CLOSED,ISSUE_JOINED,JRG1,JURY_TRIAL
Live Database U.S. District Court − Eastern District of Tennessee (Greeneville)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:13−cv−00266−JRG−MCLC

Prison Legal News v. Anderson et al Assigned to: District Judge J Ronnie Greer Referred to: Magistrate Judge Clifton L Corker Cause: 28:1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Prison Legal News

Date Filed: 10/10/2013 Date Terminated: 07/21/2016 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Harry Elliott Ozment Ozment Law 1214 Murfreesboro Pike Nashville, TN 37217 615−321−8888 Fax: 615−321−5230 Email: elliott@ozmentlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance Weber Human Rights Defense Center Post Office Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 603−903−3410 Fax: 866−735−7136 Email: lance@lanceweber.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tricia Herzfeld Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 615−254−8801 Fax: 615−250−3937 Email: triciah@bsjfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Patrick York , II Ozment Law 1214 Murfreesboro Pike Nashville, TN 37217 615−321−8888 Fax: 615−321−5230 Email: will@ozmentlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Wayne Anderson In his official capacity
Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC

represented by Daniel P Street Sullivan County Attorney 3411 Highway 126 Suite 209 Blountville, TN 37617
Doc <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 1 of 5

Defendant Sullivan County Sheriff's Office
Defendant Wayne Anderson In his individual capacity
Defendant Sullivan County, Tennessee

423−323−6481 Fax: 423−279−2728 Email: scattorney@scattorney.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel P Street (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel P Street (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel P Street (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

10/10/2013

1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0649−2368777.), filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Other Corporate Disclosure)(Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 10/10/2013)

10/11/2013

District Judge J Ronnie Greer and Magistrate Judge Dennis H Inman added. (LMC) (Entered: 10/11/2013)

10/11/2013

No summons received with initiating documents. Therefore, summons not issued as to All Defendants. (LMC) (Entered: 10/11/2013)

10/29/2013

2 SUPPLEMENT to 1 Complaint by Prison Legal News. (Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 10/29/2013)

10/29/2013

3 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Sullivan County, TN) (LMC) (Entered: 10/29/2013)

10/30/2013

4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Prison Legal News. (Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 10/30/2013)

10/30/2013

5 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Policy, # 2 Exhibit B−Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C−Exemplar of Returned Mail, # 4 Exhibit D−Exemplar of Returned Mail, # 5 Exhibit E−Exemplar of Returned Mail, # 6 Exhibit F−Exemplar of Returned Mail, # 7 Exhibit G− Exemplar of Returned Mail, # 8 Exhibit H−Exemplar of Returned Mail, # 9 Exhibit I−Standard Operating Procedure, # 10 Exhibit J−Open Records Request, # 11 Exhibit K−MLK Letter, # 12 Exhibit L− Paul Letter)(Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 10/30/2013)

10/31/2013

6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Prison Legal News. All Plaintiffs. (Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 10/31/2013)

11/06/2013

7 ORDER re 4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed on October 30, 2013 by Prison Legal News. The defendants shall file a Response to said motion by November 22, 2013. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 11/6/2013. (LMC) (Entered: 11/06/2013)

11/21/2013

8 MOTION to Continue by Wayne Anderson(In his individual capacity), Wayne Anderson(In his official capacity), Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Sullivan County, Tennessee. (Street, Daniel) (Entered: 11/21/2013)

Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Doc <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 2 of 5

11/21/2013

9 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Wayne Anderson(In his individual capacity), Wayne Anderson(In his official capacity), Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Sullivan County, Tennessee.(RLC, ) (Entered: 11/21/2013)

11/22/2013

10 ORDER granting 8 Motion to Continue. The defendants shall file their response by December 9, 2013. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 11/22/2013. (LMC) (Entered: 11/22/2013)

11/25/2013 11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Lance Theodore Weber (Filing fee $ 90; Receipt #G2006941) by Prison Legal News. (LMC) (Entered: 11/25/2013)

11/26/2013

12 ORDER granting 11 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. You MUST register as a CM/ECF user here: http://www.tned.uscourts.gov/RegistrationForm.php. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis H Inman on 11/26/2013. (LMC) (Entered: 11/26/2013)

12/09/2013

13 RESPONSE in Opposition re 4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Wayne Anderson(In his individual capacity), Wayne Anderson(In his official capacity), Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Sullivan County, Tennessee. (Street, Daniel) (Entered: 12/09/2013)

12/09/2013

14 AFFIDAVIT re 13 Response in Opposition to Motion, by Wayne Anderson(In his individual capacity), Wayne Anderson(In his official capacity), Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Sullivan County, Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Street, Daniel) (Entered: 12/09/2013)

12/09/2013

15 AFFIDAVIT re 13 Response in Opposition to Motion, by Wayne Anderson(In his individual capacity), Wayne Anderson(In his official capacity), Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Sullivan County, Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Street, Daniel) (Entered: 12/09/2013)

12/09/2013

16 AFFIDAVIT re 13 Response in Opposition to Motion, by Wayne Anderson(In his individual capacity), Wayne Anderson(In his official capacity), Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Sullivan County, Tennessee. (Street, Daniel) (Entered: 12/09/2013)

12/10/2013 17 NOTICE of DEFICIENCY: re 16 Affidavit, 15 Affidavit, 14 Affidavit. No Certificate of Service attached to Documents 14−16. (LMC) (Entered: 12/10/2013)

12/10/2013

18 NOTICE by Wayne Anderson(In his individual capacity), Wayne Anderson(In his official capacity), Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Sullivan County, Tennessee re 16 Affidavit, 15 Affidavit, 14 Affidavit, Certificate of Service (Street, Daniel) (Entered: 12/10/2013)

12/16/2013

19 REPLY to Response to Motion re 4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − New Policy, # 2 Exhibit B − TCI Minimum Standards, # 3 Other Abraitis v. United States, # 4 Other Barnes v. Hofbauer, # 5 Other Beedle v. Demasi, # 6 Other Daniels v. Harris, # 7 Other EP Acquisition Corp. v. MaxxTrade Inc., # 8 Other Gray v. Cannon, # 9 Other Lane v. Lombardi, # 10 Other Martinez v. Maketa, # 11 Other McVey v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., # 12 Other Prison Legal News v. Fulton County, Ga., # 13 Other Prison Legal News v. Columbia County)(Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 12/16/2013)

12/17/2013

20 Letter from United States District Court mailed to Elliott Ozment, Esq. regarding attorney admissions. (Attachments: # 1 Other ECF order) (RLC, ) (Entered: 12/17/2013)

06/12/2014

21 LOCAL RULE 7.1(d) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF to 4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Prison Legal News filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − PLN v. Cnty. of Ventura)(Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 06/12/2014)

06/18/2014

22 RESPONSE TO LOCAL RULE 7.1(d) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF to 21 Local Rule 7.1(d) Supplemental Brief by Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Sullivan County, Tennessee, Wayne Anderson(In his official capacity), Wayne Anderson(In his individual capacity) filed by Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Sullivan County, Tennessee, Wayne Anderson(In his official capacity), Wayne Anderson(In his individual capacity). (Street, Daniel) (Entered: 06/18/2014)

06/25/2014

23 LOCAL RULE 7.1(d) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF to 4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Reply to Defendants' Response) by Prison Legal News filed by Prison Legal News. (Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 06/25/2014)

Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Doc <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 3 of 5

03/26/2015

24 ORDER denying 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Based on the foregoing, the Court must resort to a practical solution. On the current record, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on this due process issue is DENIED, for the issue is not properly before the Court. However, PLN shall have 10 days from the entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to move to amend its Complaint and allege violations based on Policy II. PLN is then free to file another Motion for Preliminary Injunction on this issue. See order for details. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 3/26/2015. (RLC, ) (Entered: 03/26/2015)

03/26/2015 25 MOTION to Amend/Revise 1 Complaint by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − First Amended Complaint)(Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 03/26/2015)

03/26/2015 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Prison Legal News. (Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 03/26/2015)

03/26/2015

27 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Policy II, # 2 Exhibit B − Decl. of Paul Wright)(Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 03/26/2015)

03/27/2015

28 ORDER granting 25 Motion to Amend/Correct. The Motion [Doc. 25] for leave to file the amended complaint is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis H Inman on 3/27/2015. (AMP) (Entered: 03/27/2015)

03/27/2015 29 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants., filed by Prison Legal News.(Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 03/27/2015)

04/10/2015

30 ANSWER to 29 Amended Complaint by Wayne Anderson(In his individual capacity), Wayne Anderson(In his official capacity), Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Sullivan County, Tennessee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Street, Daniel) (Entered: 04/10/2015)

04/10/2015

31 RESPONSE in Opposition re 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Wayne Anderson(In his individual capacity), Wayne Anderson(In his official capacity), Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Sullivan County, Tennessee. (Street, Daniel) (Entered: 04/10/2015)

04/10/2015

32 AFFIDAVIT re 31 Response in Opposition to Motion, by Wayne Anderson(In his individual capacity), Wayne Anderson(In his official capacity), Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Sullivan County, Tennessee. (Street, Daniel) (Entered: 04/10/2015)

04/10/2015

33 AFFIDAVIT re 31 Response in Opposition to Motion, by Wayne Anderson(In his individual capacity), Wayne Anderson(In his official capacity), Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Sullivan County, Tennessee. (Street, Daniel) (Entered: 04/10/2015)

04/16/2015 34 REPLY to Response to Motion re 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Prison Legal News. (Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 04/16/2015)

06/04/2015

35 LOCAL RULE 7.1(d) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF to 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Prison Legal News filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Prison Legal News v. County of San Diego, No. 3:14−cv−2417−L−NLS (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2015) (order on motion for preliminary injunction))(Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 06/04/2015)

06/05/2015

Magistrate Judge Clifton L Corker added. Magistrate Judge Dennis H Inman no longer assigned to case. SO−15−03 signed by Chief Judge Varlan. (RET) (Entered: 06/05/2015)

06/19/2015 36 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Renewed) by Prison Legal News. (Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 06/19/2015)

06/19/2015

37 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion re 36 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Renewed) filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Prison Legal News v. County of San Diego, No. 3:14−cv−2417−L−NLS (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2015) (order on motion for preliminary injunction) (slip op.), # 2 Exhibit B − Unpublished Opinions)(Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 06/19/2015)

06/24/2015

38 RESPONSE in Opposition re 36 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Renewed) filed by Wayne Anderson(In his individual capacity), Wayne Anderson(In his official capacity), Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Sullivan County, Tennessee. (Street,

Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Doc <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 4 of 5

07/08/2015
03/16/2016
03/16/2016 03/25/2016 03/29/2016
03/29/2016 07/19/2016 07/20/2016 07/20/2016 07/20/2016 07/20/2016 07/21/2016 08/11/2016

Daniel) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
39 RESPONSE in Opposition re 36 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Renewed) (RESPONSE in OPPOSITION to DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE 38 ) filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Other Unpublished Cases)(Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 07/08/2015)
40 ORDER granting 26 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and striking 36 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. For the reasons stated above, the motion to strike the renewed motion, [Doc. 36], is GRANTED. In addition, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Doc. 26], is GRANTED. That being said, it appears that Policy III satisfies the requirements, and it has already been enacted and is being followed. The parties shall file a Rule 26(f) report with this Court within 10 days from the entry of this Order, and then the matter will be set for trial. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 03/16/2016. (AMP) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 3/26/2016. (AMP) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
41 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Herzfeld, Tricia) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
42 SCHEDULING ORDER: Jury Trial set for 8/15/2017 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 420 − Greeneville before District Judge J Ronnie Greer. Expected length of trial is three (3) days. Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/19/2017 at 9:00 AM. Dispositive Motions due by 1/17/2017. Utilization of Mediation due by 9/20/2016. Exhibits and Witness Lists due by 6/13/2017. Status Report due by 7/19/2016. See Order for details. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 03/29/2016. (AMP) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
43 Order Governing Depositions. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 03/29/2016. (AMP) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
44 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Prison Legal News. (York, William) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
45 Administrative Notice to Counsel 44 Status Report : Please comply with ECF Rule 6. Requirements due by 7/25/2016. (AMP) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
46 NOTICE of Appearance by William Patrick York, II on behalf of Prison Legal News (York, William) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
47 STATUS REPORT (Amended) by Prison Legal News. (York, William) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
48 NOTICE of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment by Prison Legal News (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Offer of Judgment)(York, William) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
49 JUDGMENT re 48 Notice of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment in favor of Prison Legal News against Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Sullivan County, Tennessee, and Wayne Anderson, by Debra C. Poplin, Clerk of Court. (AMP) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
50 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT re 49 Judgment, entered In favor of Prison Legal News Against Wayne Anderson, In favor of Prison Legal News Against Sullivan County, Tennessee by Prison Legal News. (York, William) (Entered: 08/11/2016)

Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Doc <docnum> Filed <datefiled> Page 5 of 5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE GREENEVILLE DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SULLIVAN COUNTY, TENNESSEE, SULLIVAN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; and J. WAYNE ANDERSON, in his official and individual capacity,
Defendants.

) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ ) ) ) ) JURY DEMAND ) ) ) ) ) )

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND DAMAGES
NATURE OF THE CASE 1. Plaintiff, Prison Legal News, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center, brings this action to enjoin Defendants’ censorship of Prison Legal News’ monthly publication and correspondence mailed to prisoners who are held in custody at the Sullivan County Jail, in violation of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Defendants have adopted and implemented written mail policies and practices that violate the First Amendment by unconstitutionally restricting correspondence to prisoners to postcards only, and that prohibit delivery of book catalogs and magazines to prisoners. Further, Defendants’ policies and practices do not afford Prison Legal News due process, including notice and an opportunity to challenge the censorship, as required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Page 1 of 14 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 1 Filed 10/10/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331and 1343, and additionally under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and 2202. 3. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) because a substantial part of the events complained of occurred in this District, and because the Defendants reside in this District.
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Prison Legal News (“PLN”) is a project of the Human Rights Defense Center (“HRDC”), a Washington Non-Profit Corporation. The core of HRDC’s mission is public education, prisoner education, advocacy, and outreach in support of the rights of prisoners and in furtherance of basic human rights. PLN publishes and distributes a monthly journal of corrections news and analysis and certain books about the criminal justice system and legal issues affecting prisoners to prisoners, lawyers, courts, libraries, and the public throughout the Country. PLN also maintains a website (www.prisonlegalnews.org) and operates an email list. Prisoners of all types, family and friends of prisoners, and prisoner advocates are among the intended beneficiaries of PLN’s activities. 5. Defendant Sullivan County is a municipality formed under the laws of the State of Tennessee. The official jail prisoner mail policies at issue in this case were the moving force behind the constitutional violations alleged herein. The Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office is a department of Sullivan County and operates the Sullivan County Jail located in Blountville, Tennessee. The Sullivan County Jail facility houses convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees.
Page 2 of 14 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 1 Filed 10/10/13 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 2

6. Defendant J. Wayne Anderson is the Sheriff of Sullivan County. Sheriff Anderson is employed by and is an agent of Sullivan County and the Sheriff’s Office. He is responsible for the operations of the Sullivan County Jail, and the training and supervision of the Jail staff who interpret and implement the Jail’s mail policy for prisoners. He is the policymaker for the Jail policy governing mail for prisoners.
7. Each of the acts and omissions of the persons alleged herein were taken under color of state law and within the scope of their official duties as employees and officers of Sullivan County and the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS PRISON LEGAL NEWS
8. PLN publishes and distributes a soft-cover monthly journal and publishes and distributes paperback books about the criminal justice system and legal issues affecting prisoners.
9. Prison Legal News has approximately 7,000 subscribers in the United States and abroad, including prisoners, attorneys, journalists, public libraries, judges, and other members of the public. PLN distributes its publication to prisoners and law libraries in approximately 2,200 correctional facilities across the United States, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Tennessee Department of Corrections.
10. Prison Legal News engages in core protected speech and expressive conduct on matters of public concern, such as operations of prison facilities, prison conditions, prisoner health and safety, and prisoners’ rights.
Page 3 of 14 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 1 Filed 10/10/13 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 3

CENSORSHIP AND LACK OF DUE PROCESS 11. Defendants have rejected PLN’s monthly publications, books, book catalogs, book offers, informational brochures, subscription forms, subscription renewal letters, fundraising letters, and online articles mailed to prisoners held in custody at the Sullivan County Jail. The mail items rejected by Defendants include, but are not limited to, the items identified below.
Monthly Publications and Books 12. From on or about February 15, 2012 to the present, Prison Legal News sent its monthly journal to certain prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail by U.S. Mail on or about the 15th day of each month. PLN’s monthly journal is a 64-page publication titled Prison Legal News. It contains various articles on corrections news and analysis, about prisoner rights, court rulings, management of prison facilities and prison conditions 13. Similarly, since February 2012 to May 2013, PLN has mailed 46 copies of the book Protecting Your Health & Safety: A Litigation Guide for Inmates to 46 separate prisoners in custody at the Sullivan County Jail by U.S. Mail. 14. On information and belief, Defendants censoreded and refused to deliver the Prison Legal News journals and the books that PLN sent to prisoner-addressees, and continues to censor these monthly journals and books to this day. For example, on or about February 15, 2012, PLN personally addressed and mailed a copy of the book Protecting Your Health & Safety to prisoner Clovis Jones at the Sullivan County Jail. Mr. Jones was a prisoner at the Sullivan County Jail at the time that the Jail received the book from PLN. The Jail refused to deliver the book to Mr. Jones and returned the book to PLN.
Page 4 of 14 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 1 Filed 10/10/13 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 4

15. On or about February 15, 2012, PLN mailed a sample copy of the monthly journal Prison Legal News addressed individually to prisoner Christopher Hooker at the Sullivan County Jail. Mr. Hooker was a prisoner at the Sullivan County Jail at the time that the Jail received the copy of Prison Legal News in the mail from PLN. The Jail refused to deliver the journal to Mr. Hooker returned it to PLN.
16. On or about February 15, 2012, PLN mailed a sample copy of the journal Prison Legal News individually addressed to prisoner Constance Gilbert at the Sullivan County Jail. Gilbert was a prisoner at the Sullivan County Jail at the time that the Jail received the March Prison Legal News publication from PLN. The envelope was returned to PLN with the markings “Post cards only! Can not [sic] have.” The envelope arrived at PLN with those words struck through and replaced with writing that reads, “not here.”
17. On or about February 15, 2012, PLN mailed a sample copy of the journal Prison Legal News individually addressed to prisoner John Puckett at the Sullivan County Jail. Mr. Puckett was a prisoner at the Sullivan County Jail at the time that the Jail received the March Prison Legal News publication from PLN. On information and belief, Jail employees marked the envelope “Can not [sic] have [sic] post cards only!” The envelope returned to PLN had those words struck through and replaced with the words, “Not here!”
18. On or about March 15, 2012, PLN mailed the March 2012 issue of the journal Prison Legal News addressed individually to prisoner Jeffery Gragg at the Sullivan County Jail. Mr. Gragg was a prisoner at the Sullivan County Jail at the time that the Jail received the April Prison Legal News publication from PLN. The Jail returned the publication to PLN.
19. Including the items listed above, from on or about February 15, 2012 through on or about September 15, 2012, PLN mailed approximately 200 individually addressed copies of
Page 5 of 14 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 1 Filed 10/10/13 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 5

its monthly journal, Prison Legal News to 33 separate prisoners at the Sullivan County jail. Each one of the 33 prisoners had also been mailed a copy of the book Protecting Your Health & Safety from PLN’s offices.
20. On October 10, 2012, former Sullivan County inmate Joseph Samples notified Plaintiff that the Jail’s major had refused to deliver the vast majority of the books PLN sent to prisoners and that the major kept approximately thirty copies of Protecting Your Health and Safety and approximately ninety copies of Prison Legal News on his desk, undelivered to the inmate-addressees.
21. Each month from October 2012 to the present PLN has mailed approximately ten copies of its monthly journal Prison Legal News individually addressed to approximately ten separate prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail, each of whom was a prisoner of the Jail at the time the Jail received the Prison Legal News publication from PLN. On information and belief, none of these monthly journals were delivered to the intended recipients, but these journals were instead censored by jail staff persons.
22. Additionally, PLN mailed 12 copies of the book Protecting Your Health & Safety to 12 separate prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail from on or about October 18, 2012 to the present. On information and belief, none of these books were delivered by Jail staff persons to the prisoners who were the intended recipients of the same, but said mail was censored by jail staff.
23. PLN also mailed individually addressed letters from PLN Editor Paul Wright to 14 separate prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail on or about October 18, 2012. On information and belief, none of the letters were delivered to the prisoners who were the intended recipients of the same, but said mail was censored by jail staff.
Page 6 of 14 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 1 Filed 10/10/13 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 6

24. On or about October 22, 2012, PLN mailed its annual fundraiser letter to 14 separate prisoners at the Sullivan County jail. On information and belief, none of these 14 letters were delivered to their intended recipients who were prisoners at the jail but were instead censored by jail staff persons.
25. Defendants did not provide PLN notice or an opportunity to appeal any of the aforementioned censorship decisions.
26. Defendants did not provide the prisoner-addressees due process, including notice or an opportunity to appeal any of the aforementioned censorship decisions.
27. PLN intends to continue its mission to promote public safety through educational and journalistic avenues by sending its monthly journal, copies of books, and letters to prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail in the future.
Informational Brochures, Subscription Order Forms, Book Catalogs 28. Prison Legal News sent informational brochures about PLN and subscription order forms, book catalogs, and book offers to prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail in white standard #10 envelopes via first-class mail. 29. Prison Legal News Brochure and Subscription Order Form: Prison Legal News sent certain prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail an informational brochure about its organization and publications. The double-sided, single-page brochure includes: a description of the topics covered in PLN’s monthly journal, subscription rates, special subscription offers, and an order form; a description of three books available for purchase or included with a subscription to Prison Legal News – Protecting Your Health & Safety, With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, and Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration; and other information about PLN’s bookstore.
Page 7 of 14 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 1 Filed 10/10/13 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 7

30. Book Catalog: Prison Legal News sent certain prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail its PLN Book List. The double-sided single page book list includes a description of 43 books, dictionaries, and resources materials available for purchase. The books available for purchase include information about a variety of topics, including but not limited to: the basic rights of prisoners regarding health and safety; the American criminal justice system; selfrepresentation in court; finding the right lawyer; DNA testing; issues related to imprisoned women; developing a successful re-entry plan upon release from prison; searching for a job; crime and poverty; and the mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails.
31. Book Offers: Prison Legal News sent certain prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail a double-sided single-page informational brochure about two books for sale: The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, a handbook containing case citations, pleadings, and forms designed to help a prisoner seek habeas corpus relief; and Prisoners’ Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada, a handbook on high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses available through correspondence study.
32. Collectively, the PLN Brochure, Book List, and Book Offer described above in paragraphs 29 through 31 are referred to as “Informational Brochure Packs” below.
33. From on or about February 15, 2012 to May 15, 2013, Prison Legal News mailed 46 individually addressed Informational Brochure Packs to 46 separate prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail, each of whom was a prisoner in the Sullivan County Jail at the time the Jail received the Informational Brochure Packs.
34. On information and belief, Defendants rejected each Informational Brochure Pack sent by PLN and did not deliver them to the prisoner-addressees.
Page 8 of 14 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 1 Filed 10/10/13 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 8

35. For the Informational Brochure Packs that Defendants returned to Prison Legal News, Defendants simply wrote “RTS” or sometimes “not here.”
36. For example, PLN sent Ahmad Abdul-Khaaliq such a brochure pack in a standard, white envelope on December 19, 2012, but Jail employees marked “not here” and “RTS” and caused the brochures to be returned to PLN. Mr. Abdul-Khaaliq never received his mail from PLN even though he was a prisoner at the Sullivan County Jail at the time that the mail arrived at the jail.
37. On or about February 16, 2012, PLN mailed an Informational Brochure Packet addressed to prisoner Donald Wilcox at the Sullivan County Jail. Mr. Wilcox was a prisoner at the Sullivan County Jail at the time that the Jail received the packet from PLN. The Jail returned the mail to PLN without separate notification.
38. Inmate Nicholas Hillis requested PLN’s materials in January 2013. PLN sent Mr. Hillis an initial mailing including Protecting Your Health and Safety and other sample and informational materials in April 2013. Mr. Hillis’s copy of Protecting Your Health and Safety never reached him.
39. Inmate Ryan Davis requested materials from PLN on or about April 30, 2012. 40. PLN mailed an Informational Brochure Packet to Mr. Davis, along with a sample copy of Prison Legal News, in June 2012. Mr. Davis received some materials, but he has not received his monthly gift subscription to Prison Legal News. 41. Defendants did not provide PLN due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions for any of the censored mail described in this complaint. 42. Likewise, Defendants did not provide the prisoner-addressees notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions for any of the mail described in this complaint.
Page 9 of 14 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 1 Filed 10/10/13 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 9

43. The Defendants failed to provide due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, to PLN and the prisoner-addressees.
44. Prison Legal News intends to continue sending Informational Brochure Packs to prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail in the future.
JAIL POLICIES 45. On October 14, 2011 the Sullivan County Jail, on the orders of Defendant J. Wayne Anderson, promulgated and implemented a new policy governing mail to prisoners. A true copy of the policy is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. 46. The Jail’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy states, in pertinent part:
As a general rule, incoming mail shall be limited to the Following: 1. Standard postcard, of which the minimum size is 3.5 x 4.25, and maximum size 8.5 x 11. 2. Postcards must be white in color front and back. 47. The Postcard-Only Mail Policy also states, “If any items are received in the mail other than postcards, (ex. Stamps. envelopes) the mail will be returned to sender.” 48. Defendants have used their Postcard-Only Mail Policy to censor Plaintiff’s Prison Legal News journal, Informational Brochure Packs, Renewal Brochure Packs, Fundraising Packs, online articles, and other correspondence. 49. Defendants’ Postcard-Only Mail Policy and their practice of enforcing this policy unconstitutionally burdens Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, the First Amendment rights of other correspondents who send mail to prisoners confined at the Sullivan County Jail, the First Amendment rights of the intended recipients of outgoing mail from prisoners confined at the Sullivan County Jail, and the First Amendment rights of prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail. 50. Additionally, Defendants maintain a policy and practice of permitting other magazines into the Jail.
Page 10 of 14 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 1 Filed 10/10/13 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 10

51. Specifically, Defendants allow inmates access to O Magazine, Men’s Journal, Glamour, Outdoor Life, Field & Stream, Hot Rod, Us, and Star magazines. (Exhibit A at 8).
52. Defendant Anderson and other agents of Sullivan County are responsible for or personally participated in creating and implementing these unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs, and for training and supervising the mail staff members whose conduct also has injured and continue to injure Plaintiff and others, or ratified or adopted the policies or actions described herein.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(42 U.S.C. § 1983) 53. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs. 54. The acts described above constitute violations of Plaintiff’s rights, the rights of other correspondents who have attempted to or intend to correspond with prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail, and the rights of prisoners confined at the Sullivan County Jail, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 55. The acts described above have caused damages to Plaintiff, and will continue to cause damage. 56. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal and compensatory damages against all Defendants.
COUNT II VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(42 U.S.C. § 1983) 57. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.
Page 11 of 14 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 1 Filed 10/10/13 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 11

58. The acts described above constitute violations of Plaintiff’s rights, and rights of other correspondents who have attempted to or intend to correspond with prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail, and the rights of prisoners confined at the Sullivan County Jail, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
59. The acts described above have caused damages to Plaintiff, and will continue to cause damage.
60. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal and compensatory damages against all Defendants. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages solely against Defendant Anderson in his individual capacity.
COUNT III CONTENT-BASED DISCRIMINATION FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(42 U.S.C. § 1983) 61. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs. 62. The Jail permits inmates to have access to eight other periodical publications without interference. 63. The magazines accessible to inmates are on a range of entertainment, gossip, lifestyle, and sports topics. By permitting access to periodicals such as O Magazine, Field and Stream, and Outdoor Life, while banning access to core political speech such as PLN’s monthly magazine, Defendants engaged in unlawful discrimination based on content. 64. The actions described above have caused PLN damage, and will continue to cause damage. 65. PLN is entitled to punitive, compensatory, and nominal damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief, for Defendants’ continued content-based discrimination.
Page 12 of 14 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 1 Filed 10/10/13 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 12

INJUNCTION ALLEGATIONS 66. Defendants’ unconstitutional policy, practices, and customs are ongoing and continue to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and the rights of other correspondents and prisoners, and as such there is no adequate remedy at law. 67. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from: refusing to deliver or allow delivery of publications, books, informational brochures and subscription forms, book catalogs, book offers, renewal letters, fundraising letters, online articles, and other correspondence from Prison Legal News or other correspondents; censoring or rejecting mail on the ground that it is not in the form of a postcard; censoring or rejecting a catalog on the ground that it is a catalog or not a postcard; censoring or rejecting mail on the ground that it is a magazine; prohibiting Defendants from censoring mail without due process of law; and engaging in content-based discrimination.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests relief as follows: 1. Enter an order granting a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction preventing Defendants from continuing to violate the Constitution, and providing other equitable relief. 2. A declaration that Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate the Constitution.
Page 13 of 14 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 1 Filed 10/10/13 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 13

3. An award of nominal, punitive, compensatory, and presumed damages for each
violation of its First Amendment rights to free speech and expression in an amount to be proved
at trial.
4. An award of nominal, punitive, and compensatory damages for each violation of
its Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process in an amount to be proved at trial.
5. Costs, including reasonable attorney’s and expert fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988,
and under other applicable law.
6. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
7. The right to conform the pleadings to the proof and evidence presented at trial.
8. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
DATED this 10th day of October, 2013.
OZMENT LAW
By: __s/Tricia R. Herfzeld_______ Tricia Herzfeld (BPR No. 026014) Senior Counsel Elliott Ozment (BPR No. 004331) OZMENT LAW 1214 Murfreesboro Pike Nashville, TN 37217 (615) 321-8888 tricia@ozmentlaw.com
Lance Weber Human Rights Defense Center PO Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 (561) 360-2523 lweber@hrdc-law.org Pro Hac Vice application to be filed
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Page 14 of 14
Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 1 Filed 10/10/13 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 14

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE GREENEVILLE DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SULLIVAN COUNTY, TENNESSEE; SULLIVAN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; and J. WAYNE ANDERSON, in his official and individual capacities,
Defendants.

) ) ) Case No. 2:13-cv-266 ) ) Judge J. Ronnie Greer ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JURY DEMAND

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND DAMAGES
NATURE OF THE CASE 1. Plaintiff Prison Legal News, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center, hereby amends its Complaint in compliance with the Court’s order denying preliminary injunctive relief, (Doc. 24). 2. Plaintiff brings this action to enjoin Defendants’ censorship of Prison Legal News’ monthly publication and correspondence mailed to prisoners who are held in custody at the Sullivan County Jail, in violation of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Defendants have adopted and implemented written mail policies and practices that violate the First Amendment by unconstitutionally restricting correspondence to prisoners to postcards only, and that prohibit delivery of book catalogs and magazines to
Page 1 of 17 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 350

prisoners. Further, Defendants’ policies and practices do not afford Prison Legal News due process, including notice and an opportunity to challenge the censorship, as required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331and 1343, and additionally under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and 2202. 4. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) because a substantial part of the events complained of occurred in this District, and because the Defendants reside in this District.
PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Prison Legal News (“PLN”) is a project of the Human Rights Defense Center (“HRDC”), a Washington Non-Profit Corporation. The core of HRDC’s mission is public education, prisoner education, advocacy, and outreach in support of the rights of prisoners and in furtherance of basic human rights. PLN publishes and distributes a monthly journal of corrections news and analysis and certain books about the criminal justice system and legal issues affecting prisoners to prisoners, lawyers, courts, libraries, and the public throughout the Country. PLN also maintains a website (www.prisonlegalnews.org) and operates an email list. Prisoners of all types, family and friends of prisoners, and prisoner advocates are among the intended beneficiaries of PLN’s activities. 6. Defendant Sullivan County is a municipality formed under the laws of the State of Tennessee. The official jail prisoner mail policies at issue in this case were the moving force behind the constitutional violations alleged herein.
Page 2 of 17 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 351

7. The Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office is a department of Sullivan County and operates the Sullivan County Jail located in Blountville, Tennessee. The Sullivan County Jail facility houses convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees.
8. Defendant J. Wayne Anderson is the Sheriff of Sullivan County. Sheriff Anderson is employed by and is an agent of Sullivan County and the Sheriff’s Office. He is responsible for the operations of the Sullivan County Jail, and the training and supervision of the Jail staff who interpret and implement the Jail’s mail policy for prisoners. He is the policymaker for the Jail policy governing mail for prisoners.
9. Each of the acts and omissions of the persons alleged herein were taken under color of state law and within the scope of their official duties as employees and officers of Sullivan County and the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS PRISON LEGAL NEWS
10. PLN publishes and distributes a soft-cover monthly journal and publishes and distributes paperback books about the criminal justice system and legal issues affecting prisoners.
11. Prison Legal News has thousands of subscribers in the United States and abroad, including prisoners, attorneys, journalists, public libraries, judges, and other members of the public. PLN distributes its publication to prisoners and law libraries in approximately 2,200 correctional facilities across the United States, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Tennessee Department of Corrections.
Page 3 of 17 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 352

12. Prison Legal News engages in core protected speech and expressive conduct on matters of public concern, such as operations of prison facilities, prison conditions, prisoner health and safety, and prisoners’ rights.
CENSORSHIP AND LACK OF DUE PROCESS 13. Defendants have rejected PLN’s monthly publications, books, book catalogs, book offers, informational brochures, subscription forms, subscription renewal letters, fundraising letters, and online articles mailed to prisoners held in custody at the Sullivan County Jail. The mail items rejected by Defendants include, but are not limited to, the items identified below.
Monthly Publications and Books 14. Beginning on or about February 15, 2012, Prison Legal News sent its monthly journal to certain prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail by U.S. Mail on or about the 15th day of each month. 15. PLN’s monthly journal is a 64-page publication titled Prison Legal News. It contains various articles on corrections news and analysis, about prisoner rights, court rulings, management of prison facilities and prison conditions. 16. Similarly, from February 2012 to May 2013, PLN mailed 46 copies of the book Protecting Your Health & Safety: A Litigation Guide for Inmates to 46 separate prisoners in custody at the Sullivan County Jail by U.S. Mail. 17. On information and belief, Defendants have censored and refused to deliver the Prison Legal News journals and the books that PLN sent to prisoner-addressees. For example, on or about February 2012, PLN personally addressed and mailed a copy of the book Protecting Your Health & Safety to prisoner Clovis Jones at the Sullivan County Jail. Mr. Jones was a
Page 4 of 17 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 353

prisoner at the Sullivan County Jail at the time that the Jail received the book from PLN. The Jail refused to deliver the book to Mr. Jones and returned the book to PLN.
18. On or about February 15, 2012, PLN mailed a sample copy of the monthly journal Prison Legal News addressed individually to prisoner Christopher Hooker at the Sullivan County Jail. Mr. Hooker was a prisoner at the Sullivan County Jail at the time that the Jail received the copy of Prison Legal News in the mail from PLN. The Jail refused to deliver the journal to Mr. Hooker and returned it to PLN.
19. On or about February 15, 2012, PLN mailed a sample copy of the journal Prison Legal News individually addressed to prisoner Constance Gilbert at the Sullivan County Jail. Gilbert was a prisoner at the Sullivan County Jail at the time that the Jail received the sample Prison Legal News publication from PLN. The envelope was returned to PLN with the markings “Post cards only! Can not [sic] have.” The envelope arrived at PLN with those words struck through and replaced with writing that reads, “not here.”
20. On or about February 15, 2012, PLN mailed a sample copy of the journal Prison Legal News individually addressed to prisoner John Puckett at the Sullivan County Jail. Mr. Puckett was a prisoner at the Sullivan County Jail at the time that the Jail received the sample Prison Legal News magazine from PLN. On information and belief, Jail employees marked the envelope “Can not [sic] have [sic] post cards only!” The envelope returned to PLN had those words struck through and replaced with the words, “Not here!”
21. On or about March 15, 2012, PLN mailed the March 2012 Prison Legal News publication addressed to prisoner Jeffery Gragg at the Sullivan County Jail. Mr. Gragg was a prisoner at the Sullivan County Jail at the time that the Jail received the Prison Legal News publication from PLN. The Jail returned the publication to PLN.
Page 5 of 17 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 354

22. Including the items listed above, from on or about February 15, 2012 through on or about September 15, 2012, PLN mailed approximately 200 individually addressed copies of its monthly journal, Prison Legal News, to 33 separate prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail. Each one of the 33 prisoners had also been mailed a copy of the book Protecting Your Health & Safety from PLN’s offices.
23. On October 10, 2012, former Sullivan County inmate Joseph Samples notified Plaintiff that the Jail’s major had refused to deliver the vast majority of the books PLN sent to prisoners and that the major kept approximately thirty copies of Protecting Your Health & Safety and approximately ninety copies of Prison Legal News on his desk, undelivered to inmateaddressees.
24. Beginning in October 2012, PLN mailed approximately ten copies of its monthly journal Prison Legal News individually addressed to approximately ten separate prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail, each of whom was a prisoner of the Jail at the time the Jail received the Prison Legal News publication from PLN. On information and belief, none of these monthly journals were delivered to the intended recipients under the “postcards-only” mail policy (“Policy I”), but these journals were instead censored by jail staff persons.
25. Additionally, PLN mailed 12 copies of the book Protecting Your Health & Safety to 12 separate prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail from on or about October 18, 2012. On information and belief, none of these books were delivered by Jail staff persons to the prisoners who were the intended recipients of the same, but said mail was censored by jail staff under Policy I.
26. PLN also mailed individually addressed letters from PLN Editor Paul Wright to 14 separate prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail on or about October 18, 2012. On information
Page 6 of 17 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 355

and belief, none of the letters were delivered to the prisoners who were the intended recipients of the same, but said mail was censored by jail staff.
27. On or about October 22, 2012, PLN mailed its annual fundraiser letter to 14 separate prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail. On information and belief, none of these 14 letters were delivered to their intended recipients who were prisoners at the jail but were instead censored by jail staff persons.
28. Defendants did not provide PLN notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions.
29. Defendants did not provide the prisoner-addressees due process, including notice or an opportunity to appeal any of the aforementioned censorship decisions.
30. PLN intends to continue its mission to promote public safety through educational and journalistic avenues by sending its monthly journal, copies of books, and letters to prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail in the future.
Informational Brochures, Subscription Order Forms, Book Catalogs 31. Prison Legal News sent informational brochures about PLN and subscription order forms, book catalogs, and book offers to prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail in white standard #10 envelopes via first-class mail. 32. Prison Legal News Brochure and Subscription Order Form: Prison Legal News sent certain prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail an informational brochure about its organization and publications. The double-sided, single-page brochure includes: a description of the topics covered in PLN’s monthly journal, subscription rates, special subscription offers, and an order form; a description of three books available for purchase or included with a subscription to Prison Legal News – Protecting Your Health & Safety, With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of
Page 7 of 17 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 356

Imprisonment in America, and Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration; and other information about PLN’s bookstore.
33. Book Catalog: Prison Legal News sent certain prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail its PLN Book List. The double-sided single page book list includes a description of 43 books, dictionaries, and resources materials available for purchase. The books available for purchase include information about a variety of topics, including but not limited to: the basic rights of prisoners regarding health and safety; the American criminal justice system; selfrepresentation in court; finding the right lawyer; DNA testing; issues related to imprisoned women; developing a successful re-entry plan upon release from prison; searching for a job; crime and poverty; and the mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails.
34. Book Offers: Prison Legal News sent certain prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail a double-sided single-page informational brochure about two books for sale: The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, a handbook containing case citations, pleadings, and forms designed to help a prisoner seek habeas corpus relief; and Prisoners’ Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada, a handbook on high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses available through correspondence study.
35. Collectively, the PLN Brochure, Book List, and Book Offer described above in paragraphs 32 through 34 are referred to as “Informational Brochure Packs” below.
36. From on or about February 15, 2012 to May 15, 2013, Prison Legal News mailed 46 individually addressed Information Brochure Packs to 46 separate prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail, each of whom was a prisoner at the Sullivan County Jail at the time the Jail received the Informational Brochure Packs.
Page 8 of 17 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 357

37. On information and belief, Defendants rejected each Informational Brochure Pack sent by PLN and did not deliver them to the prisoner-addressees.
38. For the Informational Brochure Packs that Defendants returned to Prison Legal News, Defendants simply wrote “RTS” or sometimes “not here.”
39. For example, PLN sent Ahmad Abdul-Khaaliq such a Brochure Pack in a standard, white envelope on December 19, 2012, but Jail employees marked “not here” and “RTS” and caused the brochures to be returned to PLN. On information and belief, Mr. AbdulKhaaliq did not receive this mail from PLN even though he was a prisoner at the Sullivan County Jail at the time that the mail arrived at the jail.
40. On or about February 16, 2012, PLN mailed an Informational Brochure Packet addressed to prisoner Donald Wilcox at the Sullivan County Jail. Mr. Wilcox was a prisoner at the Sullivan County Jail at the time that the Jail received the packet from PLN. The Jail returned the mail to PLN without separate notification.
41. Inmate Nicholas Hillis requested PLN’s materials in January 2013. PLN sent Mr. Hillis an initial mailing including Protecting Your Health & Safety and other sample and informational materials in April 2013. On information and belief, Mr. Hillis’s copy of Protecting Your Health & Safety never reached him under Policy I.
42. Inmate Ryan Davis requested materials from PLN on or about April 30, 2012. 43. PLN mailed an Informational Brochure Pack to Mr. Davis, along with a sample copy of Prison Legal News, in June 2012. Mr. Davis received some materials, but he did not receive his monthly gift subscription to Prison Legal News while Policy I was in effect. 44. Defendants did not provide PLN due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions for any of the censored mail described in this Amended Complaint.
Page 9 of 17 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 358

45. Likewise, Defendants did not provide the prisoner-addressees notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions for any of the mail described herein.
46. The Defendants failed to provide due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, to PLN and the prisoner-addressees.
47. Prison Legal News intends to continue sending Informational Brochure Packs to prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail in the future.
JAIL POLICIES I. Policy I
48. On October 14, 2011 the Sullivan County Jail, on the orders of Defendant J. Wayne Anderson, promulgated and implemented a new policy governing mail to prisoners (“Policy I”).
49. The Jail’s Postcard-Only Mail Policy stated, in pertinent part: As a general rule, incoming mail shall be limited to the Following: 1. Standard postcard, of which the minimum size is 3.5 x 4.25, and maximum size 8.5 x 11. 2. Postcards must be white in color front and back.
50. The Postcard-Only Mail Policy also stated, “If any items are received in the mail other than postcards, (ex. Stamps. envelopes) the mail will be returned to sender.”
51. Defendants have used their Postcard-Only Mail Policy to censor Plaintiff’s Prison Legal News journal, Informational Brochure Packs, Renewal Brochure Packs, Fundraising Packs, online articles, and other correspondence.
52. Defendants’ Policy I and their practice of enforcing this policy unconstitutionally burdens Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, the First Amendment rights of other correspondents who send mail to prisoners confined at the Sullivan County Jail, the First Amendment rights of
Page 10 of 17 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 359

the intended recipients of outgoing mail from prisoners confined at the Sullivan County Jail, and the First Amendment rights of prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail.
53. Defendant Anderson and other agents of Sullivan County are responsible for or personally participated in creating and implementing these unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs, and for training and supervising the mail staff members whose conduct also has injured Plaintiff and others, or ratified or adopted the policies or actions described herein. II. Policy II
54. During the course of this litigation and days after the filing of the Complaint in this action was reported by the local press, (see, e.g., Matthew Lane, “Group files lawsuit against Sullivan County Sheriff’s office, Anderson,” TIMES NEWS (Oct. 29, 2013), available at: <http://www.timesnews.net/article/9069259/group-files-lawsuit-against-sullvan-county-sheriffsoffice-anderson>), and by the Tennessee Bar Association, (see Brittany Sims, “Group Files Lawsuit against Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office,” TENN. BAR ASS’N (Oct. 30, 2013), available at: < http://www.tba.org/news/group-files-lawsuit-against-sullivan-county-sheriff-s-office>), Defendants issued and promulgated a new policy for jail mail (“Policy II”).
55. Policy II went into effect on November 4, 2013. (See Docs. 15-3, 24 at 3).1 56. Policy II abandoned the postcards-only policy and returned to accepting regular mail. 57. Policy II, like Policy I, is silent as to magazines. (See Doc. 24 at 3). 58. Section IV of Policy II, regarding “Mail Rejection,” remained unchanged from Policy I.

1

While the effective date for Policy II is listed on the policy as November 4, 2013, Defendant Anderson did

not sign the policy until November 5, 2013. (See Doc. 15-3 at 3).

Page 11 of 17

Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 360

59. The “Mail Rejection” section of Policy II fails to provide any due process protections to senders.
60. The “Mail Collection and Delivery” section of Policy II fails to provide any due process protections to senders or recipients.
61. Defendants’ failure to provide for adequate due-process protections continues to cause Plaintiff irreparable harm and denial of their constitutional rights.
62. Defendants’ Policy II and their practice of enforcing this policy unconstitutionally burdens Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, the First Amendment rights of other correspondents who send mail to prisoners confined at the Sullivan County Jail, the First Amendment rights of the intended recipients of outgoing mail from prisoners confined at the Sullivan County Jail, and the First Amendment rights of prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail. III. Content-Based Discrimination
63. Additionally, Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of permitting other magazines into the Jail while censoring Plaintiffs’ materials.
64. Specifically, Defendants have allowed inmates access to O Magazine, Men’s Journal, Glamour, Outdoor Life, Field & Stream, Hot Rod, Us, and Star magazines.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(42 U.S.C. § 1983) 65. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs. 66. The acts described above constitute violations of Plaintiff’s rights, the rights of other correspondents who have attempted to or intend to correspond with prisoners at the
Page 12 of 17 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 361

Sullivan County Jail, and the rights of prisoners confined at the Sullivan County Jail, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
67. The acts described above have caused damages to Plaintiff, and will continue to cause damage.
68. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal and compensatory damages against all Defendants and additionally, punitive damages against Defendant Anderson in his individual capacity.
COUNT II VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(42 U.S.C. § 1983) 69. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs. 70. The acts described above constitute violations of Plaintiff’s rights, and rights of other correspondents who have attempted to or intend to correspond with prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail, and the rights of prisoners confined at the Sullivan County Jail, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 71. The due-process protections for both Policy I and Policy II are facially unconstitutional. 72. The acts described above have caused damages to Plaintiff, and will continue to cause damage. 73. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal and compensatory damages against all Defendants. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages solely against Defendant Anderson in his individual capacity.
Page 13 of 17 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 362

COUNT III CONTENT-BASED DISCRIMINATION FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(42 U.S.C. § 1983) 74. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs. 75. The Jail permits inmates to have access to eight other periodical publications without interference. 76. The magazines accessible to inmates are on a range of entertainment, gossip, lifestyle, and sports topics. By permitting access to periodicals such as O Magazine, Field and Stream, and Outdoor Life, while banning access to core political speech such as PLN’s monthly magazine, Defendants engaged in unlawful discrimination based on content. 77. The actions described above have caused PLN damage, and will continue to cause damage. 78. PLN is entitled to punitive, compensatory, presumed, and nominal damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief, for Defendants’ content-based discrimination, and additionally, punitive damages against Defendant Anderson in his personal capacity.
INJUNCTION ALLEGATIONS 79. Defendants’ unconstitutional policy, practices, and customs, pursuant to Policy II, are ongoing and continue to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and the rights of other correspondents and prisoners, and as such there is no adequate remedy at law. 80. Plaintiff is entitled to preliminary and then permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from failing to provide adequate due-process protections to Plaintiff, including notice and a reasonable opportunity to appeal rejection decisions to an independent decision-maker for both incoming and outgoing mail.
Page 14 of 17 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 363

REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests relief as follows: 1. Enter an order granting a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction preventing Defendants from continuing to violate the Constitution, and providing other equitable relief. 2. A declaration that Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate the Constitution. 3. An award of nominal, punitive, compensatory, and presumed damages for each violation of its First Amendment rights to free speech and expression in an amount to be proved at trial. 4. An award of nominal, punitive, and compensatory damages for each violation of its Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process in an amount to be proved at trial. 5. Costs, including reasonable attorney’s and expert fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and under other applicable law. 6. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. 7. The right to conform the pleadings to the proof and evidence presented at trial. 8. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Page 15 of 17 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 364

Dated: March 26, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Tricia Herzfeld Tricia Herzfeld (BPR No. 026014) Elliott Ozment (BPR No. 004331) OZMENT LAW 1214 Murfreesboro Pike Nashville, TN 37217 (615) 321-8888 tricia@ozmentlaw.com
Lance Weber (Florida No. 104550)2 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER PO Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 (561) 360-2523 lweber@hrdc-law.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2

Admitted pro hac vice.

Page 16 of 17

Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 365

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I caused the foregoing filing to be served upon the following attorneys of record for Defendants by operation of the Court’s ECF/CM system on March 26, 2015: Daniel P. Street, Sullivan County Attorney P.O. Box 509 Blountville, TN 37617
s/Tricia R. Herzfeld
Page 17 of 17 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 29 Filed 03/27/15 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 366

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the

)

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

SULLIVAN COUNTY, TENNESSEE

)

SULLIVAN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, and )

J. WAYNE ANDERSON, in his official and

)

Individual capacity,

)

)

Defendants.

)

NO.: 2:13-CV-266

ORDER

On October 10, 2013, the plaintiff, Prison Legal News (“PLN”), filed this section 1983

action and alleged violations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It seeks damages and

declaratory and injunctive relief. [Doc. 1]. PLN also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction,

[Doc. 4]. It seeks to enjoin the defendants from enforcing their October 14, 2011 postcards-only

mail policy and order them “to afford Plaintiff, prisoners, and correspondents due process notice

and an opportunity to challenge Defendants’ censorship decisions.” [Doc. 5, pg.2]. The

defendants have responded that the matter is moot. [Doc. 13]. Several other replies and

supplements have since been filed, [Docs. 19, 21, 22, and 23]. The matter is ripe for review. For

the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.

I. Background

The Human Rights Defense Center, a nonprofit organization, publishes Prison Legal

News (“PLN”), a monthly magazine that provides information about legal news, prisoner rights,

Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 24 Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 296

and other prison-related issues. PLN sends its subscribers these monthly issues. It also sends subscription renewal letters, informational brochures, book catalogs, and paperback books. PLN distributes these publications and correspondence inside prisons to carry out its mission “to promote public safety through educational and journalistic avenues.” [Doc. 1, ¶ 27].
Defendant Sullivan County, by and through the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff J. Wayne Anderson, (“defendants”) implemented a postcards-only mail policy (“Policy I”) for the Sullivan County Jail (the “jail”) on October 14, 2011. [Doc. 15-1]. Section IV. of Policy I addressed mail rejection. Policy I is silent as to what specific magazines may be delivered to or accessed by the inmates. However, the jail’s commissary permits inmates to access eight different pre-selected periodicals. [Doc. 5-9].
PLN alleges that under Policy I, the jail censored its mailings starting in February 2012. In so doing, the jail returned only some of them to PLS. The mailings contained notations such as “RTS” or “Not Here.” On some items that were returned, jail staff wrote “Post Cards Only! Can Not Have,” only to then mark it out and write “RTS” or “Not Here.” For some of these returned mailings, which noted “RTS” or “Not Here,” PLN had confirmed the inmate’s presence in the jail. The jail allegedly stock-piled some undelivered copies of PLN’s mail in the jail major’s office. [Doc. 5-2, ¶ 20].
As a result of this “censorship,” PLN filed suit on October 10, 2013. Specifically, PLN alleges the following: (1) “violations of Plaintiff’s rights, the rights of other correspondents who have attempted to or intend to correspond with prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail, and the rights of prisoners confined at the Sullivan County Jail, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, through 42 U.S.C. § 1983,” [Doc. 1, ¶ 54]; (2) “violations of Plaintiff’s rights, and rights of other correspondents who have attempted to or intend to correspond with
2 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 24 Filed 03/26/15 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 297

prisoners at the Sullivan County Jail, and the rights of prisoners confined at the Sullivan County Jail, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. § 1983,” [Doc. 1, ¶ 58]; and (3) violation of the First Amendment “by permitting access to periodicals such as O Magazine, Field and Stream, and Outdoor Life, while banning access to core political speech such as PLN’s monthly magazine, . . . engag[ing] in unlawful discrimination based on content,” [Doc. 1, ¶ 63].
On October 24 2013, the Tennessee Corrections Institute (“TCI”) inspected the jail and recommended the jail abandon the postcards-only policy and return to regular mail. [Doc. 15, pg. 3, ¶ 13]. According to Corrections Major Greg Simcox, who is the overseer of the jail, he began the process to eliminate Policy I for incoming inmate mail. [Doc. 15, pg. 3, ¶ 14]. This process began before the summons in this case was issued on October 29, 2013, [Doc. 3]. Jail staff distributed a memo to the inmates, informing them of the planned return to regular mail. [Doc. 15, pg. 3, ¶ 16; Doc. 15-2]. The new mail policy (“Policy II”) went into effect on November 4, 2013. [Doc. 17, pg. 3, ¶ 16; Doc. 15-3]. It abandoned the postcards-only policy and returned to regular mail. [Doc. 15-3]. Section IV. regarding “Mail Rejection” remained unchanged. Policy II also remained silent as to magazines.
Finally, Major Simcox stated in his sworn affidavit that regardless of which policy was in place, the jail never had a policy to intercept PLN’s mail and stop it from being delivered to the inmate to whom it was addressed. [Doc. 15, pg. 4, ¶ 20]. Major Simcox also stated that the jail has allowed, and continues to allow, delivery of all of PLN’s mailings to the inmate to whom it was addressed. [Doc. 15, pg. 4, ¶ 20].
As stated above, PLN has moved for a preliminary injunction. In the motion PLN “moves this honorable Court to enter a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from
3 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 24 Filed 03/26/15 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 298

enforcing their post-cards only mail censoring Plaintiff’s publications.” [Doc. 4, pg. 1]. PLN states in its Memorandum , “Because [Policy I], violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, PLN respectfully moves this Court for an order preliminarily enjoining Defendants as follows: (1) from enforcing its unconstitutional jail mail policies to reject or otherwise censor news journals, subscription materials, book offers, book catalogs, and other correspondence; and (2) ordering Defendants to afford Plaintiff, prisoners, and other correspondents due process notice and an opportunity to challenge Defendants’ censorship decisions.” [Doc. 5, pgs. 1-2]. It was somewhat difficult to discern PLN’s specific arguments because of inconsistencies between PLN’s Complaint [Doc. 1], the Motion, [Doc. 4], and the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Doc. 5]. To be sure, however, the motion seeks a preliminary injunction on the postcards-only portion of Policy I, and the Memorandum goes beyond that and seeks one regarding a due process issue. To complicate matters further, parts of the Memorandum and subsequent filings seem to seek a preliminary injunction to enjoin an unwritten policy regarding access to magazines because it violates the First Amendment, see [Doc. 1, pg. 10, ¶ 50]. However, PLN did not clearly seek an injunction as to this issue.
This Court concludes that the only issue properly before the Court is the postcards-only issue of Policy I. Nonetheless, the Court will briefly address the due process issue but declines to address the unwritten magazine policy. As such, the Court will specifically decide: (1) whether to enjoin the postcards-only portion of Policy I because it violates the First Amendment; and (2) whether to enjoin the jail to establish due process procedures regarding censorship because Policy I’s procedures violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court will discuss each in turn.
4 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 24 Filed 03/26/15 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 299

II. Postcards-Only Portion of Policy I Again, PLN seeks to enjoin the postcards-only portion of Policy I because it violates the
First Amendment. However, the defendants abandoned the postcards-only policy and returned to a regular-mail policy in Policy II. Therefore, the defendants argue that this issue is moot. Before reaching the merits of the preliminary injunction on this issue, this Court must decide if the matter is moot.
At the time a federal court decides a case, there must be a live case or controversy, Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363 (1987); otherwise, the mootness doctrine applies. Ky. Right to Life, Inc. v. Terry, 108 F.3d 637, 644 (6th Cir. 1997). “The mootness doctrine [is] a subset of the Article III justiciability requirements.” Id. “Claims become moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Brandywine, Inc. v. City of Richmond, Ky., 359 F.3d 830, 836 (6th Cir. 2004). “The test for mootness is whether the relief sought would, if granted, make a difference to the legal interests of the parties.” Bowman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 350 F.3d 537, 549-550 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting McPherson v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc., 119 F.3d 453, 458 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc)) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Moreover, a federal court “can neither declare unconstitutional nor enjoin the enforcement of a provision that is no longer in effect.” Brandywine, 359 F.3d at 836 (plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief mooted when city repealed allegedly unconstitutional provision of ordinance); Bench Billboard Co. v. City of Cincinnati, 675 F.3d 974 (6th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief mooted by amended code sections to ordinance).
PLN argues that the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness doctrine applies. Under this exception, a case may be mooted only “if subsequent events made it absolutely clear
5 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 24 Filed 03/26/15 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 300

that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur,” Friends of the Earth Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (quoting United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, Inc., 393 U.S. 199, 203 (1968)), and “interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979). The heavy burden of demonstrating mootness rests on the party claiming mootness. Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 189. However, “cessation of the allegedly illegal conduct by government officials has been treated with more solicitude by the courts than similar action by private parties.” Ammex, Inc. v. Cox, 351 F.3d 697, 705 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Mosley v. Hairston, 920 F.2d 409, 415 (6th Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Here, there was an unambiguous change in Policy I. See Prison Legal News v. Chapman, -- F.Supp.2d --, No. 3:12-CV-00125, 2014 WL 4247772, at *11 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 26, 2014) (citing Doe v. Wooten, 747 F.3d 1317, 1322 (11th Cir. 2014), which lists three factors a court considers in determining whether the government has carried its burden of mootness: (1) unambiguous change, (2) change result of substantial deliberation, and (3) consistent application of new policy or adherence to new conduct) (Chapman II). The postcards-only policy was clearly abandoned when Policy II was implemented. This change seemed to be as a result of substantial deliberation, for Major Simcox, the jail overseer, discussed the policy with the TCI after the TCI completed an inspection of the jail. See id. The policy was then changed after heeding TCI’s advice. Major Simcox began implementing this change in the postcards-only policy prior to this Court issuing the summons in this case. Thus, it does not appear that the change was made to merely avoid this Court’s jurisdiction. See id. (asserting the timing of the change is another consideration). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that the jail has
6 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 24 Filed 03/26/15 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 301

failed to consistently apply this new policy or to adhere to this new course of conduct. See id. Finally, Major Simcox stated in his sworn affidavit that the jail had no intention of returning to the postcards-only policy. See Ammex, 351 F.3d at 705 (discussing Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 775-76 (9th Cir. 1991), where sworn statement of INS official regarding a change was sufficient for government to carry the burden of mootness).
To be sure, the Court has considered PLN’s argument regarding changes made by legislative bodies versus executive actors. The argument is without merit. The cases cited by PLN for support do not clearly support PLN’s position, although they do discuss the voluntary cessation exception in terms of the legislative action. See [Doc. 23, pgs. 2-3]. Instead, this Court relies upon the per curiam opinion in Northern Ohio Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc., v. Metrohealth System, 280 Fed. App’x 464, 466-67 (6th Cir. 2008). In that opinion, the Sixth Circuit summarizes several cases dealing with the mootness issue after a voluntary change in policies or laws. Id. Ultimately, the court found claims moot even though the policy had been changed by the Board of Trustees of a public teaching hospital. Id. at 467. Thus, the court applied the exception even though the change did not come from a legislative body.
As noted above, the Court has considered the cases cited by PLN and finds these nonbinding authorities distinguishable. PLN relies upon Prison Legal News v. Columbia County, No. 3:12-CV-00071-SI, 2012 WL 1936108, at *6 (D. Oregon May 29, 2012). In that case, the court failed to find issues moot after the defendant changed the mail policy “because several areas of dispute remain unresolved [by the change and] . . . the postcard-only mail policy [which was being challenged] remains in effect.” Id. Likewise, the court in Prison Legal News v. Chapman, No. 3:12-CV-00125, 2013 WL 1296367, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 26, 2014)
7 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 24 Filed 03/26/15 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 302

(Chapman I), declined to find issues moot because “several areas of dispute remain[ed] unresolved” despite changes to the mail policy. Id. at *3. Finally, in Prison Legal News v. County of Ventura, No. CV 14-773-GHK (Ex)., 2014 WL 2519402, at *9 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2014), the court found that the voluntary cessation exception applied because defendants failed to satisfy their burden that the conduct would not start up again. The court stated that “[m]ere promises” were insufficient to meet the burden considering that defendant admitted that mail staff had failed to comply with policy directives that were in place in the past. Id. There was evidence that, even after the change in policy, the new policy was not being followed. Id. Finally, there was little assurance the mail situation had been rectified in light of defendants’ admission that staff had previously rejected mail for “random reasons.” Id.
Here, the exact policy that was in effect is the one that was changed; the postcards-only policy was changed to a regular-mail policy. Thus, that portion of Policy I is not left unresolved in Policy II. In addition, there are no allegations in this case that the mail staff was failing to adhere to the mail policy or mailings were being rejected for random reasons. The allegation in this case is that the postcards-only portion of Policy I, which mail staff was following, violates the First Amendment. There is no evidence in the record that the mail staff is failing to adhere to the regular-mail policy of Policy II. For these reasons, the instant case is distinguishable from cases cited by PLN.
For all of these reasons, the defendants have carried their burden in showing that the issues surrounding the postcards-only portion of Policy I are moot. See Ultimate Smoke, LLC v. City of Kingsport, Tenn., No. 2:12-CV-13, 2013 WL 6713513, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 19, 2013) (finding issue moot where Tennessee legislature had subsequently changed the law and nothing
8 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 24 Filed 03/26/15 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 303

in record to indicate the prior offending city ordinances would be reenacted). The request by PLN for a preliminary injunction regarding the postcards-only policy is denied as moot. III. Due Process Portion of Policy I
In PLN’s Memorandum, PLN seeks to enjoin the jail to establish due process procedures regarding censorship because Policy I’s procedures violate the Fourteenth Amendment. This issue was not raised in the actual Motion. However, the Court will address it briefly.
The sections of Policy I and Policy II which deal with due process notice requirements are identical. Those sections state in pertinent part:
. . . . B. A prisoner will be notified in writing if any mail is rejected. C. The inmate will have a chance to appeal this rejection; by filing a grievance with the commissary officer. D. If the inmate is no longer in our custody the officer will mark out our address, mark "not at this address" and stamp "return to sender" and place back in the mail. [Doc. 15-1, pg. 2 and Doc. 15-3, pg. 2]. It is unclear whether the defendants claim that the Fourteenth Amendment due process issue is moot. It is unclear because the defendants state, “In as much as Defendants have abandoned their post-card only policy, and in as much as Defendants’ post-card only policy is the only action for which Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, this issue is no longer live and this court cannot affect the matter at issue.” [Doc. 13, pgs. 5-6]. However, PLN moves for an injunction regarding the due process issue based on Policy I. Because Policy I is no longer in effect, this Court assumes that the defendants have raised the mootness issue. The defendants did not voluntarily cease the alleged due process wrongs when the jail implemented Policy II because these sections are identical. Therefore, the voluntary
9 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 24 Filed 03/26/15 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 304

cessation exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply. As such, the due process issue is potentially still a live controversy.
This creates an odd practical problem in terms of an injunction, however. PLN did not originally move to enjoin the jail based on Policy II, although it argues in its Reply that Policy II still violates the Fourteenth Amendment. [Doc. 19, pgs. 4-7]. Nevertheless, PLN has neither amended the Complaint to allege that Policy II violates the Fourteenth Amendment nor to seek injunctive or declaratory relief in this regard. Thus, how does the Court issue an injunction on a policy that technically is no longer in place but still is in place for all practical purposes? It could be that this Court should have found that Policy I in its entirety is not moot. However, based on this Court’s review of the case law, and based on the facts of this case, the postcardsonly policy issue is moot. Importantly, this Court cannot decide an issue that is no longer live.
Based on the foregoing, the Court must resort to a practical solution. On the current record, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on this due process issue is DENIED, for the issue is not properly before the Court. However, PLN shall have 10 days from the entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to move to amend its Complaint and allege violations based on Policy II. PLN is then free to file another Motion for Preliminary Injunction on this issue.
In the meantime, the Defendants may choose to implement a new policy which fully complies with the principles set forth in Martin v. Kelley, 803 F.2d 236 (6th Cir. 1986). Prison officials must provide minimal procedural safeguards for confiscation of inmate mail. Martin v. Kelley, 803 F.2d 236 (6th Cir. 1986) (citing Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417–19 (1974), overruled in part on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989)). Specifically, three things must be done. They include: “(1) notice be given to the inmate of the rejected letter; (2) a reasonable opportunity be given to the author of the letter to protest the rejection
10 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 24 Filed 03/26/15 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 305

decisions; and (3) complaints concerning the rejection be reviewed by someone other than the individual who originally rejected the letter.” Martin, 803 F.2d at 241-42.
Here, these minimal procedural safeguards do not appear to be satisfied by Policy II. As such, PLN is likely to succeed on the merits that the defendants have violated its Fourteenth Amendment rights. Regarding the remaining factors, they all weigh in favor of PLN. PLN would continue to suffer irreparable harm by the violation of its Fourteenth Amendment rights if no proper policy is implemented to provide the minimal procedural safeguards. In addition, drafting and implementing a new policy is not burdensome to the defendants. Finally, the public has an interest in the free flow of information and a system to appeal decisions of censorship is of vital importance.
IV. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the motion, [Doc. 4], is DENIED. ENTER:
s/J. RONNIE GREER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 24 Filed 03/26/15 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 306

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the

)

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

SULLIVAN COUNTY, TENNESSEE

)

SULLIVAN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, and )

J. WAYNE ANDERSON, in his official and

)

individual capacity,

)

)

Defendants.

)

No. 2:13-CV-266

ORDER

The plaintiff, Prison Legal News (“PLN”), filed this section 1983 action and alleged

violations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It seeks damages and declaratory and

injunctive relief. [Doc. 1]. PLN also filed its first Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Doc. 4],

and sought to enjoin the defendants from enforcing their October 14, 2011 postcards-only mail

policy and order them “to afford Plaintiff, prisoners, and correspondents due process notice and

an opportunity to challenge Defendants’ censorship decisions.” [Doc. 5 at 2]. The Court denied

this motion and held that the First Amendment issue regarding the postcards-only mail policy

was moot, [Doc. 24]. Because the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process issue was not properly

before the Court, the Court gave the plaintiff ten days to amend its Complaint. The Court further

stated that once filed, the plaintiff could move for a preliminary injunction on the Fourteenth

Amendment issue. The plaintiff filed such motion, [Doc. 26], and a renewed motion, [Doc. 36].

Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 40 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 536

For the reasons that follow, the motion, [Doc. 26], is GRANTED. The Court will elaborate on those reasons after addressing several preliminary issues. I. BACKGROUND
The facts of the case are set forth in this Court’s March 26, 2015 Order, [Doc. 24]. The additional facts are as follows. The Court decided in the prior Order (1) whether to enjoin the postcards-only portion of Policy I because it violates the First Amendment; and (2) whether to enjoin the jail to establish due process procedures regarding censorship because Policy I’s procedures violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court determined that the first issue was moot for the defendants changed Policy I to Policy II prior to receiving a summons in the case, effectively and unambiguously abandoning the postcards-only policy after substantial deliberation and sworn statements affirming there would be no return to the postcards-only policy. As to the second issue, the Court allowed the plaintiff ten days to amend its Complaint to properly bring the Fourteenth Amendment issue of Policy II before the Court.
On March 26, 2016, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, [Doc. 25], and the instant Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Doc. 26]. The next day, the Court granted the Motion to Amend, [Doc. 28], and the Amended Complaint was filed, [Doc. 29]. The defendants filed an Answer, [Doc. 30], and a Response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Doc. 31], on April 10, 2015. In the Answer and Response, the defendants gave notice that they had since changed Policy II and implemented Policy III on April 9, 2015. Policy III addressed the plaintiff’s remaining concerns. The plaintiff filed a Reply on April 16, 2015, [Doc. 34], and a supplemental brief on June 4, 2015, [Doc. 35]. Then, on June 19, 2015, the plaintiff filed a “Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction,” [Doc. 36]. The plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction as to Policy II essentially on the same grounds previously raised and does not claim
2 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 40 Filed 03/16/16 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 537

that Policy III violates its constitutional rights. The defendants responded and also moved to strike this motion on June 24, 2015, [Doc. 38]. II. Analysis
First, the plaintiff argues that the defendants’ response was filed too late. The defendants respond that the plaintiff’s motion was actually filed prematurely and, thus, their response was on time. It is true that the plaintiff filed the motion prior to the Court granting their request to file the Amended Complaint. It is also true that the defendants filed their response to the motion on the 15th day instead of the 14th. However, because of what is commonly referred to as the mailbox rule, the motion is not untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Second, the defendants have moved to strike the “Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction,” [Doc. 36], for it does not comport to the Local Rules and unfairly imposes on the time and resources of the defendants. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1. The plaintiff argues that it is proper because the defendants enacted Policy III, and the defendants have not satisfied their burden in moving to strike. The Court agrees with the defendants. The plaintiff already had the motion properly before the Court. To be sure, the renewed motion raises essentially the same arguments; some sections of the memorandum in support contain exact language that was filed previously. It never argues that Policy III violates its constitutional rights. Instead, it argues that Policy II is not moot because of the filing of Policy III. This issue was already before the Court. The Motion to Strike is GRANTED.
Third, the defendants argue that the plaintiff does not have standing to sue on behalf of prisoners. Similarly, the defendants argue that it is alleged that only two subscriber inmates failed to receive publications to which they subscribed. Thus, they argue that the Sixth Circuit
3 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 40 Filed 03/16/16 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 538

has not found a constitutional right of a publisher to mail unsolicited publications to prison inmates.
The Amended Complaint only names PLN as the plaintiff. It does, however, give examples of specific inmates and alleges that the specific inmate did not receive certain publications. Further, it alleges that the defendants did not provide the prisoners due process or an opportunity to appeal any alleged censorship decisions. In addition, the plaintiff alleges in the Amended Complaint that the facts described in the Amended Complaint constitute violations of the plaintiff’s rights, the rights of correspondents who have attempted or who intend to correspond with prisoners, and the rights of the prisoners under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Standing is a threshold issue that must be determined before the Court may consider any substantive issues. Planned Parenthood Assoc. v. Cincinnati, 822 F.2d 1390, 1394 (6th Cir.1987). Article III standing requires that (1) plaintiff suffered an “injury in fact, which is both concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent;” (2) there is a causal connection between the injury and complained of activity such that it is fairly traceable to the defendant’s actions; and (3) it is likely, not speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). The party seeking to be heard in federal court must prove each element of standing with specificity. Coyne ex rel. Ohio v. American Tobacco Co., 183 F.3d 488, 494 (6th Cir.1999).
Publishers and inmates have a First Amendment interest in communicating with one another subject to regulation that furthers legitimate penological interests. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1987). “The interest of prisoners and their correspondents in uncensored communication by letter, grounded as it is in the First Amendment, is plainly a
4 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 40 Filed 03/16/16 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 539

‘liberty’ interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment even though qualified of necessity by the circumstance of imprisonment.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 418 (1974). This liberty interest applies to both senders and receivers. Id. at 408-08. Moreover, the Sixth Circuit has determined that prison officials must provide minimal procedural safeguards for confiscation of inmate mail. Martin v. Kelley, 803 F.2d 236, 241-42 (6th cir. 1986). Finally, “[c]ommunication between inmates and non-inmates is protected regardless of who initiates the communication.” Prison Legal News v. Bezott, No. 11-CV-13460, 2014 WL 1405214, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 11, 2014); see also Prison Legal News v. Livingston, 683 F.3d 201, 212–13 (5th Cir. 2012).
PLN alleges that the defendants censored its attempted communications with the inmates in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Based on the allegations contained in the Amended Complaint, this Court finds that PLN has carried its burden and concludes PLN has standing. See id.
Fourth, the defendants argue that the Court should not issue a preliminary injunction on this alleged Fourteenth Amendment violation issue because it is moot. They claim that the filing of Policy III, which satisfies Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process, renders claims over Policy II moot. The plaintiff argues the issue is not moot because this situation fits within the voluntary cessation exception to the mootness doctrine.
At the time a federal court decides a case, there must be a live case or controversy, Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363 (1987); otherwise, the mootness doctrine applies. Ky. Right to Life, Inc. v. Terry, 108 F.3d 637, 644 (6th Cir. 1997). “The mootness doctrine [is] a subset of the Article III justiciability requirements.” Id. “Claims become moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Brandywine, Inc. v.
5 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 40 Filed 03/16/16 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 540

City of Richmond, Ky., 359 F.3d 830, 836 (6th Cir. 2004). “The test for mootness is whether the relief sought would, if granted, make a difference to the legal interests of the parties.” Bowman v. Corrections Corp. of America, 350 F.3d 537, 549-550 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting McPherson v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc., 119 F.3d 453, 458 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc)) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Moreover, a federal court “can neither declare unconstitutional nor enjoin the enforcement of a provision that is no longer in effect.” Brandywine, 359 F.3d at 836 (plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief mooted when city repealed allegedly unconstitutional provision of ordinance); Bench Billboard Co. v. City of Cincinnati, 675 F.3d 974 (6th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief mooted by amended code sections to ordinance).
Under the voluntary cessation exception, a case may be mooted only “if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur,” Friends of the Earth Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (quoting United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, Inc., 393 U.S. 199, 203 (1968)), and “interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979). The heavy burden of demonstrating mootness rests on the party claiming mootness. Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 189. However, “cessation of the allegedly illegal conduct by government officials has been treated with more solicitude by the courts than similar action by private parties.” Ammex, Inc. v. Cox, 351 F.3d 697, 705 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Mosley v. Hairston, 920 F.2d 409, 415 (6th Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
As this Court stated in its previous Order, a court considers three factors in determining whether the defendants have carried their burden of mootness: (1) unambiguous change, (2)
6 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 40 Filed 03/16/16 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 541

change as a result of substantial deliberation, and (3) consistent application of new policy or
adherence to new conduct. See Prison Legal News v. Chapman, -- F.Supp.2d --, No. 3:12-CV-
00125, 2014 WL 4247772, at *11 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 26, 2014) (citing Doe v. Wooten, 747 F.3d
1317, 1322 (11th Cir. 2014). The Court previously ruled that the defendants met this burden in
relation to the postcards-only portion of Policy II, rending that issue moot. The facts on this
issue, however, differ.
The defendants made an unambiguous change and brought their policy, Policy III, into
compliance with the principles set forth in Martin v. Kelley, 803 F.2d at 236, and the Due
Process Clause. The plaintiff does not argue otherwise. However, this change was made during
the heat of litigation. This differs from the first change on the postcards-only policy which was
made prior to the defendants being served with the summons and Complaint. Here, unlike
before, there is no evidence of substantial deliberation. There are no affidavits from the jail
administrators affirming there is no intention of returning to the prior policy or one that does not
adequately provide the minimum procedural safeguards.
It is true that there have been no complaints that Policy III has not been consistently
applied. Nonetheless, the facts mentioned above, which differ from the facts surrounding this
Court’s previous decision, do not satisfy the defendants’ heavy burden of demonstrating mootness. As such, the Court will address the merits of the plaintiff’s arguments.1
1 This Court notes the defendants’ arguments that neither the plaintiff nor any inmates have ever filed a complaint with the jail for censorship or not receiving PLN’s publications. It appears from the facts that PLN was aware of returned mail from the defendants as early as February 2012. The defendants argue that despite this knowledge, PLN never complained to the defendants to try to remedy the situation. Instead, PLN resorted to filing this lawsuit on October 10, 2013. This Court further notes the defendants’ good faith efforts in amending its policies to address all of the plaintiff’s grievances. This Court finds that the defendants’ did so in a timely manner, despite the plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary.
To be sure, violations of constitutional rights are extremely serious. Nonetheless, it appears to the Court that this litigation could have been avoided entirely by communication between the two parties prior to filing any suit. This could have saved tremendous time and resources for both parties, especially considering the condition of county budgets in this day and time. The inmates, whose interests PLN asserts it seeks to protect, may have been
7
Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 40 Filed 03/16/16 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 542

PLN moves the Court “to enter a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from
failing to provide Plaintiff and others corresponding with prisoners procedural safeguards that
comply with due process.” [Doc. 26].
Policy II states in pertinent part:
. . . .
B. A prisoner will be notified in writing if any mail is rejected.
C. The inmate will have a chance to appeal this rejection; by filing a grievance with the commissary officer.
D. If the inmate is no longer in our custody the officer will mark out our address, mark "not at this address" and stamp "return to sender" and place back in the mail.
[Doc. 15-3, pg. 2]. This Court previously concluded that this policy was facially deficient and
stated that the defendants could choose to implement a new policy which complies with Martin.
The defendants did so, and the plaintiff does not raise an issue with Policy III. However, the
focus must be on Policy II.
The Court must consider four factors in determining whether to grant a preliminary
injunction:
(1) whether the plaintiffs have a strong likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) whether, without the injunction, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm;
(3) whether issuance of the injunction will cause substantial harm to the defendant or others; and
better off if the resources of the County were spent on their care instead of spent on litigation expenses on a case which could have been avoided, considering the defendants’ efforts to comply with and remedy all of plaintiff’s grievances. That being said, this Court notes these arguments but, of course, confines its decision strictly to the applicable law. Perhaps common sense, cooperation and communication prior to filing suit are practices of a bygone era.
8
Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 40 Filed 03/16/16 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 543

(4) whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of a preliminary injunction. United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority, 163 F.3d 341, 347 (6th Cir. 1998). These factors are not prerequisites to the issuance of an injunction but are factors to be balanced in considering whether to grant the injunction. Id. The Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of the plaintiff. In so doing, the Court finds the reasoning in Prison Legal News v. County of San Diego, No. 3:14-cv-2417-L-NLS, (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2015), and Lane v. Lombardi, No. 2:12-cv-4219-NKL, 2012 WL 5873577, at * 2-6 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012), persuasive. For the reasons stated above, the motion to strike the renewed motion, [Doc. 36], is GRANTED. In addition, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Doc. 26], is GRANTED. That being said, it appears that Policy III satisfies the requirements, and it has already been enacted and is being followed. The parties shall file a Rule 26(f) report with this Court within 10 days from the entry of this Order, and then the matter will be set for trial. ENTER:
s/J. RONNIE GREER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9 Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 40 Filed 03/16/16 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 544

 
 AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the ___E_a_s_t_er_n__DDistirsitcritcotfoTf e_n_n_e_s_s_ee____

Prison Legal News
Plaintiff
v. Wayne Anderson et al
Defendant

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-266

)

)

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

✔u the plaintiff (name) Prison Legal News

recover from the

defendant (name)

Wayne Anderson, Sullivan County, TN, and Sullivan County Sheriff's Office the amount of

Fifty Thousand

dollars ($ 50,000.00 ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of

%, plus post judgment interest at the rate of

% per annum, along with costs.

u the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name) recover costs from the plaintiff (name) .

u other:

.

This action was (check one):
u tried by a jury with Judge rendered a verdict.

presiding, and the jury has

u tried by Judge was reached.

without a jury and the above decision

u decided by Judge

on a motion for

Date: 07/21/2016

. Debra C. Poplin
CLERK OF COURT

s/Arlene Pape , Deputy Clerk Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 2:13-cv-00266-JRG-MCLC Document 49 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 572