment and RLUIPA, Brown m ust show that his right to the free exercise of his religion has b een “substantially burdened.” McManus, 2006 WL 753017 at *5 (quoting Hernandez v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)).
Here, Brown alleges that he has been a member of NOI since 1993 and that he has received The Final Call newspaper, an NOI publication, for nearly 15 y ears at various penological institutions, including Red Onion. Moreover, Brown states that he paid for a subscription to The FinalCall with his own funds. Although Brown does not specify any religious services that he attends at Red Onion, he notes that there are no religious services or programs devoted to NOI available to inmates incarcerated at Red Onion. Thus, the court takes note otfhe fact that thereare no acceptable religious services or programs available to Brown ofwhich he is not takingadvantage. Finally, the defendants do not dispute that Brown hasa sincerely held religious belief in NOI.
-13-

For all of these reasons, I find that Brown has sufficiently shown that he possesses a sincerely held religious belief in NOI.
For the following reasons, I also find thatBrown’s free exercise of religion has been substantially burdened by the defendants’ disapproval of the various issues of The Final Call. RLUIPA does not define “substantial burden.” However, the Fourth Circuit has held that a “substantial burden” on religious exercise occurs when a state or local government, through act or omission, puts substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs. See Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 187 (4th Cir. 2006). The Fourth Circuit in Lovelace further held that in assessing whether a substantial burden on religious ex ercise exists for purposes of RLUIPA, courts must not judge the significance of the particular belief or practice in question. See 472 F.3d at 187 n.2. I find that Brown has sufficiently shown that a dispute in material fact exists as to whether the denial of the numerous issues of The Final Call creates a substantial burden on the exercise of his religious beliefs. Specifically, Brown contends, and it is not disputed by the defendants, that there are no NOI programs or services available to the inmates at Red Onion, that the Chaplain at Red Onion does not counsel NOI inm ates in their religion, that no outside religious counselors are allowed into the institutionto counsel the NOI inmates and that no NOI publications or videos are m ade available to the inm ates at Red Onion by the institution.9 Instead, Brown contends that inm ates at Red Onion belonging to NOI must rely on materials that they themselves purchase or which are donated t o the institution in order to keep abreast of their religion. In this vein, Brown argues that
9Brown does state that one NOI video was shown to the NOI inmates at Red Onion over a 10-month period. However, he also states that the video cut off prematurely.
-14-

The Final Call is an “essential religious text” to members of NOI, comparing it to the Bible for Christians. Specifically, Brow n emphasizes that The Final Call includes scriptural readings, Quranic interpretation/instructions, fasting dates, discussions of spiritual progression/growth, discussions of progression of the NOI com munity, religious bi-annual saviors’ days and divine writingsby Elijah Muhammad and Louis Farrakhan, as well as The Faithful Com panions, all of which are essential to the practice of his religious beliefs. To supportthis argument, he directs the court to the Third Circuit case of Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236 (3rd Cir. 2003).
In Sutton, the three plaintiffs, former inmates at the State Correctional Institute at Camp Hill in Pennsylvania, (“Cam p Hill”), appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in the defendants’ favor on their claim s that the defendants infringed upon their rights protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. See 323 F.3d at 240. Specifically, the plaintiffs all belonged to NOI, and all were housed for a period of time in a special housing unit at Camp Hill known as the Special Management Unit, (“SMU”). See Sutton, 323 F.3d at 240. The SMU was a structured program that provided for a progression through a series of five phases, beginning at Phase V and progressing to Phase I, at which point the inmate was returned to the general prison population. See Sutton, 323 F.3d at 241. Progression from one phase to the ne xt was accomplished by compliance with specified goals and was rewarded by additional privileges. See Sutton, 323 F.3d at 241. Inmates in Phases III, IV and V we re under restrictive regimes, meaning that they are placed under strict security and c ontrol practices, they were allowed s hort exercise periods and they had limited access to their own personal property. See Sutton, 323 F.3d at 241. Inmates at different phases were allowed different amounts
-15-

of “religious reading m aterials.” See Sutton, 323 F.3d at 241-42. The plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony, which was uncontradicted, consisted of, among other things, her opinion that The Final Call was an “essential religious text” of NOI. See Sutton, 323 F.3d at 254, 256 n. 33. She explained that this meant that “without [these materials], a person could not function well in the Nation of Islam ’s religious com munity.” Sutton, 323 F.3d at 254-55. This expert furt her explained that such “essential religious text[s]” were “required reading by the faithful.” Sutton, 323 F.3d at 254.
While there appears to be no case law on ponit in this circuit related to RLUIPA and the denial of The Final Call newspape r, or any other NOI publication, I find Sutton instructive. Given that the undisputed plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony in that case revealed that The Final Call constitutes an“essential religious text” for NOI followers, combined with Brown’s undisputed contention that Red Onion provides no other religious services, programs or counseling for followers of NOI, I find that there is at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the disapproval of the various issues of The Final Call placed a substa ntial burden upon the exerci se of Brown’s religion. I must next determine whether the defendants have demonstrated that the imposition of the burden is in furtheranceof a compelling governmental interest. As stated previously, the defendants bear th e burden of persuasion on this issue, and summary judgment is appropriate only if a rational factfinder would necessarily find that the publication disapproval policy withstands scrutiny under RLUIPA. See Gooden, 954 F.2d at 971. I find that there is a dispute in a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants can demonstrate the requisite compelling interest. All of the disapprovals of the issues of The Final Call we re based on purported violations of either OP 803.2(V)(L)(7), OP 803.2(V)(L)( 12) or both. Operating
-16-

Procedure 803.2(V)(L) deals with Specific Cr iteria for Publication Disapproval. It states that “[t]he Facility Unit Head, orhis designee, should disapprove a publication for receipt and possession by offenders and forward it to the Publicati on Review Committee for final action if the publi cation can be reas onably documented to contain” certain types of material. Relevant to this case, are OP 803.2(V)(L)(7) and OP 803.2(V)(L)(12).
Operating Procedure 803.2(V)(L)(7) relate s to “[m ]aterial that prom otes or advocates violence, disorder, insurrection or terrorist activities against individuals, groups, organizations, the governm ent, or any of its institutions[.] ” Operating Procedure 803.2(V)(L)(12) relates to “[m]aterial whose content could be detrimental to the security, good order, discipline of the facility, or offender rehabilitative efforts or the safety or health of offenders, staff, or others.” Thus, it is clear that the Operating Procedures purportedly violated bythe disapproved issues of The Final Call are related to institutional security and safety concerns.
It has been held that prison offici als do have a com pelling interest in maintaining institutional order and security when faced with questions of inmate religious liberty. See Hoevenaar v. Lazaroff, 422 F.3d 366 (6th Cir. 2005); Benning v. Georgia, 391 F.3d 1299, 1313 (11th Cir. 2004); Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corrs,. 372 F.3d 979, 988 (8th Cir. 2004); Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1555 (8th Cir. 1996) (finding it compelling to maximum security prison to prohibit inmates from having long hair in which contraband and weapons could be concealed);Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499, 503-04 (11th Cir. 1996) (finding the state’s compelling interest in security and order within prisons especially applies in close custody facilities which contain
-17-

extremely violent offenders); Jenkins v. Angelone, 948 F. Supp. 543, 548 (E.D. Va. 1996) (finding prisons have compelling interest in preserving the health of inm ates and maintaining security, among other things) (citing Ross v. Blackledge, 477 F.2d 616, 618 (4th Cir. 1973)). While courts are “notrequired to blindly accept any policy justification offered by state officials,” their analysis should reflect the requisite deference to the expertise and experience of prison officials. Hoevenaar, 422 F.3d at 371. Due deference must be given “to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures to maintain good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of costs and lim ited resources.” Cutter, 544 U.S. at 723. Moreover, secuirty concerns deserve “particular sensitivity.” Smith, 578 F.3d at 252 (quoting Cutter, 544 U.S. at 722).
In order to meet its burden to demonstrate a compelling interest, the defendants first must provide an “explanation for thepolicy’s restrictions that takes into account any institutional need to m aintain good order, security, and discipline or to control costs.” Smith, 578 F.3d at 252 (quotingLovelace, 472 F.3d at 190). Here, as inSmith, the only justification for the policy at issu e is contained in the policy itself. More specifically, OP 803.2(V)(B) states that “[o]ffenders . . . should be allowed to subscribe to, order, and receive publications . . . so long as they do not pose a threat to the security, discipline, and good order of the facility and are not detrimental to offender rehabilitation.” (Emphasis added). However,as the Fourth Circuit inSmith held, “[t]his conclusory, one-sentence explanation does not, by itself, explain why the security interest is compelling.” 578 F.3d at 252 (citing Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 190). None of the affidavits submitted by the defendants contain an explanation as to why the publication disapproval policy serves a compelling interest. All of that being said,
-18-

I find that there is a genuine issue of m aterial fact as to whether the policy at iss ue serves such a compelling interest.
Even if the defendants were able to dme onstrate a compelling interest, however, I find that they also have failed to demonstrate that such a policy constitutes the least restrictive means of furthering it. In order to dem onstrate that the publication disapproval policy is the least restrictive m eans of furthering the interest of prison security and offender rehabilitation, the defendants must provide a “substantive, relevant explanation” as to why disapproving a publication in its entirety is the least restrictive means of enforcing the compelling interest advanced by them. See Smith, 578 F.3d at 253. Due deference m ust again be given to any “s ubstantive, relevant explanation” advanced by the defendants. See Smith, 578 F.3d at 253. Here, the defendants have proffered no explanation as to why the policy is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. I note specifically that the defendants make no argument that the secu rity and inmate rehabilitation concerns cannot be accommodated without disapproving publications in their entirety.
All of this being the case, I find thatthe defendants have not demonstrated for summary judgment purposes that the VDOC policy of disapproving in their entirety publications which contain portions that allegedly impede security or inm ate rehabilitation furthers a com pelling governmental interest by the least restrictive means. I next must determine whether the right that Brown alleges was violated was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation so that a reasonable person in the defendants’ positions would have known that such conduct was in violation of such a right. See Collinson, 895 F.2d at 998. For the following reasons, I find that it
-19-

was not.
As previously noted, qualified immunity serves to protect government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutoryor constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818. It is not up to the court to determine whether the defendants came to the correct conclusion. Instead, the focus of qualified immunity is on what the officialreasonably perceived, and the court is not to look at the actions with the benefit of hindsight. See Rowland v. Perry, 41 F.3d 167, 173 (4th Cir. 1994). For a determ ination of whether the defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights, the inquiry is to be undertaken in the specific context of this case, and not as a general proposition. See Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004) (citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201) (overruled on alternate grounds)). Stated another way,“[b]ecause the focus is onwhether the officer had fair notice that [his] conduct was unlawful, reasonableness is judged against the backdrop of the law at the time of the conduct.” Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 198. Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that “[i]f the law at that time did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct would violate the Constitution, the officer should not be subject to liability or, indeed, even the burdens of litigation.” Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 198. That being said, “[t]he contours of the right m ust be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 198 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). T hus the “dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 199 (quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202).
-20-

However, the Court made clear that the rule does not stand for the proposition that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, see Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 535 n.12 (1985), “but it is to say that in light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness m ust be apparent.” Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 (citing Malley, 475 U.S. at 344-45; Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 528; Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 191, 195 (1984)).
Here, there is no doubt that it is clearlyestablished law that the government may not impose a substantial burden on an inm ate’s religious exercise unless it is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest. Thisis clearly established because this is what is provided by RLUIPA itself. However, this is merely a general proposition and not what must be shown to have been clearly established in the context of the case currently before this court. More speci fically, the question now before the court is whether VDOC officials should reasonably have known that disapproving these various issues of The Final Call in their entirety to an inmate belonging to NOI who is incarcerated at a facility that does not provide access to any other NOI materials, services, programs or videos and does not allow for outside religious counselors constituted a violation of RLUIPA. For the following reasons, I find that a reasonable person in the VDOC officials’ circumstances here would not have known such.
It is well-settled that in determ ining whether Brown’s rights under RLUIPA were clearly established when the de fendants acted, the unlawfulness of the defendants’ conduct must have been addressed by the United States Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals or the Virginia Supreme Court. See Wilson v.
-21-

Layne, 141 F.3d 111, 114 (4th Cir. 1998). Importantly, I note that the court can find no such relevant case law dealing with the denial of The Final Call or any other NOI publication under any circumstances. In f act, the only case law the court has been able to locate relating to The Final Call came from the Third Circuit case of Sutton, discussed previously, in which the plainti ffs’ expert testified that The Final Call constituted an essential religious text for NOI adherents. Moreover, there is a written policy followed by the VDOC, and there are cetrain factors which go into determining whether a given publication should be disapproved. It appears to the court that the defendants followed the procedure set forth in OP 803.2 for disapproving the various issues of The Final Call. Additionally, I canlocate no case law that has held that such a VDOC policy is improper. That being the case, I cannot find that the defendants should have known that their actions in accordance with that policy were unlawful. Therefore, I must find that the defendants’denial of Brown’s issues of The Final Call under the above-enumerated circumstances did not constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory rightof which a reasonable person would have known. Thus, I am of the opinion that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on both Brown’s RLUIPA claimand his claim under the First Amendment in their individual capacities for monetary damages. That being said, I will grant the First Motion in the defendants’ favor, but only on Brown’s claim s for m onetary damages. The First Motion will be denied, however, as it relates to Brown’s claimfor injunctive relief.
B. Second Motion for Summary Judgment
The defendants’ Second Mo tion deals with claim s 2 through 6 of Brown’s
-22-

Complaint, which are as follows: (1) denial of access to religious services for NOI; (2) denial of the documentation necessary to appeal the PRC’s decisions regarding his disapproved publications; (3) discrimination based on race and religion; (4) the PRC does not afford due process; and (5) defendant Fleming is denying him access to his publications because of Brown’s race and religious views. In their Second Motion, the defendants claim that Brown has failed toexhaust his administrative remedies with respect to these claims. By affidavit, Fonnie Taylor, the Grievance Coordinator at Red Onion, testified that Brown has not filed any grievances regarding claims 2 through 6 of his Complaint and, therefore, has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Attachment 1 t o Docket Item No. 18). In B rown’s response to t he defendants’ Second Motion, he does not advance specific argument as to how he has, in fact, exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to claim s 2 through 6. Instead, Brown simply referred the court to copies of grievances filed in connection with this action. After reviewing all of the submitted grievances, I find that Brown has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to claim 3. That being the case, I find that summary judgment should be granted in the defendants’ favor on this claim. However, I find that Brown has exhausted hsi administrative remedies with regard to claims 2, 4, 5 and 6. That being th e case, I find that the defendants’ s ummary judgment motion on these claims should be denied on the ground that Brown has not exhausted his administrative remedies.
1. Claim 2
With respect to claim 2 of Brown’s Complaint, that he is being denied access to NOI religious services, he filed Regular Grievance # 620-29520. (Attachment 15
-23-

to Docket Item No. 18). In that grievance, Brown alleged, among other things, that the chaplain at Red Onion , Chaplain Mitchell, had been negligent in his duties to counsel and offer spiritual assistance to him. He further alleged that Chaplain Mitchell had not provided himwith NOI materials. The Warden responded favorably, finding the grievance founded as policy had been incorrectly applied. (Attachment 15 to Docket Item No. 18). Also, in Regular Grievance # 620-29506, Brown complained that the chaplain did not show weekly NOI videos, n or did the VDOC provide NOI m aterial or literature. (Att achment 5 to Docket Item No. 18). The Warden responded, but did not address this particular complaint. (Attachment 4 to Docket Item No. 18). However, in his Level III appeal, Brown reiterated this complaint. (Attachment 4 to Docket Item No. 18). In his Le vel III response, Jabe upheld the unfavorable Level I finding and informed Brown that all administrative remedies were exhausted. (Attachment 4 to Docket Item No. 18). Thus, it appears to the court that, at least for purposes of this sum mary judgment motion, Brown has demonstrated that a dispute in fact exists as to whether he followed VDOC policy for exhausting his administrative remedies on this issue. That being the case, I find that granting summary judgment in the defendants’ favor on this claim would be inappropriate.
2. Claim 3
Next, however, I find that Brown has failed to exhaust his adm inistrative remedies with respect to claim 3 of his Complaint, that he is being denied the necessary documentation to appeal the P RC’s decisions to disapprove the various issues of The Final Call. In his Complaint, Brown states as follows: “Defendants have failed, in many causes, to return proper documents to all denied publications, thereby
-24-

denying petitioner the right to re dress of gove rnment and those binding libe rty interests.” The court is not certain th e documents to whic h Brown is referring. However, in any event, I note that no gr ievance has been subm itted to the court relating to the defendants’ failure to return any documents to him so he could appeal the PRC’s unfavorable decision. That be ing said, I find that Brown has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on this issue, and I will grant the Second Motion on this claim.
3. Claims 4 and 6
As regards claims 4 and 6 of Brown’s Complaint, that he isbeing discriminated against and being denied The Final Call based on race and religion, I find that he has at least demonstrated that a dispute in f act exists as to wh ether he appropriately exhausted his administrative remedies. Specifically, in Regular Grievance # 62029516, Brown alleges that the denial of The Final Call constitutes “religious bigotry.” (Attachment 5 to Docket Item No. 18). Although the Warden did not address this concern in his Level I response,Brown alleged in his LevelIII appeal that the officials and staff at Red Onion are racist, leading to the disapproval of Islamic materials like The Final Call. (Attachment 5 to Docket Item No. 18). Jabe failed to specifically address this concern in his Level III respons e, but he inform ed Brown that he had exhausted all administrative remedies by setting “No further action appears to be necessary at this time.” (Attachment 5 toDocket Item No. 18). Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Brown, I find th at there is a dispute in fact regarding whether he exhausted his adm inistrative remedies with regard to claim s 4 and 6. Therefore, I will deny the Second Motion on these claims.
-25-

4. Claim 5
Lastly, I find that Brown has dem onstrated that a dispute in fact exists as to whether he exhausted his adm inistrative remedies with respect to claim 5 of his Complaint, that he was denied due pro cess in the disappro val of The Final Call. Specifically, it is clear from reviewing the documents submitted both by Brown and by the defendants that Brown repeatedly raised the due process issue in accordance with VDOC policy. I note that while there were no grievances submitted by Brown that dealt solely with this issue, he rep eatedly raised the due process is sue in his grievances and in his appeals to all appr opriate levels. The court further notes, however, that this issue never was specifically addressed by VDOC at any level. For instance, in Regular Grievance # 620-29793,Brown specifically alleged that for Red Onion and VDOC officials to deny issues ofThe Final Call merely by citing a policy number that was allegedly violated without explaining how each of the disapproved issues violated that policy constituted a violation of h is due process rights. (Attachment 6 to Docket Item No. 18). In the Warden’s Leve l I response, it was specifically noted in the “Grievance Summary” section that Brown had alleged that his due process rights were violated. (Attachment 6 to Docket Item No. 18). Brown reiterated this position in hisLevel III appeal. (Attachment 6 to Docket ItemNo. 18). However, Jabe did not specifically address Brown’s due process claim in his Level III response. (Attachment 6 to Docket ItemNo. 18). Nonetheless, Jabe informed Brown that he had exhausted all available remedies. (Attachment 6 to Docket Item No. 18). Likewise, in Regular Grievance # 620-297 97, Brown alleged that the PRC and L. Fleming were violating his due process ri ghts by citing a policy that was allegedly being violated by The Fina l Call, but not supplying supporting evidence as to how such a violation was occurring. (Attachment 7 to Docket Item No. 18). Again, in the
-26-

Level I response, the Warden summarized Brown’s grievance to include a due process complaint. (Attachment 7 to Docket Item No. 18). Brown additionally raised the issue in his Level III appeal. (Attachment 7 to Docket Item No. 18). However, Jabe, in his Level III response did not specificallyaddress Brown’s dueprocess complaint. (Attachment 7 to Docket ItemNo. 18). All of Brown’sadministrative remedies were exhausted at that time inaccordance with VDOC policy. Also, in Regular Grievance # 620-29798, Brown alleged that his due pro cess rights were violated in the sam e manner mentioned above. (Attachm ent 8 to Docket Item No. 18). Again, the “Grievance Summary” contained in the Leve l I response restated his due process complaint. (Attachment 8 to Docket Item No. 18). In his Le vel III appeal, Brown reiterated this claim. (Attachment 8 to Docket Item No. 18). However, Jabe’s Level III response did not specifically address thiscomplaint. (Attachment 7 to Docket Item No. 18). Nonetheless, Jabe informed Brown that he had exhausted all administrative remedies related to his grievance. (Attachment 7 to Docket Item No. 18). All of this being said, it is clear that a dispute in fact exists regardi ng whether Brown has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to claim 5 of his Complaint, that the procedure followed by the PRC does not lalow due process. Therefore, I will deny the Second Motion on this claim.
C. Motion to Seal
The defendants also have filed a Motion toSeal with the court. The document sought to be sealed is a newyl added section of The FinalCall contained in each of the issues that has been denied to Brown.This section is entitled “The MuslimProgram” and contains two subsections: “What The Muslims Want” and “What The Muslims Believe.” After conducting an in cam era, ex parte review of this docum ent, I will
-27-

grant the Motion to S eal, as I find that it contains portions that could be found to violate OP 803.2(V)(L)(7) and OP 803.2(V)(L)(12). However, the parties are placed on notice that, if the defendants wish to enter this document into evidence at trial, the plaintiff will be provided access to the document at that time.
For all of the above-stated reasons, thedefendants’ First Motion will be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the First Motion will be granted as to all of Brown’s claims for m onetary damages, but it will be denied as to his claim s for injunctive relief. The defendants’ Second Motion also will be granted in part and denied in pa rt. Pa rticularly, the Second Motion will be granted as to c laim 3 of Brown’s Complaint, but will be denied as to claims 2, 4, 5 and 6. The defendants’ Motion to Seal will be granted as to this proceeding only.
An appropriate order will be entered. DATED: This 26th day of February 2010.
/s/ Pamela Meade Sargent UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-28-

 
 Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 60 Filed 11/23/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:09-cv-00180-pms Document 58 Filed 11/19/10 Page 1 of 2

CLE~S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COURT AT ABINGDON, VA FILED

IN TflE IJNiTEll STATES DISTRICT COlilH FOR TilE WESTERN COU'U OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIViSION

NOV 23 2010
BYJ: ~L. .DIjD~s,v:~ p!-EW< .
EPlfTY CLERK

KELVIN E, BROWN Plaintiff.

Civil Action No. 7:I)l)cA)OI}W

CONSE"iT OIHlFR

TRACY S. RA Y, 01 "I" Defendants.

The parties, aCTing by nnd through their counsel. informed the COLui that d settlement ha~ been rcach(.!d and [lsk that the Courl dismiss this C<lSC with r.rejudicc. The Coun has givcn due consideration to this matler, and hereby D!SMISSLS t1is C3.SC v"ito pl·cjudi<..:e. The CmJl1 shall retain jurisdiction in order to enforce the agreement rCiched hy Iht: pal1ie-s,
The clerk is directed [0 send ccrti'!icd copies ot this Onkr to (;()'Jilsei uJ"rl!coru,
Entered Lh~dUY of Nov~lTlbcr. 20 I

Seen ,md agreed \0:

n /)

~ Fobl. lL'l

Jeff,., E.

VSiJ #'/SMJ

AttD! cy at Law

91 J E. Jefferson Street

Charlottt!syille. VA 22902

Counsd fll!" Kelvin L l3rowll

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 60 Filed 11/23/10 Page 2 of 2
Case 7:09-cv-00180-pms Document 58 Filed 11119/10 Page 2 of 2

~~~A~AG~B c. ...
R:chard

orhi". Scnicr

#11170

Office of the Attorney General

P'Jblic S(!fel), and Enfof(.:emcn! Divi$lo!1

900 E. Main S!rec!

Richmond, VA 23219

Counsel for AJ I Namt!d D1.;;fendwH:.

sncffrey E. Fogel Jeffrey E. Fogel. VSI~ ~75643 A(lorney at Law 91 J F. Jefferson Street
CharloHcsville. VA ::2\i02 434-984-0300 (Tel) Email: jcfffogeJt.g1gmail,c;om ,\Home), for Kelvin E. Brown

Respectfully submitted, Kclvir E. Brown By COlillsel

2

 
 Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 18 Filed 09/17/09 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Roanoke Division

KELVIN E. BROWN, #207902, Plaintiff,
v. TRACY S. RAY, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 7:09cv00180

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
COME NOW Defendants Tracy S. Ray, Warden, L. Fleming, Major, and T. Pease, Mailroom Supervisor, (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Correctional Defendants"), by counsel and in support of their motion for summary judgment for claims #2-6 submit the following.
Plaintiff Kelvin E. Brown, #207902 ("Brown"), an inmate with the Virginia Department of Corrections, has filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1983 alleging violation of his constitutional rights under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RIFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of2000 (RLUIPA). Specifically he alleges:
Claim # 1: Plaintiff is being denied his religious newspaper "The Final Call" based on race and religious discrimination; 1
Claim # 2: PlaintitT is being denied access to religious services for Nation of Islan1 (NOl);

I By contemporaneous filing, Defendants are requesting an additional 10 days to respond to Claim # J. 1

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 18 Filed 09/17/09 Page 2 of 4

Claim # 3: Plaintiff is being denied the documentation necessary to appeal the

Publication Review Committee's decisions regarding his

disapproved publications;

Claim # 4: PlaintiJf is being discriminated against based on his race and

religion;

Claim # 5: The Publication Review Committee does not afford due process;

and

Claim # 6:

Defendant Fleming is denying Plaintiff access to his publications because of Plaintiffs race and religious views 2

He requests relief in the form of the permission to receive the "religious and

cultural material" and monetary damages of One Thousand Dollars ($ 1,000.00).

The Defendants enclose and incorporate by reference the following affidavits: F.

Taylor, Grievance Coordinator at Red Onion State Prison ("Taylor Affidavit"), and Tracy

S. Ray, Warden of Red Onion State Prison ("Ray Affidavit"). Defendants respectfully

request that this Court consider these exhibits as evidence in support of Defendants'

motion.

Claims 2-6

As to Claims # 2-6, Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies and

Defendants do not waive the exhaustion requirement.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § I 997e(a):

No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under § 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
2 Plaintiff lists a total of eight claims but omitting repetitive claims, it would appear that there are six.
2

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 18 Filed 09/17/09 Page 3 of 4

Exhaustion of remedies is mandatory and is required "regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures." Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (200 I). The remedies "need not meet federal standards, nor mnst they be 'plain, speedy, and effective.'" Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). Exhaustion is required for all actions brought with respect to prison conditions whether under § 1983 or any other federal law. Porter, 524. "Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency's deadlines and other critical procedural rules ... " Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,126 S. Ct. 2378, 2386 (2006).
Plaintiff has filed several grievances regarding the disapproval of his publications and has properly appealed to the appropriate levels. Accordingly, Claim # I is properly exhausted. Taylor Aftidavit '19; Ray Aftidavit ~ 8 (explaining that the grievance was deemed founded based on DOC's failure to respond to Brown's informal complaint).
Plaintiff however has not filed any grievances regarding Claims # 2-6. Taylor '110.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies pertaining to Claims 2-6 and these issues should be dismissed.
Wherefore, Defendants respectfully request this Court grant their motion, enter summary judgment on their behalf as to Claims # 2-6.
Respectfully Submitted, TRACY S. RAY, 1. FLEMING T. PEASE

By

_-=-_/s/:-----_ _ _ _~

Counsel

3

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 18 Filed 09/17/09 Page 4 of 4
Richard C. Vorhis, SAAG, VSB #23170 Attorney for Defendants Office of the Attorney General Public Safety and Enforcement Division 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Phone: 804-786-4805 Fax: 804-786-4239 rvorhis@oag.state.va.us
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 17ti' day of September, 2009, I will electronically file the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notitication of such filing (NEF) to the following: NIA And I hereby certify that I will mail the document by U.S. mail to the following non-tiling user:
Kelvin E. Brown, #207902 Red Onion State Prison Post Office Box 1900 Pound, Virginia 24279
-:--C-----C;-::C'--::C:-----:-:lsi-=--c--:-:::-::-:- ..,....----Richard C. Vorhis, SAAG, VSB #23170 Attorney for Defendants Office of the Attorney General Public Safety and Enforcement Division 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Phone: 804-786-4805 Fax: 804-786-4239 rvorhi s((f)oag.state. va. us
4

 
 Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 26 Filed 10/05/09 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Roanoke Division

KELVIN E. BROWN, #207902, Plaintiff,
v. TRACY S. RAY, et ai.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 7:09cvOO 180

MEMORANDUM IN SUl)PORT

COME NOW Defendants Tracy S. Ray, Warden, L. Fleming, Major, and 1'.

Pease, Mailroom Supervisor, (hereinafter collectively rcfened to as "Correctional

Defendants"), by counsel and in support of their motion for summary judgment on claim

# 1 submit the following.

Plaintiff Kelvin E. Brown, #207902 ("Brown"), an inmate with the Virginia

Department of Corrections, has tiled this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging

violation of his constitutional rights under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom

Restoration Act of 1993 (RIFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Person Act of2000 (RLUIPA). Specifically he alleges:

Claim # 1:

Plaintiff is being denied his religious newspaper "The Final Call" based on race and religious discrimination. 1

He requests relief in the form of the permission to receive the "religious and

cultural material" and monetary damages of One Thousand Dollars ($ 1,000.00).

I Claims # 2-6 were the subject of a summary judgment motion filed on September 17.2009. 1

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 26 Filed 10/05/09 Page 2 of 9
The Defendants enclose and incorporate by reference an affidavit of Benjamin A. Wright, Chairman of the Publication Review Committee for the Virginia Department of Corrections2 ("Wright Affidavit"). Defendants respectfully request that this Court consider this exhibit (in addition to the previously submitted affidavits) as evidence in support of Defendants' motion.
Claim 1 Plaintiff complains that he is being denied his religious publication "The Final Call" based on racial and religious discrimination. The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Plaintiff brings his complaint as a violation of the First Amendment, RFFRA and RLUIPA. Generally, to prevail on a violation of the First Amendment, the prisoner must show that a prison action or regulation is not reasonably related to penological interests. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64,107 S. Ct. 2254 (1987). See Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732,736 (9th Cir. 1997).89. Factors relevant in determining the reasonableness of a prison act or regulation include (1) the connection between the act or regulation and a legitimate, neutral government purpose, (2) the existence of alternative means of exercising the right, (3) the impact accommodation of the right would have on guards, other inmates, and prison resources, and (4) the absence of ready alternatives to the act or regulation. Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-91. Pursuant to VDOC Operating Procedure 803.2 all incoming publications, books and tapes are subject to review. A subscription to a publication does not automatically
2 The Wright Affidavit encloses a copy of the "The Final Call" the publication in question. Given the security issues which are at the heart of this case, defendants are requesting the attachment be received under seal and not published to plaintiff.
2

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 26 Filed 10/05/09 Page 3 of 9
mean that every issue of the publication will be reccivcd. Ray Affidavie'l 4. Where a publication has material that should not be approved based on the criteria in the Operating Procedure, the entire issue is to be disapproved. The Operating Procedure does not provide for redaction of the offending content. Ray Affidavit '14.
At Red Onion, there is a process in place for the review of publications. Major Fleming conducts the initial review of the pUblication. If after his review, he believes that there are portions which meet the criteria for disapproval, he notifies the inmate of the publication and the reasons for the disapproval, logs the disapproved portion of the publication and forwards it to the Publication Review Committee for a final determination. The inmate has the option of declining to have the Publication Review Committee review and make its determination. Ray Affidavit ~ 5. Unless the inmate declines the review by the Publication Review Committee, the committee will review the publication, make a determination, and notify Major Fleming. Major Fleming must then notify the inmate with the final decision (if the publication is not to be provided to the inmate) or if the publication has been deemed to be in compliance with the standards of the Operating Procedure, the publication will be provided to the inmate. Ray Affidavit ~ 5.
The specific criteria for disapproval of publications is set forth in the Operating Procedure 803.2 L (see Ray Affidavit, Enclosure A, page 5 and 6 of 8). The criteria for disapproval is based on security concerns and includes a variety of categories such as explicit sexual content, instructions for the making of explosives, information pertaining to the manufacture of weapons, information pertaining to the ability to maim or kill
3 This affidavit was previously submitted with the Memorandum in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment with regards to claims # 2-6
3

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 26 Filed 10/05/09 Page 4 of 9
another and technical specifications that could be used to defeat communication methods or electronic security devices. One such disapproval criteria is 803 .2(L) (7) "Material that promotes or advocates violence, disorder....against individuals, groups, organizations, the government, or of any of its institutions." Ray Affidavit, Enclosure A, page 6 of 8. Likewise, 803.2 (L) (12) disapproves of "material whose content could be detrimental to the security, good order, discipline of the facility, or offender rehabilitative efforts or the safety of or health of offenders, staff, or others."
Brown complains that his intended religious publication "The Final Call" has been denied him as the result of racial and religious discrimination. This is incorrect. The Final Call was being received by Brown and others for quite some time. (See Complaint, Claim # 5: "Petitioner states, he has received such material and newspaper for over fourteen and a half years, never having one issue denied"). Recently, the paper has added a section outlining certain ideas in such a way as would incite racial hatred between blacks and whites. Wright Affidavit ~ 4. Material that incites racial hatred or violence is clearly "detrimental to the security, good order, discipline of the facility, or offender rehabilitative efforts or the safety of or health of offenders, stan, or others" and therefore is material that meets the criteria for disapproval. See Ray Affidavit, Enclosure A, OP 803.2 (L) (12). Furthermore, material that incites racial hatred is to be disapproved in that it "promotes or advocates violence or disorder against individuals, groups, organizations, the government or any of its institutions." See Ray Affidavit, Enclosure A, OP 803.2 (L) (7).
Reviewing all incoming publications is necessary to maintain security. Security for the safety of inmates, staff and the public at large is one of the primary functions of
4

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 26 Filed 10/05/09 Page 5 of 9
prison administration. "[P)rison security is a compelling state interest." Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 725 (2005). The prohibition of incoming publications that contain material likely to cause security breaches does not interfere with the exercise of religion. Disapproval of religious material would only be incidental since it would have to be in conjunction with material that constitutes a breach of security. The Supreme Court has recognized that the government has a "compelling interest in not facilitating inflammatory racist activity that could imperil prison security and order." Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 723. Accordingly, VDOC Operating Procedure 803.2 and the prohibition of the issues of The Final Call in question4 are reasonable and appropriate under Turner v. Saffley and therefore there is no violation of plaintiffs First Amendment rights.
Plaintiff has also raised the same claim under RLUIPA and its predecessor act RFRA5 Notwithstanding the higher standard, under RLUIPA, the policy and the Defendants acts in conformity with the policy, are constitutionally justified. Under RLUIPA, a plaintiff must first prove that his right to freely exercise his religion has been substantially burdened. A substantial burden is "one that put[s) 'substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs' or one that forces a person to 'choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting [governmental) benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion ... on the other hand. '" Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 187 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting 7710mas v. Review Bd. Oflnd. Employment Sec. Div, 450 U.S. 707. 718 (1981) and Sherbert v.
4 An excerpt from the The Final Call with some of the offending language is the attachment being filed under seal. 5 RFRA has been held not to apply to States and their subdivisions. City ofBoerne v. Flores. 521 U.S. 507 (1997).
5

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 26 Filed 10/05/09 Page 6 of 9
Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)). Only then must the Government demonstrate that the substantial burden on the inmate's religious exercise furthers a "compelling governmental interest" and does so by "the least restrictive means." See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-I(a); see also Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 187. Courts are required to give "due deference to the experiencc and expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures to maintain good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of costs and limited resources." See Culler v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 723 (2005).
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the disapproval of the issues of The Final Call constitute a substantial burden. Not having every issue of a periodic religious newspaper does not place any pressure (much less "substantial") on plaintiff to modify his behavior and violate his beliefs. Thus plaintiff is not being forced to choose between following his religion and obtaining government benefits. See Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006).
Even if plaintiff were to prove a substantial burden, the denial of the issues in question of The Final Call serves a compelling governmental interest. The issues in question have added a section which encourages a racial division based in hate and mistrust. Contemporaneous to the filing of this memorandum, Correctional Defendants are filing a motion to file under seal6 an example of The Final Call for this Court to review. A reading of this document will reveal the inflammatory nature of the language and ideas specifically pertaining to dividing the races. The government has a "compelling interest in not facilitating inf1ammatory racist activity that could imperil
G For the same reasons that plaintiff has not been furnished with this document by VDOC, counsel is moving this Court to accept the document for filing under seal and the doclIment is not being furnished to plaintiff with the motion.
6

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 26 Filed 10/05/09 Page 7 of 9
prison security and order." Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 723. VDOC must examine all material-letters, packages, tapes and cd discs-to maintain security: There is no less restrictive means practically available to VDOC given the volume of material received by the prisons. Accordingly, the withholding of the issues in question of "The Final Call" do not constitute a violation ofRLUIPA.
Without a violation of the First Amendment or RLUIPA, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, injunctive or monetary.
DAMAGES AND IMMUNITIES To the extent that plaintiff is attempting to bring a suit under § 1983 against any ofthe defendants in their official capacity for monetary damages, this is not cognizable in § 1983. Neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons for purposes of § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep 't ofState Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). Therefore, to the extent that plaintiff is suing the defendants in their official capacity, thcy are immune from suit in this matter. Id. To the extent plaintiff is attempting to sue the Correctional Defendants in their official capacities for monetary damages, this is not cognizable under RLUIPA. Madison v. Virginia, 474 F.3d 118 (4th Cir. 2006). To the extent plaintifTis attempting to sue the Correctional Defendants in their individual capacities for monetary damages, this is not cognizable under RLUIPA. Rendleman v Rouse, 569 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. June 25, 2009).
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Furthermore, to the extent that plaintiff is requesting damages, all defendants are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, there being no allegations of conduct which
7

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 26 Filed 10/05/09 Page 8 of 9
violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). Qualified immunity involves a two step inquiry: whether a constitutional or statutory right would have been violated on the alleged facts; and whether the right was clearly established. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001). The court has the discretion to proceed directly to the second step of the Saucier analysis after assuming without deciding that a constitutional violation occurred. Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 172 L. Ed. 2d 565 (2009).
PlaintifJ does not raise any allegations that he is prevented from exercising his religious practices, such as praying, fasting, or dieting pursuant to his religious dictates. For security purposes, VDOC must review every item that enters the prisons for contraband, explicit sexual content, or content that incites or encourages violence. VDOC, has through its policy, identified a list of criteria so as to guide the reviewing person or committee as to what is permissible and what must be screened out. The publication in question has been found by the initial reviewer and subsequently by a review committee to be racially divisive and inflammatory. The Supreme Court has recognized the government's compelling interest in avoiding inflammatory racist activity. Cutter v Wilkinson, supra. The Court has also recognized that RLUIPA must be applied with deference to the experience and expertise of the prison officials in establishing procedures to maintain security and discipline, consistent with consideration of limited resources. Cutter v Wilkinson, supra. The Correctional Defendants acted within the scope of the stated poliey and disapproved the publication because of its inflammatory racist content. This is entirely consistent with the First Amendment and RLUIPA and therefore Correctional Defendants should be afforded qualified immunity in any event.
8

Case 7:09-cv-00180-PMS Document 26 Filed 10/05/09 Page 9 of 9
Respectfully Submitted,
TRACY S. RAY, L. FLEMING T. PEASE
By_ _ _ _-,--_./s/c--_ _ __
Counsel
Richard C. Vorhis, SAAG, VSB #23170 Attorney for Defendants Office of the Attorney General Public Safety and Enforcement Division 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Phone: 804-786-4805 Fax: 804-786-4239 rvorhis(ii)oag. state.va.us
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
J hereby certify that on the 5th day of October, 2009, I will electronically file the
foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a
notification of such filing (NEF) to the following: NIA
And J hereby certify that I will mail the document by U.S. mail to the following non-filing user:
Kelvin E. Brown, #207902 Red Onion State Prison Post Office Box 1900 Pound, Virginia 24279
--:--:-_...--:--_---'/s/_ _ _ _____.Richard C. Vorhis, SAAG, VSB #23170 Attorney for Defendants Office of the Attorney General Public Safety and Enforcement Division 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Phone: 804-786-4805 Fax: 804-786-4239 rvorhi s(iiJogg.state. va. us
9

 
 CCaassee77:0:099--ccvv--0000118800--pPmMsS DDocoucmumenetn5t 05-41 FFilieledd0097/0/227/1/100 PPaaggee11ooff1100

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN COURT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

KELVIN E. BROWN
Plaintiff,
-v-
TRACY S. RAY, MAJOR L. FLEMMING , T. PEASE , JOHN M. JABE, BENJAMIN WRIGHT, LARRY COLLINS, BARBARA GENTRY, LINDA LEATHERWOOD, RITA BIBBINS and LOIS FEGAN,
Defendants.

: : AMENDED COMPLAINT : : : Civil Action No. 7:09cv00180 : : : : : : : :

JURISDICTION 1. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (a)(4) and 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202.
PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Kelvin E. Brown is a prisoner of the Commonwealth of Virginia, incarcerated at
Red Onion State Prison. He is and has been a member of the religious community known as the Nation of Islam (“NOI”) since 1993 and a sincere adherent of its beliefs. 3. Defendant Tracy S. Ray has been, at all times relevant to this Complaint, the Warden at Red Onion state Prison. As such he is charged with the responsibility to make or delegate
1

CCaassee77:0:099--ccvv--0000118800--pPmMsS DDocoucmumenetn5t 05-41 FFilieledd0097/0/227/1/100 PPaaggee22ooff1100
initial decisions to disapprove publications sent to prisoners at that facility. At all times relevant to this Complaint, he was acting under color of state law. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. 4. Defendant Major L. Flemming is the Chief of Security at Red Onion State Prison. At times relevant to this Complaint, he has been delegated the authority to make initial decisions to disapprove publications sent to prisoners at that facility. At all times relevant to this Complaint, he was acting under color of state law. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. 5. Defendant T. Pease is the mailroom supervisor at Red Onion State Prison. At times relevant to this Complaint, he was responsible for reviewing incoming publications and arranging for delivery to those incarcerated at Red Onion or referring them to Major L. Fleming. At all times relevant to this Complaint, he was acting under color of state law. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. 6. Defendant John M. Jabe is the Deputy Director, Division of Operations, of the Virginia Department of Corrections and has been so at all times relevant to this Complaint. Mr. Jabe is responsible for appointing members of the Publication Review Committee (“PRC”) and hearing appeals from the decisions of the PRC disapproving publications. He is also responsible for promulgating standards and regulations concerning incoming publications. At all times relevant to this Complaint, he was acting under color of state law. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. 7. Defendant Benjamin Wright has been, at times relevant to this Complaint, Chairman of the Publication Review Committee, which is responsible for making final decisions to
2

CCaassee77:0:099--ccvv--0000118800--pPmMsS DDocoucmumenetn5t 05-41 FFilieledd0097/0/227/1/100 PPaaggee33ooff1100
disapprove publications sent to prisoners within the Virginia Department of Corrections. At all times relevant to this Complaint, he was acting under color of state law. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. 8. Defendant Larry Collins has been, at times relevant to this Complaint, a member of the Publication Review Committee, and, since November, 2009, its chair. The PRC is responsible for making final decisions to disapprove publications sent to prisoners within the Virginia Department of Corrections. At all times relevant to this Complaint, defendant Collins was acting under color of state law. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. 9. Defendant Barbara Gentry has been, at times relevant to this Complaint, the staff secretary to the Publication Review Committee, which, as noted above, is responsible for making final decisions to disapprove publications sent to prisoners within the Virginia Department of Corrections. At all times relevant to this Complaint, she was acting under color of state law. She is sued in her individual and official capacities. 10. Defendant Linda Leatherwood has been, at times relevant to this Complaint, a member of the Publication Review Committee, which as noted above, is responsible for making final decisions to disapprove publications sent to prisoners within the Virginia Department of Corrections. At all times relevant to this Complaint, she was acting under color of state law. She is sued in her individual and official capacities. 11. Defendant Rita Bibbins is and has been, since November 1, 2009, a member of the Publication Review Committee, which as noted above, is responsible for making final decisions to disapprove publications sent to prisoners within the Virginia Department of
3

CCaassee77:0:099--ccvv--0000118800--pPmMsS DDocoucmumenetn5t 05-41 FFilieledd0097/0/227/1/100 PPaaggee44ooff1100
Corrections. At all times relevant to this Complaint, she was acting under color of state law. She is sued in her individual and official capacities. 12. Defendant Lois Fegan is and has been, since November 1, 2009, a member of the Publication Review Committee, which as noted above, is responsible for making final decisions to disapprove publications sent to prisoners within the Virginia Department of Corrections. At all times relevant to this Complaint, she was acting under color of state law. She is sued in her individual and official capacities.
FACTS 13. Plaintiff subscribes to the weekly newspaper of the Nation of Islam known as “The Final
Call.” The Final Call is an essential religious text to members of the Nation of Islam. 14. Plaintiff has subscribed to The Final Call for approximately seventeen years and received
the same while incarcerated at various penological institutions under the jurisdiction of the Virginia Department of Corrections (“VDOC”). 15. Red Onion State Prison is a high security prison and plaintiff is required to remain in his cell 23 hours a day with limited contact with any other prisoners. 16. There are no religious services or programs devoted to the Nation of Islam available to prisoners incarcerated at Red Onion State Prison, even though there are programs and chaplaincy services available to prisoners of the Christian faith who are incarcerated at that institution. 17. In or about December, 2008, defendant Fleming informed plaintiff that he was disapproving receipt of The Final Call pending review by the Publication Review Committee.
4

CCaassee77:0:099--ccvv--0000118800--pPmMsS DDocoucmumenetn5t 05-41 FFilieledd0097/0/227/1/100 PPaaggee55ooff1100
18. Between January, 2009 and May, 2009, plaintiff received notice from the PRC that it had reviewed and disapproved the following issues of The Final Call: Vol. 28, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #25, #26, #27, #28 and #29.
19. Each of the above issues were disapproved by the PRC based on a determination by the committee that they violated either Virginia Department of Corrections Operating Procedure (“OP”) 803.2(V)(L)(7) and/or OP 803.2(V)(L)(12).
20. OP 803.2(V)(L)(7) provides that publications should be disapproved for receipt and possession by offenders, “if the publication can be reasonably documented to contain . . . [m]aterial that promotes or advocates violence, disorder, insurrection or terrorist activities against individuals, groups, organizations, the governments, or any of its institutions.”
21. OP 803.2(V)(L)(12) provides that publications should be disapproved for receipt and possession by offenders, “if the publication can be reasonably documented to contain . . . [m]aterial whose content could be detrimental to the security, good order, discipline of the facility, or offender rehabilitative efforts or the safety or health of offenders, staff, or others.”
22. Since May, 2009, virtually every issue of The Final Call has been disapproved by the PRC.
23. There is no legitimate penological reason to prohibit receipt of The Final Call by prisoners who are members of the Nation of Islam.
24. OP 803.2 (J)(1) provides that a prisoner may appeal the decision of the Publication Review Committee through the Offender Grievance Procedure. However, no information
5

CCaassee77:0:099--ccvv--0000118800--pPmMsS DDocoucmumenetn5t 05-41 FFilieledd0097/0/227/1/100 PPaaggee66ooff1100
is provided to the prisoner of the content of the disapproved material or the reason for disapproval other than to cite, by number, to one of the 15 criteria set forth in OP 803.2(V)(L). 25. Without any information about how the content found objectionable violates one of the criterion set forth in OP 803.2 (V)(L), plaintiff and other prisoners are unable to meaningfully appeal the decisions of the PRC.
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (First Amendment - Denial of The Final Call) 26. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 25. 27. The conduct of defendants in prohibiting plaintiff from receiving his paid subscription to The Final Call without legitimate penological justification violates plaintiff’s free speech and free exercise of religion rights protected by the First Amendment. 28. As a proximate result of the conduct of defendants alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered injury including a loss of liberty. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act - Denial of The Final Call) 29. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 25. 30. The conduct of defendants as set forth herein substantially burdens plaintiff’s right to the free exercise of his religion. 31. The conduct of defendants in prohibiting plaintiff from receiving his paid subscription to The Final Call does not further a compelling state interest. 32. Even if there were a compelling state interest in prohibiting one or more issues of The
6

CCaassee77:0:099--ccvv--0000118800--pPmMsS DDocoucmumenetn5t 05-41 FFilieledd0097/0/227/1/100 PPaaggee77ooff1100
Final Call, the conduct of defendants in disapproving an entire issue of The Final Call when only a part thereof may be objectionable is not the least restrictive means of furthering its interest. 33. The conduct of defendants as set forth herein violates plaintiff’s rights protected by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq. 34. As a proximate result of the conduct of defendants alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered injury including a loss of rights protected by RLUIPA.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (First Amendment, Due Process - Lack of Adequate Notice) 35. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 25. 36. The failure to provide adequate notice to plaintiff and other prisoners of the reasons why a publication is disapproved deprives them of their right to be heard in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 37. As a proximate result of the conduct of defendants alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered injury including a loss of liberty.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (First Amendment - Free Exercise of Religion) 38. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 25. 39. The failure to provide plaintiff with programs and chaplaincy services devoted to the Nation of Islam, even though there are programs and chaplaincy services available to prisoners of the Christian faith discriminates against plaintiff’s religion and violates plaintiff’s right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the
7

CCaassee77:0:099--ccvv--0000118800--pPmMsS DDocoucmumenetn5t 05-41 FFilieledd0097/0/227/1/100 PPaaggee88ooff1100
United States Constitution. 40. As a proximate result of the conduct of defendants alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered
injury including a loss of liberty. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
((Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act - Free Exercise of Religion) 41. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 25. 42. The failure to provide plaintiff with programs and chaplaincy services devoted to the
Nation of Islam, even though there are programs and chaplaincy services available to prisoners of the Christian faith, substantially burdens plaintiff’s right to the free exercise of his religion. 43. The conduct of defendants in failing to provide plaintiff with programs and chaplaincy services devoted to members of the Nation of Islam does not further a compelling state interest. 44. Even if there were a compelling state interest in not providing certain programs or chaplaincy services for members of the Nation of Islam, the conduct of defendants is not the least restrictive means of furthering its interest. 45. The conduct of defendants as set forth herein violates plaintiff’s rights protected by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq. 46. As a proximate result of the conduct of defendants alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered injury including a loss of rights protected by RLUIPA.
8

CCaassee77:0:099--ccvv--0000118800--pPmMsS DDocoucmumenetn5t 05-41 FFilieledd0097/0/227/1/100 PPaaggee99ooff1100
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests judgment as follows: a. A declaratory judgment that prohibiting plaintiff from receiving the issues of The Final
Call set forth herein violates plaintiff’s rights protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; b. A declaratory judgment that prohibiting plaintiff from receiving the issues of The Final Call set forth herein violates plaintiff’s rights protected by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act; c. A declaratory judgment that the failure to provide notice to plaintiff of the reasons why each issue of The Final Call was disapproved deprived plaintiff of his right to due process; d. A declaratory judgment that the failure to provide plaintiff with programs and chaplaincy services devoted to the Nation of Islam, even though there are programs and chaplaincy services available to prisoners of the Christian faith discriminates against plaintiff’s religion and violates plaintiff’s right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. e. A declaratory judgment that the failure to provide plaintiff with programs and chaplaincy services devoted to the Nation of Islam, even though there are programs and chaplaincy services available to prisoners of the Christian faith discriminates against plaintiff’s religion and violates plaintiff’s right to free exercise of religion protected by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act; f. An injunction requiring defendants to provide plaintiff with copies of wrongfully withheld issues of The Final Call and to allow plaintiff to exceed the number of
9

CCaassee77:0:099--ccvv--0000118800--pPmMsS DDocoucmumenetn5t 05-41 FFilieledd0097/0/227/1/100 PPaaggee1100ooff1100

periodicals he is allowed to possess by the number of wrongfully withheld issues for a period of six months; g. An injunction requiring defendants to provide notice to plaintiff of the reasons why a publication is withheld from him, including how any objectionable material violates any of the criteria of OP 803.2(V)(L) or any successor regulation; h. An injunction requiring defendants to provide plaintiff with programs and chaplaincy services devoted to the Nation of Islam; i. Compensatory damages; j. Reasonable costs and attorney’s fees; k. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.

s/Jeffrey E. Fogel Jeffrey E. Fogel, VSB #75643 Attorney at Law 913 E. Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-984-0300 (Tel.) 434-220-4852 (Fax) Email: jeff.fogel@gmail.com Attorney for the Plaintiff

Respectfully submitted, Kelvin E. Brown By Counsel

10

 
 U.S. District Court Western District of Virginia (Roanoke) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:09−cv−00180−PMS

CLOSED, PRIS

Brown v. Ray et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/15/2009 Date Terminated: 11/23/2010 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Kelvin E. Brown

represented by Kelvin E. Brown 1106672 Wallens Ridge State Prison PO Box 759 Big Stone Gap, VA 24219 PRO SE

Jeffrey Edward Fogel JEFFREY E. FOGEL LAW OFFICE 913 E. JEFFERSON STREET CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 434−984−0300 Fax: 220−4852 Email: jeff.fogel@gmail.com TERMINATED: 04/29/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Tracy S. Ray Warden
Defendant L. Fleming Major
Defendant T. Pease Mailroom Supervisor
Defendant John M. Jabe

represented by Richard Carson Vorhis OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 900 EAST MAIN STREET RICHMOND, VA 23219 804−786−4805 Fax: 804−786−4239 Email: rvorhis@oag.state.va.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Carson Vorhis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Carson Vorhis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Carson Vorhis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Benjamin Wright
Defendant Larry Collins
Defendant Barbara Gentry
Defendant Linda Leatherwood
Defendant Rita Bibbins
Defendant Lois Fegan

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Carson Vorhis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Carson Vorhis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Carson Vorhis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Carson Vorhis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Carson Vorhis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard Carson Vorhis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 05/15/2009
05/15/2009 05/18/2009

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT pursuant to 42 USC 1983 against all defendants, filed by Kelvin E. Brown. (Attachments: # 1 Claims 1−6, # 2 envelope)(kab)
2 Inmate Account Report by Kelvin E. Brown. (kab)
3 Statement of Assets by Kelvin E. Brown. (kab)
4 Verified Statements with attachments by Plaintiff Kelvin E. Brown. (Attachments: # 1 2/23/2009 Grievance forms, # 2 3/19/09 grievance forms, # 3 Grienvance forms, log# 620−29039, # 4 Grievance forms 1/29/2009, # 5 Grievance forms dated 2/17/2009, # 6 Grievance forms stamped 1/26/2009, # 7 Grievance forms dated 3/23/09)(kab)
5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Kelvin E. Brown.Motions referred to Michael F. Urbanski. (kab)
6 Order entered conditionally filing this action; Advising inmate as to 3 strikes rule of PLRA; Assessing a filing fee of $ 350.00 but granting IFP to the extent that he will not have to prepay the filing fee in full; Deferring all action in this case; Advising inmate to comply within the allotted time and to notify of changes in address or risk dismissal re 1 Complaint filed by Kelvin E. Brown. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 05/18/2009. (kab)

05/27/2009 05/28/2009 06/29/2009
06/30/2009 06/30/2009 07/27/2009 07/27/2009
08/31/2009 09/03/2009 09/14/2009
09/15/2009 09/17/2009 09/17/2009 09/17/2009
09/18/2009 09/18/2009 09/24/2009
09/28/2009

7 Consent to Fee by Plaintiff Kelvin E. Brown. (kab)
8 Response re 6 Order Prisoner Condfil,. filed by Kelvin E. Brown. (Attachments: # 1 Attachments to response)(tvt)
9 Order entered Directing the Clerk to attempt service of process in the usual manner upon the named defendants re 1 Complaint filed by Kelvin E. Brown, 8 Response filed by Kelvin E. Brown. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 06/29/2009. (kab) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
Notice of Conditional Filing to AG−PLU as to Kelvin E. Brown (kab)
10 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to all defendants in C/O AG−PLU on 6/30/2009. Waiver of Service due by 8/29/2009.(kab)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard Carson Vorhis on behalf of Tracy S. Ray, L. Fleming, T. Pease (Vorhis, Richard)
12 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Tracy S. Ray, L. Fleming, T. Pease. Tracy S. Ray waiver sent on 6/30/2009, answer due 8/31/2009; L. Fleming waiver sent on 6/30/2009, answer due 8/31/2009; T. Pease waiver sent on 6/30/2009, answer due 8/31/2009.(Vorhis, Richard)
13 ANSWER to Complaint by Tracy S. Ray, L. Fleming, T. Pease.(Vorhis, Richard)
14 Order to Respond: Defendants are hereby directed to file any dispositive motions within fifteen (15) days. Responses due by 9/19/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 09/02/2009. (kab)
15 Response re 13 Answer to Complaint. filed by Kelvin E. Brown. (Attachments: # 1 "Documents of Exhausting Administrative Remedies", # 2 "All Forms of Disapproved Publications", # 3 "Ledger", # 4 "Documents to show I've done all I could do to result this matter"−− Part 1, # 5 "Documents to show I've done all I could to result this matter" − Part 2, # 6 "This is an issue of the publication that is being denied" and envelope)(kab)
Filing Fee Received: $ 5.00, receipt number 700023992 (kab)
16 MOTION to Continue by Tracy S. Ray, L. Fleming, T. Pease.Motions referred to Michael F. Urbanski. (Vorhis, Richard)
17 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Tracy S. Ray, L. Fleming, T. Pease. (Vorhis, Richard)
18 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment. filed by Tracy S. Ray, L. Fleming, T. Pease. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit F. Taylor − Part 1 of 8, # 2 Affidavit F. Taylor − Part 2 of 8, # 3 Affidavit F. Taylor − Part 3 of 8, # 4 Affidavit F. Taylor − Part 4 of 8, # 5 Affidavit F. Taylor − Part 5 of 8, # 6 Affidavit F. Taylor − Part 6 of 8, # 7 Affidavit F. Taylor − Part 7 of 8, # 8 Affidavit F. Taylor − Part 8 of 8, # 9 Affidavit Tracy S. Ray − Part 1 of 7, # 10 Affidavit Tracy S. Ray − Part 2 of 7, # 11 Affidavit Tracy S. Ray − Part 3 of 7, # 12 Affidavit Tracy S. Ray − Part 4 of 7, # 13 Affidavit Tracy S. Ray − Part 5 of 7, # 14 Affidavit Tracy S. Ray − Part 6 of 7, # 15 Affidavit Tracy S. Ray − Part 7 of 7)(Vorhis, Richard)
19 Roseboro Notice (kab)
20 ORDER granting 16 Motion to Continue. Responses due 10/05/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 09/18/2009. (kab)
21 Response re 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 18 Brief / Memorandum in Support filed by Kelvin E. Brown. (Attachments: # 1 Grievance forms, # 2 Enclosure A− VDOC OP "Incoming Publications", # 3 Enclosure B− "Inmate Grievance", # 4 envelope)(kab)
22 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Kelvin E. Brown, Tracy S. Ray, L. Fleming, T. Pease. Case reassigned to Magistrate Magistrate Judge Michael F. Urbanski. (kab)

09/28/2009
10/05/2009 10/05/2009 10/05/2009
10/06/2009 10/07/2009 10/08/2009 10/16/2009 10/16/2009
10/26/2009 12/07/2009 12/21/2009 02/01/2010 02/26/2010 02/26/2010
05/10/2010 05/12/2010 05/18/2010 05/19/2010 05/20/2010 05/26/2010 05/26/2010 07/09/2010 07/09/2010 07/12/2010

23 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE. Case transferred to Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Michael F. Urbanski no longer assigned to case. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 09/28/2009. (kab)
24 MOTION to Seal by Tracy S. Ray, L. Fleming, T. Pease. (Vorhis, Richard)
25 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Tracy S. Ray, L. Fleming, T. Pease. (Vorhis, Richard)
26 Brief / Memorandum in Support re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment. filed by Tracy S. Ray, L. Fleming, T. Pease. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Benjamin A. Wright)(Vorhis, Richard)
27 Roseboro Notice (tvt)
28 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Kelvin E. Brown. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support, # 2 envelope)(kab)
29 ORDER denying 28 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 10/8/09. (ejs)
30 RESPONSE in Opposition re 24 MOTION to Seal. filed by Kelvin E. Brown. (kab)
31 RESPONSE in Opposition re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment. filed by Kelvin E. Brown. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Letters, # 3 copies of 2 front pages of "The Final Call"−− actual newspapers found in clerk's office, # 4 cover sheets and envelope)(kab)
32 Prisoner Motion: "Motion for Rehearing En Banc" by Kelvin E. Brown. (kab)
33 Letter regarding payment of his filing fee by Kelvin E. Brown. (kab)
34 ORDER denying 32 Prisoner Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 12/21/09. (ejs)
35 Letter regarding monies deducted from inmate account by Kelvin E. Brown. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits, # 2 envelope)(kab)
36 OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 2/26/10. (Bordwine, Robin)
37 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 defendants' motion for summary judgment; granting in part and denying in part 17 defendants' motion for summary judgment; and granting the 24 the defendant's motion to file document under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 2/26/10. (Bordwine, Robin)
38 Letter regarding status of case by Kelvin E. Brown. (kab)
39 Sealed Documents. (See Motion at 24 and order granting motion at 37 ). (eps)
40 Request for Copies by Kelvin E. Brown. (kab)
41 NOTICE of Hearing: Bench Trial set for July 15 and 16, 2010, at 9:00 AM in Big Stone Gap before Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent. (eps)
42 Response re 40 Request for Copies.. (kab)
43 Letter in response to response from Pro Se Law Clerk regarding copies of filings by Kelvin E. Brown. (kab)
44 Response re 43 Letter. Clerk sent copies of some requested documents to Mr. Brown on this date.. (kab)
45 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey Edward Fogel on behalf of Kelvin E. Brown (Fogel, Jeffrey)
46 First MOTION to Continue Trial Date by Kelvin E. Brown. (Fogel, Jeffrey)
47 ORAL ORDER granting 46 Motion to Continue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 7/12/10. (eps)

07/12/2010 07/23/2010 07/27/2010 07/28/2010
08/11/2010 09/02/2010 09/02/2010
09/10/2010
11/12/2010 11/18/2010 11/19/2010 11/19/2010 11/23/2010 11/24/2010 01/11/2011 01/21/2011 03/04/2011 03/04/2011 04/29/2011 04/29/2011

48 Notice of Cancellation of Court Trial scheduled for July 15 and 16, 2010 (eps)
49 NOTICE of Hearing: Bench Trial reset for November 16 and 17, 2010, at 9:00 AM in Big Stone Gap before Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent. (eps)
50 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint by Kelvin E. Brown. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amended Complaint)(Fogel, Jeffrey)
51 Order to Respond re 50 First MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint − Responses due by 8/11/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 7/28/10. (eps)
52 Response re 51 Order to Respond. filed by Tracy S. Ray, L. Fleming, T. Pease. (Vorhis, Richard)
53 ORDER granting 50 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 9/2/10. (ejs)
54 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Rita Bibbins, Larry Collins, Lois Fegan, L. Fleming, Barbara Gentry, John M. Jabe, Linda Leatherwood, T. Pease, Tracy S. Ray, Benjamin Wright, filed by Kelvin E. Brown.(ejs)
55 AMENDED ANSWER to 54 Amended Complaint by Rita Bibbins, Larry Collins, Lois Fegan, L. Fleming, Barbara Gentry, John M. Jabe, Linda Leatherwood, T. Pease, Tracy S. Ray, Benjamin Wright. (Vorhis, Richard)
56 Notice of Cancellation of Court Trial set for November 16 &17, 2010 in Big Stone Gap (ejs)
57 Letter for information regarding the settlement in this case by Kelvin E. Brown. (kab)
58 STIPULATION of Dismissal /Consent Order by Kelvin E. Brown. (Fogel, Jeffrey)
59 Letter from Judge Sargent to plaintiff regarding status of case. (Bordwine, Robin)
60 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on November 22, 2010. (tvt)
61 Letter Request for Settlement Information by Kelvin E. Brown. (lmh)
62 Letter reagarding balance of remaining court costs. by Kelvin E. Brown. (kab)
63 Letter from Financial re 62 regarding the balance of fees owed. (erf)
64 Letter regarding financial issues by Kelvin E. Brown. (kab)
65 Letter by Financial to Kelvin E. Brown in response to his letter 64 regarding copies of receipts. (erf)
66 NOTICE of Change of Address and Request for current balance by Kelvin E. Brown (kab)
67 Letter from Financial in response to 66 regarding the balance of filing fees by Kelvin E. Brown. (erf)