Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

CLOSED,REFERA

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Kentucky (Frankfort) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA

Human Rights Defense Center v. Ballard et al Assigned to: Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove Referred to: Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 07/17/2017 Date Terminated: 07/17/2019 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center

represented by Bruce E. H. Johnson Davis Wright Tremaine LLP - WA 920 Fifth Avenue Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 206-757-8069 Fax: 206-757-7069 Email: brucejohnson@dwt.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Camille Bathurst Belzley Bathurst, Attorneys P.O. Box 278 Prospect, KY 40059 502-292-2452 Email: camillebathurst@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Marshall Human Rights Defense Center P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 561-360-2523 Fax: 866-735-7136 Email: dmarshall@hrdc-law.org LEAD ATTORNEY

V.
Defendant
Rodney Ballard former Commissioner, in his individual capacity

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Allen Belzley Belzley, Bathurst & Bentley P.O. Box 278 Prospect, KY 40059 502-292-2452 Email: gbelzley3b@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Masimba Mutamba Human Rights Defense Center P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 561-360-2523 Fax: 866-735-7136 Email: mmutamba@hrdc-law.org TERMINATED: 02/03/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sabarish Neelakanta Human Rights Defense Center P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 561-360-2523 Email: sneelakanta@hrdc-law.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown KY Department of Corrections General Counsel P.O. Box 2400 Frankfort, KY 40602-2400 502-564-4726 Fax: 502-564-5037 Email: allison.brown@ky.gov

Defendant Deputy Commissioner Jim Erwin acting Commissioner, in his individual capacity
Defendant Kimberly Potter-Blair Deputy Commissioner, in her individual capacity

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry L. Dunn Attorney General's Office - Kentucky 700 Capital Avenue Capitol Building, Suite 118 Frankfort, KY 40601 502-696-5300 Email: barry.dunn@ky.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brett Robert Nolan Attorney General's Office - Kentucky 700 Capital Avenue Capitol Building, Suite 118 Frankfort, KY 40601 502-696-5300 Fax: 502-564-2894 Email: brett.nolan@ky.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Megan Handshoe Kinsolving Golden & Walters, PLLC 771 Corporate Drive Suite 905 Lexington, KY 40503 859-219-9090 Fax: 859-219-9292 Email: meganh@goldenandwalters.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address)

Defendant Chris Kleymeyer Director, Division of Operations & Programs, in his individual capacity
Defendant Ashley Short in her individual capacity
Defendant Debbie Kays in her individual capacity
Defendant John Does 1-20, in their individual and official capacities Defendant Keith Helton in his Individual capacity
Defendant Tiffany Ratliff Individually
Defendant Kathy Litteral Individually
Defendant Deedra Hart Individually

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address)

Defendant Janet Conover Individually
Defendant Randy White Individually
Defendant Aaron Smith Individually
Defendant James David Green Individually
Defendant Scott Jordan Individually
Defendant Don Bottom Individually
Defendant Warden Ravonne Sims Individually
Defendant

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tim Lane Individually
Defendant Anna Valentine in her individual capacity
Official Defendant Deputy Commissioner Jim Erwin acting Commissioner, in his official capacity
Official Defendant Kimberly Potter-Blair Deputy Commissioner, in her official capacity
Official Defendant Chris Kleymeyer Director, Division of Operations & Programs, in his official capacity
Official Defendant Ashley Short in her official capacity
Official Defendant Debbie Kays in her official capacity
Official Defendant Keith Helton in his official capacity
Official Defendant

represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tiffany Ratliff in her Official Capacity
Official Defendant Kathy Litteral in her Official Capacity
Official Defendant Deedra Hart in her Official Capacity
Official Defendant Janet Conover in her Official Capacity
Official Defendant Randy White in his Official Capacity
Official Defendant Aaron Smith in his Official Capacity
Official Defendant James David Green in his Official Capacity
Official Defendant Scott Jordan in his Official Capacity
Official Defendant

represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Don Bottom in his Official Capacity
Official Defendant Warden Ravonne Sims in her Official Capacity
Official Defendant Tim Lane in his Official Capacity
Official Defendant Anna Valentine in her official capacity

represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allison R. Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/17/2017
07/17/2017 07/17/2017 08/15/2017 08/16/2017
08/17/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ( Filing fee $400; receipt number 0643-3847240), filed by Human Rights Defense Center. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(CBD) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
Conflict Check run. (CBD) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
3 Summons Issued as to all defendants.(CBD) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
4 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, with Jury Demand by Rodney Ballard, Jim Erwin, Debbie Kays, Chris Kleymeyer, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Ashley Short.(Brown, Allison) (Entered: 08/15/2017)
5 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY RE: FAILURE TO FILE FRCP 7.1 DISCLOSURES to counsel of record, Gregory Belzley. Complaint 1 , has been filed by Human Rights Defense Center without the required Rule 7.1 Disclosure statement. Rule 7.1 Disclosures must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days. Failure to file the Disclosure Statement will cause the case to be submitted to the presiding judge for further action. cc: COR (CBD) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
6 FRCP 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Human Rights Defense Center. (Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 08/17/2017)

08/21/2017 08/21/2017 08/22/2017 08/22/2017 08/22/2017 08/22/2017 08/22/2017 08/23/2017
08/23/2017

7 MOTION for Bruce E. H. Johnson to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Human Rights Defense Center ( Filing fee $125; receipt number 06433874575) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificates of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
Attorney Update. Attorney Bruce E. H. Johnson for Human Rights Defense Center added. (AKR) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
BAR STATUS Check completed as to Bruce E. H. Johnson re 7 MOTION for Bruce E. H. Johnson to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Human Rights Defense Center ( Filing fee $125; receipt number 0643-3874575). (AKR) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Van Tatenhove for review: re 7 MOTION for Bruce E. H. Johnson to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Human Rights Defense Center ( Filing fee $125; receipt number 0643-3874575). (AKR) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
8 MOTION for Daniel Marshall to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Human Rights Defense Center ( Filing fee $125; receipt number 06433875091) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
9 MOTION for Masimba Mutamba to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Human Rights Defense Center ( Filing fee $125; receipt number 06433875097) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
10 MOTION for Sabarish Neelakanta to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Human Rights Defense Center ( Filing fee $125; receipt number 06433875184) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
BAR STATUS Check completed as to Sabarish Neelakanta, Masimba Mutamba, Daniel Marshall re 10 MOTION for Sabarish Neelakanta to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Human Rights Defense Center ( Filing fee $125; receipt number 0643-3875184), 8 MOTION for Daniel Marshall to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Human Rights Defense Center ( Filing fee $125; receipt number 0643-3875091), 9 MOTION for Masimba Mutamba to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Human Rights Defense Center ( Filing fee $125; receipt number 0643-3875097). (AKR) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Van Tatenhove for review: re 8 MOTION for Daniel Marshall to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Human Rights Defense Center ( Filing fee $125; receipt number 0643-3875091), 9 MOTION for Masimba Mutamba to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Human Rights Defense Center ( Filing fee $125; receipt number 0643-3875097), 10 MOTION for Sabarish Neelakanta to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Human Rights Defense

09/01/2017 10/12/2017
10/23/2017 10/24/2017 10/27/2017
12/18/2017

Center ( Filing fee $125; receipt number 0643-3875184). (AKR) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
11 ORDER: 1. The Plaintiff's Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice [R. 7, 8, 9, 10] are GRANTED; and2. Sabarish Neelakanta, Masimba Mutamba, Daniel Marshall, and Bruce E. H. Johnson are admitted pro hac vice as counselors for the Plaintiff in the above-styled action. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 9/1/2017. (AKR)cc: COR, paper copy to Neelakanta, Mutamba, Marshall, & Johnson, with ECF Registration Form (Entered: 09/01/2017)
12 ORDER FOR MEETING AND REPORT: 1. No later than thirty (30) days from the date of entry and service of this order, counsel for the parties shall conduct the meeting of parties required by Rule 26(f). 2. At the time of the meeting, counsel for the parties shall exchange the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) and, in the future, shall make supplemental disclosures when required by Rule 26(e). 3. No later than ten (10) days after the meeting, counsel for the parties shall file a written joint report outlining the proposed discovery plan. Signed by Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove on 10/12/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form)(CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 10/13/2017)
13 JOINT REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Van Tatenhove for review: 13 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting (CBD) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
14 SCHEDULING ORDER: Parties shall exchange the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) by 11/15/2017. Discovery due by 5/1/2018. Amended Pleadings due by 1/2/2018. Motion to Join Additional Parties due by 1/2/2018. Dispositive and Daubert Motions due by 7/1/2018. FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE set for 10/30/2018 at 11:00 AM in FRANKFORT, KY. Pretrial Filings due by 10/23/2018. JURY TRIAL set for 11/13/2018 at 10:00 AM in FRANKFORT, KY. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins. Dispositive motions and motions in limine will be referred by the Clerk of this Court to the appropriate United States District Judge. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 10/27/2017.(CBD)cc: COR, D (Entered: 10/27/2017)
15 MOTION for Extension of Time by Rodney Ballard, Jim Erwin, Jim Erwin, Debbie Kays, Debbie Kays, Chris Kleymeyer, Chris Kleymeyer, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Ashley Short, Ashley Short Motions referred to Edward B. Atkins. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brown, Allison) (Entered: 12/18/2017)

12/19/2017 12/19/2017 01/23/2018 01/25/2018
01/30/2018 01/31/2018 01/31/2018 02/01/2018

16 RESPONSE to Motion re 15 MOTION for Extension of Time by Rodney Ballard, Jim Erwin, Jim Erwin, Debbie Kays, Debbie Kays, Chris Kleymeyer, Chris Kleymeyer, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Ashley Short, Ashley Short filed by Human Rights Defense Center. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
17 ORDER: 1. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests on or before January 16, 2018; and 2. Plaintiff shall have to and including February 2, 2018 to file any motions to join additional parties, and to amend pleadings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins on 12/19/2017.(AKR)cc: COR (Entered: 12/19/2017)
18 MOTION to Compel by Human Rights Defense Center Motions referred to Edward B. Atkins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email exchange, # 2 Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
19 ORDER: that this matter shall come before this Court for a TELEPHONE CONFERENCE call to appear ON THE RECORD on Wednesday, 1/31/2018 at 10:00 AM. Counsel of parties' shall access the conference by calling AT & T Teleconferencing at 1-877336-1839; as directed by this Order - SEE Order for completeness. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins on 1/25/2018.(AKR)cc: COR, Pike diary (Entered: 01/25/2018)
20 RESPONSE to Motion re 18 MOTION to Compel by Human Rights Defense Center filed by Rodney Ballard, Jim Erwin, Jim Erwin, Debbie Kays, Debbie Kays, Chris Kleymeyer, Chris Kleymeyer, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Ashley Short, Ashley Short. (Brown, Allison) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
21 MINUTE ENTRY ORDER FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 1/31/2018, before Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, 18 is DENIED AS MOOT. (Court Reporter Audio File No. KYED-PIK__3-17-cv-57_20180131_095352.) Signed by Edward B. Atkins. (AKR)cc: COR (Entered: 01/31/2018)
22 MOTION for Extension of Time by Human Rights Defense Center to Amend Complain and Join Additional Parties Motions referred to Edward B. Atkins. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
23 ORDER: 1. Plas Motion for an Extension of Time to Amend Complaint and Join Additional Parties, (R. 22 ), is GRANTED; 2. Plas have until Monday, February 19, 2018, to amend its complaint and join additional parties; and 3. ALL OTHER DEADLINES AND PROVISIONS of court's scheduling orders, (R. 14 ; R. 17 ), remain in FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins on 2/1/2018. (TDA) cc: COR (Entered: 02/01/2018)

02/01/2018 02/20/2018 02/21/2018 03/06/2018 03/06/2018 03/06/2018
03/06/2018
03/07/2018

Set Deadlines: Amended Complaint and Join Additional Parties by 2/19/2018, per Order #23. (TDA) (Entered: 02/01/2018)
24 MOTION for Leave by Human Rights Defense Center TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Motions referred to Edward B. Atkins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
25 ORDER: that any responses or objections to the motion 24 should be filed on or before MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins on 2/21/2018.(AKR)cc: COR (Entered: 02/21/2018)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Atkins for review: re 24 MOTION for Leave by Human Rights Defense Center TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. (AKR) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
26 ORDER: that Human Rights Defense Fund Center's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint 24 is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins on 3/6/2018. (AKR)cc: COR (Entered: 03/06/2018)
27 AMENDED COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages Under The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S>C. §1983 against Rodney Ballard, John Does, Jim Erwin, Jim Erwin, Debbie Kays, Debbie Kays, Chris Kleymeyer, Chris Kleymeyer, Kimberly PotterBlair, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Ashley Short, Ashley Short, Keith Helton, Keith Helton, Tiffany Ratliff, Tiffany Ratliff, Kathy Litteral, Kathy Litteral, Deedra Hart, Deedra Hart, Janet Conover, Janet Conover, Randy White, Randy White, Aaron Smith, Aaron Smith, James David Green, James David Green, Scott Jordan, Scott Jordan, Don Bottom, Don Bottom, Ravonne Sims, Ravonne Sims, Tim Lane, Tim Lane, filed by Human Rights Defense Center. Filed pursuant to Court Order re 26 .(AKR) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
Clerk's Note: The Clerk notes an Amended Complaint was filed; however, no summons were provided to the Clerk for issuance. If you desire summons to be issued, the forms are available on the Court's website, www.kyed.uscourts.gov. A summons may be issued by presenting the prepared summons to the Clerk for issuance on paper or by electronically filing a Notice of Filing with the prepared summons as an attachment within 7 calendar days. (AKR) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
28 NOTICE OF FILING by Human Rights Defense Center re 27 Amended Complaint,, (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 03/07/2018)

03/07/2018 04/30/2018 05/02/2018
06/04/2018 06/05/2018 06/13/2018

29 Summons as to Amended Complaint Issued as to Don Bottom, Don Bottom, Janet Conover, Janet Conover, James David Green, James David Green, Deedra Hart, Deedra Hart, Keith Helton, Keith Helton, Scott Jordan, Scott Jordan, Tim Lane, Tim Lane, Kathy Litteral, Kathy Litteral, Tiffany Ratliff, Tiffany Ratliff, Ravonne Sims, Ravonne Sims, Aaron Smith, Aaron Smith, Randy White, Randy White; Summons issued and returned to counsel electronically. (AKR) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
30 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Human Rights Defense Center Motions referred to Edward B. Atkins. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 04/30/2018)
31 ORDER: 1. Plff's Mtn for Ext of Time 30 is GRANTED; 2. All fact Discovery due by 11/1/2018. 3. All Dispositive and Daubert Motions due by 1/1/2019. 4. FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED for Tuesday, 5/7/2019 at 11:00 AM in in the Courtroom of the US Courthouse in FRANKFORT, KY. Parties to comply with paragraphs 4.A. through E. 5. JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED for Tuesday, 5/21/2019 at 10:00 AM in the Courtroom of the US Courthouse in FRANKFORT, KY, counsel to arrive at 9:30 a.m., with trial expected to last 4 days. 6. Parties to file status reports ON THE FIRST MONDAY OF EVERY MONTH on progress of discovery, with first to be filed on or before Monday, 6/4/18. 7. No further extension of time on these or any other matter shall be granted in the above styled case absent a showing of good cause, regardless of the parties' agreement; and 8. ALL OTHER DEADLINES AND PROVISIONS of the court's scheduling orders, [R. 14; R. 17], remain in FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins on 5/2/2018.(AKR)cc: COR, diary (Entered: 05/02/2018)
32 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Human Rights Defense Center. (Marshall, Daniel) (Entered: 06/04/2018)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Atkins for review: 32 Status Report (CBD) (Entered: 06/05/2018)
33 ANSWER to 27 Amended Complaint,, by Rodney Ballard, Don Bottom, Don Bottom, Janet Conover, Janet Conover, Jim Erwin, Jim Erwin, James David Green, James David Green, Deedra Hart, Deedra Hart, Keith Helton, Keith Helton, Scott Jordan, Scott Jordan, Debbie Kays, Debbie Kays, Chris Kleymeyer, Chris Kleymeyer, Tim Lane, Tim Lane, Kathy Litteral, Kathy Litteral, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Tiffany Ratliff, Tiffany Ratliff, Ashley Short, Ashley Short, Ravonne Sims, Ravonne Sims, Aaron Smith, Aaron Smith, Randy White, Randy White.(Brown, Allison) (Entered: 06/13/2018)

07/02/2018 07/03/2018 07/03/2018
07/11/2018 07/11/2018
07/12/2018 07/16/2018

34 SECOND STATUS REPORT Regarding Discovery by Human Rights Defense Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A - Email between counsel, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B - Emails between counsel)(Marshall, Daniel) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Atkins for review: 34 Second Status Report (CBD) (Entered: 07/03/2018)
35 ORDER: that this matter shall come before this Court for a TELEPHONE CONFERENCE call to appear ON THE RECORD on Wednesday, 7/11/2018 at 1:30 PM. Counsel of parties shall access the conference by calling AT & T Teleconferencing at 1-877-3361839 and entering access codes as directed by this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins on 7/3/2018.(AKR)cc: COR, Pike diary (Entered: 07/03/2018)
36 MOTION to Amend/Correct by Human Rights Defense Center (File Second Amended Complaint) Motions referred to Edward B. Atkins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Summons for New Defendant Valentine, # 3 Proposed Order)(Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
38 MINUTE ENTRY ORDER FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 7/11/2018, before Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins: The Court heard statements of counsel as to the status of discovery. The Court directs the parties to confer in 7 days and then again in 14 days as to the status of the outstanding production. (Court Reporter Audio File No. KYED-LEX__3-17-cv-57-GFVT-EBA_20180711_132216.) Signed by Edward B. Atkins. (AKR)cc: COR (Entered: 07/12/2018)
37 ORDER: that Defendants are DIRECTED to file all objections, if any, to Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Fund Center's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, [R. 36], on or before MONDAY, JULY 19, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins on 7/12/2018.(AKR)cc: COR (Entered: 07/12/2018)
39 RESPONSE in Opposition re 36 MOTION to Amend/Correct by Human Rights Defense Center (File Second Amended Complaint) filed by Rodney Ballard, Don Bottom, Don Bottom, Janet Conover, Janet Conover, Jim Erwin, Jim Erwin, James David Green, James David Green, Deedra Hart, Deedra Hart, Keith Helton, Keith Helton, Scott Jordan, Scott Jordan, Debbie Kays, Debbie Kays, Chris Kleymeyer, Chris Kleymeyer, Tim Lane, Tim Lane, Kathy Litteral, Kathy Litteral, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Tiffany Ratliff, Tiffany Ratliff, Ashley Short, Ashley Short, Ravonne Sims, Ravonne Sims, Aaron Smith, Aaron Smith, Randy White, Randy White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A_Smith Press Release, # 2 Exhibit B_Valentine Press Release)(Brown, Allison) (Entered: 07/16/2018)

07/16/2018 07/17/2018 07/17/2018 07/17/2018
07/17/2018 08/06/2018
08/06/2018 08/06/2018

40 REPLY to Response to Motion re 36 MOTION to Amend/Correct by Human Rights Defense Center (File Second Amended Complaint) filed by Human Rights Defense Center. (Belzley, Gregory) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Van Tatenhove for review: re 36 MOTION to Amend/Correct by Human Rights Defense Center (File Second Amended Complaint). (AKR) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
41 ORDER: that Human Rights Defense Fund Center's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint 36 is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins on 7/17/2018. (AKR)cc: COR (Entered: 07/17/2018)
42 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Rodney Ballard, Don Bottom, Don Bottom, Janet Conover, Janet Conover, John Does, Jim Erwin, Jim Erwin, James David Green, James David Green, Deedra Hart, Deedra Hart, Keith Helton, Keith Helton, Scott Jordan, Scott Jordan, Debbie Kays, Debbie Kays, Chris Kleymeyer, Chris Kleymeyer, Tim Lane, Tim Lane, Kathy Litteral, Kathy Litteral, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Tiffany Ratliff, Tiffany Ratliff, Ashley Short, Ashley Short, Ravonne Sims, Ravonne Sims, Aaron Smith, Aaron Smith, Randy White, Randy White, Anna Valentine, Anna Valentine, filed by Human Rights Defense Center. Filed pursuant to Court Order 41 .(AKR) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
43 Summons Issued as to Anna Valentine, Individual, Anna Valentine, Official Capacity; Summons issued and returned to counsel electronically. (AKR) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
44 STATUS REPORT by Rodney Ballard, Don Bottom, Don Bottom, Janet Conover, Janet Conover, John Does, Jim Erwin, Jim Erwin, James David Green, James David Green, Deedra Hart, Deedra Hart, Keith Helton, Keith Helton, Scott Jordan, Scott Jordan, Debbie Kays, Debbie Kays, Chris Kleymeyer, Chris Kleymeyer, Tim Lane, Tim Lane, Kathy Litteral, Kathy Litteral, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Tiffany Ratliff, Tiffany Ratliff, Ashley Short, Ashley Short, Ravonne Sims, Ravonne Sims, Aaron Smith, Aaron Smith, Randy White, Randy White. (Brown, Allison) (Entered: 08/06/2018)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Atkins for review: 44 Status Report (CBD) (Entered: 08/06/2018)
45 STATUS REPORT Regarding Discovery by Human Rights Defense Center. (Marshall, Daniel) (Entered: 08/06/2018)

08/07/2018 09/04/2018 09/05/2018 10/01/2018
10/02/2018

***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Atkins for review: 45 Status Report regarding Discovery (CBD) (Entered: 08/07/2018)

46 JOINT STATUS REPORT ON DISCOVERY by Human Rights Defense Center, Randy White, Aaron Smith, Ravonne Sims, Ashley Short, Tiffany Ratliff, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Kathy Litteral, Tim Lane, Chris Kleymeyer, Debbie Kays, Scott Jordan, Keith Helton, Deedra Hart, James David Green, Jim Erwin, Janet Conover, Don Bottom, Rodney Ballard. (Belzley, Gregory) Modified on 9/5/2018 (SCD). (Entered: 09/04/2018)

***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Atkins for review: 46 Joint Status Report on Discovery (SCD) (Entered: 09/05/2018)

JOINT STATUS REPORT by Rodney Ballard, Don Bottom, Don

47

Bottom, Janet Conover, Janet Conover, Jim Erwin, Jim Erwin, James

David Green, James David Green, Deedra Hart, Deedra Hart, Keith

Helton, Keith Helton, Scott Jordan, Scott Jordan, Debbie Kays,

Debbie Kays, Chris Kleymeyer, Chris Kleymeyer, Tim Lane, Tim

Lane, Kathy Litteral, Kathy Litteral, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Kimberly

Potter-Blair, Tiffany Ratliff, Tiffany Ratliff, Ashley Short, Ashley

Short, Ravonne Sims, Ravonne Sims, Aaron Smith, Aaron Smith,

Anna Valentine, Anna Valentine, Randy White, Randy White.

(Brown, Allison) (Entered: 10/01/2018)

***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Atkins for

11/05/2018
11/06/2018 12/03/2018 12/04/2018

review: 47 Joint Status Report (CBD) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
48 STATUS REPORT by Rodney Ballard, Don Bottom, Don Bottom, Janet Conover, Janet Conover, Jim Erwin, Jim Erwin, James David Green, James David Green, Deedra Hart, Deedra Hart, Keith Helton, Keith Helton, Scott Jordan, Scott Jordan, Debbie Kays, Debbie Kays, Chris Kleymeyer, Chris Kleymeyer, Tim Lane, Tim Lane, Kathy Litteral, Kathy Litteral, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Tiffany Ratliff, Tiffany Ratliff, Ashley Short, Ashley Short, Ravonne Sims, Ravonne Sims, Aaron Smith, Aaron Smith, Anna Valentine, Anna Valentine, Randy White, Randy White. (Brown, Allison) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Atkins for review: 48 Status Report (SCD) (Entered: 11/06/2018)
49 STATUS REPORT Regarding Discovery by Human Rights Defense Center. (Marshall, Daniel) (Entered: 12/03/2018)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Atkins for review: 49 Status Report (SCD) (Entered: 12/04/2018)

01/28/2019 02/22/2019 03/26/2019 04/24/2019
05/01/2019 05/02/2019 05/06/2019
05/30/2019
05/31/2019

50 MOTION to approve settlement agreement by Human Rights Defense Center Motions referred to Edward B. Atkins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Settlement agreement, # 2 Exhibit Letter between counsel, # 3 Exhibit Proposed order)(Marshall, Daniel) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Van Tatenhove for review: re 50 MOTION to approve settlement agreement by Human Rights Defense Center (SCD) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
51 ORDER: 1) 50 Settlement Agreement of Injunctive Claims is APPROVED. 2) Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Agreement. 3) The Injunctive Claims against the Dft are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 3/26/2019.(SCD)cc: COR (Entered: 03/26/2019)
52 ORDER: instead of a Final Pretrial Conference, this Court ORDERS that the parties submit to a TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE with the Court on 5/7/2019 at 11:00 AM. To join the teleconference, the parties are directed to call AT&T Teleconferencing (see Order). Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 4/24/2019.(CBD)cc: COR, D (Entered: 04/24/2019)
53 STATUS REPORT by Human Rights Defense Center. (Marshall, Daniel) (Entered: 05/01/2019)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Van Tatenhove for review: 53 Status Report (SCD) (Entered: 05/02/2019)
54 ORDER: 1) All forthcoming deadlines established in the 31 Scheduling Order are CANCELLED. 2) Telephonic Status Conference scheduled for 5/7/2019 is CANCELLED. 3) Parties are DIRECTED to file an agreed order of dismissal on or before 6/1/2019. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 5/6/2019.(SCD)cc: COR (Entered: 05/06/2019)
55 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Closing Documents by Human Rights Defense Center, Debbie Kays, Scott Jordan, Keith Helton, Deedra Hart, James David Green, Jim Erwin, Janet Conover, Don Bottom, Rodney Ballard, Randy White, Anna Valentine, Aaron Smith, Ravonne Sims, Ashley Short, Tiffany Ratliff, Kimberly PorterBlair, Kathy Litteral, Time Lane, Chris Kleymeyer. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Marshall, Daniel) Modified on 5/31/2019 (SCD). (Entered: 05/30/2019)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Van Tatenhove for review: re 55 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Closing Documents (SCD) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

06/10/2019 07/01/2019 07/01/2019 07/03/2019 07/10/2019 07/10/2019 07/10/2019 07/15/2019 07/15/2019
07/16/2019 07/17/2019

56 ORDER: The Court ORDERS that the parties file an agreed order of dismissal by 7/1/2019. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 6/10/2019. (SCD)cc: COR (Entered: 06/10/2019)
57 SECOND JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Closing Documents by Human Rights Defense Center Motions referred to Edward B. Atkins. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Marshall, Daniel) Modified text on 7/1/2019 (CBD). (Entered: 07/01/2019)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Atkins for review: re 57 SECOND JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to FileClosing Documents by Human Rights Defense Center (CBD) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
58 ORDER (re 57 Motion for Extension of Time to File): The Court ORDERS that the parties file an agreed order of dismissal by 7/12/2019. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 7/3/2019. (SCD)cc: COR (Entered: 07/03/2019)
59 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jim Erwin. (Dunn, Barry) (Entered: 07/10/2019)
60 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jim Erwin. (Kinsolving, Megan) (Entered: 07/10/2019)
61 NOTICE of Change of Address by Bruce E. H. Johnson (Johnson, Bruce) (Entered: 07/10/2019)
***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Van Tatenhove for review: 58 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File - no response filed (SCD) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
62 JOINT MOTION to Dismiss by Human Rights Defense Center, Randy White, Anna Valentine, Aaron Smith, Ravonne Sims, Ashley Short, Tiffany Ratliff, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Kathy Litteral, Tim Lane, Chris Kleymeyer, Debbie Kays, Scott Jordan, Keith Helton, Deedra Hart, James David Green, Jim Erwin, Janet Conover, Don Bottom, Rodney Ballard. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Settlement agreement, # 2 Exhibit Proposed order)(Marshall, Daniel) Modified on 7/16/2019 (SCD). (Entered: 07/15/2019)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Van Tatenhove for review: re 62 JOINT MOTION to Dismiss (SCD) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
63 ORDER: 1) The Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement of Injunctive Claims [R. 50-1] and the Settlement Agreement of Damages Claim [R. 62-1]. 2) Court retains jurisdiction to address the issue of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses due pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 3) Except as provided in paragraphs 1 & 2, claims for damages and declaratory

08/12/2019 08/13/2019 08/14/2019 09/03/2019 09/24/2019
09/25/2019 10/11/2019

relief are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 7/17/2019.(SCD)cc: COR (Entered: 07/17/2019)
64 CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time by Human Rights Defense Center Motions referred to Edward B. Atkins. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Marshall, Daniel) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins for review: re 64 CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time by Human Rights Defense Center (JJ) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
65 ORDER: the Court hereby GRANTS the motion. Plaintiff shall have until August 31, 2019 to file a motion 64 for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins on 8/14/2019. (CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 08/14/2019)
66 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Human Rights Defense Center (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Billing Entries, # 2 Exhibit Costs, # 3 Exhibit Resumes, # 4 Exhibit Fee Expert Declaration, # 5 Proposed Order)(Mutamba, Masimba) Modified on 10/25/2019 (SCD). (Entered: 09/03/2019)
67 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 66 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Rodney Ballard, Don Bottom, Don Bottom, Janet Conover, Janet Conover, Jim Erwin, Jim Erwin, James David Green, James David Green, Deedra Hart, Deedra Hart, Keith Helton, Keith Helton, Scott Jordan, Scott Jordan, Debbie Kays, Debbie Kays, Chris Kleymeyer, Chris Kleymeyer, Tim Lane, Tim Lane, Kathy Litteral, Kathy Litteral, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Tiffany Ratliff, Tiffany Ratliff, Ashley Short, Ashley Short, Ravonne Sims, Ravonne Sims, Aaron Smith, Aaron Smith, Anna Valentine, Anna Valentine, Randy White, Randy White Motions referred to Edward B. Atkins. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brown, Allison) Modified on 9/25/2019 (SCD). (Entered: 09/24/2019)
68 ORDER: It is ordered that the Dft's 67 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 66 MOTION for Attorney Fees is GRANTED and the Dfts shall have to and including 10/11/2019 to respond. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins on 9/25/2019.(SCD)cc: COR (Entered: 09/25/2019)
69 RESPONSE to Motion re 66 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Human Rights Defense Center filed by Rodney Ballard, Don Bottom, Janet Conover, Jim Erwin, James David Green, Deedra Hart, Keith Helton, Scott Jordan, Debbie Kays, Chris Kleymeyer, Tim Lane, Kathy Litteral, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Tiffany Ratliff, Ashley Short, Ravonne Sims, Aaron Smith, Anna Valentine, Randy White. (Brown, Allison) (Entered: 10/11/2019)

10/24/2019
10/24/2019 10/25/2019 12/30/2019 01/03/2020 01/06/2020 01/09/2020 01/29/2020 01/30/2020 02/03/2020
05/15/2020

70 REPLY to Response to Motion re 66 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Human Rights Defense Center filed by Human Rights Defense Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental time entries, # 2 Exhibit Resume of Lance Weber, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of D. Marshall, # 4 Proposed Order)(Marshall, Daniel) (Entered: 10/24/2019)

71 Amended Proposed Order re 70 Reply to Response to 66 Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Human Rights Defense Center. (Marshall, Daniel) Modified on 10/25/2019 (SCD). (Entered: 10/24/2019)

***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Van Tatenhove for review: re 66 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Human Rights Defense Center (SCD) (Entered: 10/25/2019)

72 NOTICE of Appearance by Brett Robert Nolan on behalf of Jim Erwin (Nolan, Brett) (Entered: 12/30/2019)

73 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Jim Erwin. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kinsolving, Megan) Modified on 1/6/2020 (SCD). (Entered: 01/03/2020)

***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Van Tatenhove for review: re 73 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Jim Erwin (SCD) (Entered: 01/06/2020)

74 ORDER: The Court ORDERS that the 73 Motion to Withdraw Megan Handshoe Kinsolving as Attorney for Jim Erwin is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 1/9/2020. (SCD)cc: COR (Entered: 01/09/2020)

75 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Human Rights Defense Center (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiff's Consent for Withdrawal, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Withdraw)(Mutamba, Masimba) Modified on 1/30/2020 (SCD). (Entered: 01/29/2020)

***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Judge Van Tatenhove for review: re 75 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Human Rights Defense Center (SCD) (Entered: 01/30/2020)

76 ORDER: The Court ORDERS that the 75 Motion to Withdraw Masimba Mutamba as Attorney is GRANTED. Pla will be represented by the other COR and the moving atty is relieved of further responsibility in this action. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 2/3/2020. (SCD)cc: COR (Entered: 02/03/2020)

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Motion for Attorneys'

77

Fees and Costs 66 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 2.

Defendants shall pay Plaintiff a total of $102,660.00 in attorneys'

fees; and3. Defendants shall pay Plaintiff a total of $2,051.37 in costs.

Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 5/15/2020.(CBD)cc: COR (Entered: 05/15/2020)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:

03/25/2021 11:13:41

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages:

14

Cost:

Hill
3:17-cv00057-GFVTEBA
1.40

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 1 of 15 - Page ID#: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at FRANKFORT

[Filed Electronically]

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

Plaintiff, v.

Case No.

RODNEY BALLARD, former Commissioner, in his individual capacity; JIM ERWIN, acting Commissioner, in his individual and official capacities; KIMBERLY POTTER-BLAIR, Deputy Commissioner, in her individual and official capacities; CHRIS KLEYMEYER, Director, Division of Operations & Programs, in his individual and official capacities; ASHLEY SHORT, in her individual and official capacities; DEBBIE KAYS, in her individual and official capacities; and DOES 1-20, in their individual and official capacities,

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

Defendants. ______________________________________

COMPLAINT

I.

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff, Human Rights Defense Center (“HRDC” or “Plaintiff”) brings this action to

enjoin Defendants’ censorship of books sent from Plaintiff and other publishers to prisoners held

by the Kentucky Department of Corrections (“KDOC”), in violation of the First and Fourteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution. Defendants have adopted and implemented mail

policies prohibiting delivery of written speech from Plaintiff and other speakers, failed to provide

adequate due process notice of and an opportunity to challenge the censorship, and denied Plaintiff

equal protection as required under the Constitution.

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 2 of 15 - Page ID#: 2
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), as this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights), as this action seeks redress for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). At least one Defendant resides within this judicial district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein all occurred within this judicial district. 4. HRDC’s claims for relief are predicated upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes actions to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured to HRDC by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States. 5. This Court has jurisdiction over claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as nominal and compensatory damages, against all Defendants. 6. HRDC’s claim for attorneys’ fees and costs is predicated upon 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 7. HRDC is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that the individual Defendants acted as described herein with the intent to injure, vex, annoy and harass HRDC, and subjected HRDC to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of HRDC’s rights with the intention of causing HRDC injury and depriving it of its constitutional rights. 8. As a result of the foregoing, HRDC seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages against the individual Defendants.
2

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 3 of 15 - Page ID#: 3
III. PARTIES 9. The Human Rights Defense Center is a not-for-profit charitable organization recognized under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, incorporated in the state of Washington, and with principal offices in Lake Worth, Florida. The purpose of HRDC, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation, is to educate prisoners and the public about the constitutional rights of prisoners, conditions in American jails and prisons, and the economic and social costs of mass incarceration. HRDC accomplishes its mission through litigation, advocacy, and publication and/or distribution of books, magazines and other information concerning prisons and prisoner rights. 10. Defendant Rodney Ballard was the Commissioner of the KDOC from March 2016 until his resignation in May 2017. No successor to Defendant Ballard’s position has been appointed. While he was Commissioner, Defendant Ballard had ultimate responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of all KDOC staff policies and procedures and was responsible for the overall management of the KDOC, to include processing of mail. Defendant Ballard is sued in his individual capacity. Plaintiff further intends to amend the instant Complaint to add the new Commissioner for KDOC when that office is filled. 11. Defendant Jim Erwin is currently the acting Commissioner of the KDOC, and is currently overseeing the KDOC’s operations until a new commissioner is appointed. Defendant Erwin has ultimate responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of all KDOC staff policies and procedures and is responsible for the overall management of the KDOC, to include processing of mail. Defendant Erwin is sued in his individual and official capacities. 12. Defendant Kimberly Potter-Blair is the Deputy Commissioner for Support Services of the KDOC. Defendant Potter-Blair is responsible for the promulgation and implementation of
3

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 4 of 15 - Page ID#: 4
policies, procedures, and practices at the KDOC. Defendant Potter-Blair is sued in her individual and official capacities.
13. Defendant Chris Kleymeyer is the Director of the KDOC Division of Operations & Programs. As such, Defendant Kleymeyer oversees the KDOC’s Policy & Procedure Branch, which is responsible for the adoption and implementation of the mail policies at the KDOC, and/or for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling and/or control of KDOC staff who interpret and implement the mail policies. Defendant Kleymeyer is sued in his individual and official capacities.
14. Defendants Ashley Short and Debbie Kays are employed in the KDOC’s Policy & Procedure Branch. As such, they were responsible for the adoption and implementation of the mail policies at the KDOC, and/or for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling and/or control of KDOC staff who interpret and implement the mail policies. Defendants Short and Kays are both sued in their individual and official capacities.
15. The true names and identities of Defendants DOES 1 through 20 are presently unknown to HRDC. Each of Defendants DOES 1 through 20 are or were employed by and are or were agents of Defendants when some or all of the challenged inmate mail policies and practices were adopted and/or implemented. Each of Defendants DOES 1 through 20 were personally involved in the adoption and/or implementation of the mail policies at the KDOC, and/or were responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and/or control of the KDOC staff who interpret and implement these mail policies. HRDC will seek to amend this Complaint as soon as the true names and identities of Defendants DOES 1 through 20 have been ascertained.
4

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 5 of 15 - Page ID#: 5
16. At all times material to this action, the actions of all Defendants as alleged herein were taken under the authority and color of state law.
17. At all times material to this action, all Defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment as agents and/or employees of Defendant KDOC.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. HRDC’s Mission and Outreach to the KDOC 18. For more than 26 years, the focus of HRDC’s mission has been public education, advocacy and outreach on behalf of, and for the purpose of assisting, prisoners who seek legal redress for infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed and other basic human rights. HRDC’s mission, if realized, has a salutary effect on public safety. 19. As part of its mission to educate prisoners and the public about prisons, HRDC publishes and distributes publications including: 1) an award-winning, 72-page monthly magazine titled Prison Legal News: Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights, which contains news and analysis about prisons, jails and other detention facilities, prisoners’ rights, court opinions, management of prison facilities, prison conditions, and other matters pertaining to the rights and/or interests of incarcerated individuals; and 2) approximately fifty (50) different softcover books about the criminal justice system, legal reference books, and self-help books of interest to prisoners. These books are designed to foster a better understanding of prisoners’ rights and criminal justice policies and to allow prisoners to educate themselves about related issues, such as legal research, how to write a business letter, health care issues, and similar topics. 20. Accordingly, HRDC engages in core protected speech and expressive conduct on matters of public concern, such as the operation of prison facilities, prison conditions, prisoner health and safety, and prisoners’ rights. HRDC’s publications, as described above, contain
5

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 6 of 15 - Page ID#: 6
political speech and social commentary, which are core First Amendment rights and are entitled to the highest protection afforded by the United States Constitution.
21. HRDC has thousands of customers in the United States and abroad, including prisoners, attorneys, journalists, public libraries, judges, and members of the general public. HRDC distributes its publications to prisoners and law librarians in more than 2,600 correctional facilities located across all fifty states, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, KDOC and various state and local facilities within the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Within KDOC alone, HRDC has sent its publications to the following facilities: Bell County Forestry Camp, Blackburn Correctional Complex, Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex, Green River Correctional Complex, Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women, Kentucky State Penitentiary, Kentucky State Reformatory, Little Sandy Correctional Complex, Luther Luckett Correctional Complex, Northpoint Training Center, Roederer Correctional Complex, and Western Kentucky Correctional Complex.
22. HRDC has sent its monthly magazine, Prison Legal News, to numerous prisoners in the KDOC. The magazine has not been censored by Defendants; instead, it is delivered to the intended prisoner-recipients.
23. Unlike the magazine, however, Defendants have adopted a policy and practice of arbitrarily prohibiting receipt of various HRDC’s books sent to individual prisoners held by the KDOC. Specifically, since July 2016, HRDC has sent numerous softcover books to prisoners held by the KDOC, including: 1) The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (“Habeas Citebook”), which describes the procedural and substantive complexities of federal habeas corpus litigation with the goal of identifying and litigating claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel; 2) Prisoner Diabetes Handbook: A Guide to Managing Diabetes – for Prisoners, by Prisoners, which provides guidance on treating and managing diabetes while incarcerated; 3) the
6

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 7 of 15 - Page ID#: 7
Prisoners’ Self-Help Litigation Manual, a comprehensive tool for learning about prisoner's civil rights, and providing the necessary information and background to formulate a strong legal selfdefense for those rights; 4) Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, which breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps; and 5) the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law.
24. Defendants censored a substantial portion of these books and did not deliver them to the intended prisoner-recipients in the KDOC. Since July 2016 HRDC separately sent one hundred fifty-eight (158) softcover books to various prisoners held by the KDOC. One hundred thirty-one (131) of these books were sent complimentary, while twenty-seven (27) were purchased by prisoners or on behalf of prisoners.
25. Plaintiff can identify at least twenty-six (26) books sent by HRDC to prisoners held by the KDOC which were censored by Defendants. In one instance, a copy of the Diabetes Handbook was returned to HRDC with the notations “MAIL ROOM KY STATE PENITENTIARY REFUSED”, “policy 2-C-1”, and with boxes checked indicating the refusal was due to “Colored paper/envelope/ink”, “Stickers”, “Contraband”, and “Other.” None of the other censored books were returned to HRDC; instead, Plaintiff was notified by either the prisoner-recipient or the KDOC itself that the book was not delivered.
26. On information and belief, a substantial portion of the other books mailed by HRDC to individual prisoners held by the KDOC were also censored by the Defendants.
27. Further, in several instances Defendants failed to provide HRDC any notice or opportunity to appeal these censorship decisions. When notice was sent by the Defendants, it did not adequately describe the censorship or the procedure by which KDOC’s decision could be appealed.
7

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 8 of 15 - Page ID#: 8
28. On or about August 1, 2016, HRDC received seventeen (17) separate “NOTICE OF UNAUTHORIZED MAIL” forms from the KDOC. The forms did not state what the unauthorized mail was, but presumably were in reference to books that HRDC had sent to prisoners at the Kentucky State Penitentiary earlier that month. Each form referenced a different prisoner, and in every instance gave the reason for rejection as “Free Book.”
29. HRDC received additional NOTICE OF UNAUTHORIZED MAIL forms on or about February 2, 2017, March 20, 2017, and April 28, 2017. These notices were in reference to three separate books that were sent to separate prisoners at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex. In each case, the reason for rejection was “Books … not directly from publisher or authorized distributor….” The April 28, 2017 form had an additional notation in the contraband section: “Free.”
30. All of the NOTICE OF UNAUTHORIZED MAIL forms referenced the appeal policy contained in Kentucky Corrections Policy 16.2. That policy states that “[a] publisher may appeal a decision not to deliver an item to an inmate to the Commissioner [of the Department of Corrections].” The policy does not impose any time limit on when a publisher may enter an appeal.
31. The NOTICE OF UNAUTHORIZED MAIL forms received on August 1, 2016 (but not the forms received on later dates) also included the following language: “If a Publisher’s item was returned you may file an appeal within fifteen (15) calendar days to the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections @ 275 East Main St. Frankfort, Ky, 40601.”
32. For all other books that were not delivered, HRDC did not receive any notice of the KDOC’s decision to censor its mail.
33. On or about August 16, 2016, HRDC appealed the rejection of its books at the Kentucky State Penitentiary to Defendant Ballard. Plaintiff has not received a decision on its appeal.
8

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 9 of 15 - Page ID#: 9
34. HRDC continued to attempt to resolve the censorship issues at the KDOC by writing a letter to the General Counsel for the Department of Corrections on January 23, 2017, outlining the constitutional infirmities in the KDOC’s mail policies. HRDC sent a follow-up letter regarding the same issues on April 5, 2017. HRDC has not received a response to either letter.
35. Plaintiff will continue to mail copies of its books and other publications to subscribers, customers and other individuals imprisoned within the KDOC, but seeks the protection of this Court to ensure that the materials are delivered and, if not, that due process is afforded to the Plaintiff so it may challenge the basis for any censorship.
B. Defendants’ Unconstitutional Mail Policies and Practices 36. Defendants’ mail policy and practice bans books sent by HRDC and other senders to prisoners in the KDOC because the books were not purchased by prisoners, but rather were sent to them as gifts, and/or because the sender was not on a pre-approved vendor list. Accordingly, Defendants’ mail policies and practices violate HRDC’s First Amendment right to free speech. 37. Defendants’ use of a pre-approved vendor list specifically excludes some publishers and vendors, like HRDC, from sending their books to prisoners within the KDOC, while allowing other publishers and vendors access to these same prisoners. Accordingly, Defendants’ mail policy and practices violates HRDC’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection 38. Further, Defendants’ policy of allowing prisoners to receive purchased books, but excluding gift books, prevents some publishers and vendors, like HRDC, from disseminating their speech to prisoners in the KDOC, while allowing other publishers and vendors access to these same prisoners. Accordingly, Defendants’ mail policy and practices violates HRDC’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.
9

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 10 of 15 - Page ID#: 10
39. Lastly, Defendants engage in a policy or practice that fails to provide senders of censored mail constitutionally adequate notice and an opportunity to appeal the censorship of the mail to the intended prisoner. Accordingly, such policy violates HRDC’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process.
40. Said mail policies and practices are the moving force behind the constitutional violations at issue herein.
41. The accommodation of the free speech, expression, equal protection and due process rights of HRDC with respect to written speech protected by the Constitution will not have any significant impact on the prison, its staff or prisoners.
42. Due to Defendants’ actions as described above, HRDC has suffered damages, and will continue to suffer damages, including, but not limited to: the suppression of HRDC’s speech; the impediment of HRDC’s ability to disseminate its political message; frustration of HRDC’s nonprofit organizational mission; the loss of potential subscribers and customers; and the inability to recruit new subscribers and supporters, among other damages.
43. Defendants’ actions and inactions were and are motivated by ill motive and intent, and were and are all committed under color of law with deliberate indifference to HRDC’s rights.
44. Defendants, and other agents of the KDOC, are responsible for or personally participated in creating and implementing these unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs, or for ratifying or adopting them. Further, Defendants are responsible for training and supervising the staff persons whose conduct has injured and continues to injure HRDC.
45. Defendants’ unconstitutional policy, practices, and customs are ongoing, continue to violate HRDC’s rights, and were and are the moving force behind the injuries HRDC suffered as a direct result of the constitutional violations. As such, HRDC has no adequate remedy at law.
10

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 11 of 15 - Page ID#: 11
46. Without relief from this Court HRDC will suffer irreparable injury since its fundamental First Amendment, due process and equal protection rights are being denied. The balance of hardships favors the Plaintiff and the public interest will be served by granting injunctive and declaratory relief.
47. HRDC is entitled to declaratory relief as well as injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from refusing to deliver publications and correspondence from HRDC and other senders without any legal justification, and prohibiting Defendants from censoring mail without due process of law.
IV. CLAIMS Count I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violation of the First Amendment (Censorship) 48. HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 47 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 49. The acts described above constitute violations of HRDC’s rights, the rights of other publishers who have attempted to or intend to communicate with prisoners held by the KDOC, and the rights of the prisoners confined within the KDOC, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 50. HRDC has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in communicating with incarcerated individuals, a right clearly established under existing case law. 51. The conduct of Defendants was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken recklessly, intentionally, willfully, with malice, and with deliberate indifference to the rights of others.
11

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 12 of 15 - Page ID#: 12
52. HRDC’s injuries and the violations of its constitutional rights were directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Defendants, which were and are the moving force of the violations.
53. Defendants’ acts described above have caused damages to HRDC, and if not enjoined, will continue to cause damage to HRDC.
54. HRDC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and nominal, compensatory and punitive damages against all Defendants. HRDC seeks punitive damages against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities.
Count II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violation of Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process) 55. HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 54 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 56. The acts described above constitute violations of HRDC’s rights and the rights of other publishers who have attempted to or who intend to communicate with prisoners held by the KDOC under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 57. Because HRDC and others outside the KDOC facilities have a liberty interest in communicating with prisoners, HRDC and other senders have a right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to receive notice of and an opportunity to appeal Defendants’ decisions to censor their written speech. 58. Defendants’ policy and practice fail to provide HRDC and other senders with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. 59. The conduct of Defendants was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken recklessly, intentionally, willfully, with malice, and with deliberate indifference to the rights of others.
12

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 13 of 15 - Page ID#: 13
60. HRDC’s injuries and the violations of its constitutional rights were directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Defendants, which are and were the moving force of the violations.
61. Defendants’ acts described above have caused damages to HRDC, and if not enjoined, will continue to cause damage to HRDC.
62. HRDC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and nominal and compensatory damages against all Defendants. HRDC seeks punitive damages against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities.
Count III – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection) 63. HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 62 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 64. By permitting some publications to be delivered to prisoners within the KDOC, while specifically excluding books sent as gifts by HRDC and other senders, Defendants violate HRDC’s equal protection rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 65. Further, Defendants’ use of a pre-approved vendor list, which does not include Plaintiff or certain other publishers, violates HRDC’s equal protection rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 66. HRDC is suffering ongoing and irreparable harm as a direct result of Defendants’ discriminatory treatment, and the harm will continue unless the conduct is enjoined by this Court. 67. Defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken recklessly, intentionally, willfully, with malice, and with deliberate indifference to HRDC’s rights.
13

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 14 of 15 - Page ID#: 14
68. HRDC’s injuries and the violations of its constitutional rights were directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Defendants, which are and were the moving force of the violations.
69. Defendants’ acts described above have caused damages to HRDC, and if not enjoined, will continue to cause damage to HRDC.
70. HRDC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and nominal and compensatory damages against all Defendants. HRDC seeks punitive damages against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities.
V. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests relief as follows: 71. A declaration that Defendants’ policies and practices violate the Constitution. 72. Nominal damages for each violation of HRDC’s rights by the Defendants. 73. A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Defendants from continuing to violate the Constitution, and providing other equitable relief. 74. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial. 75. Punitive damages against the individual Defendants in an amount to be proved at trial. 76. Costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and under other applicable law. 77. Any other such relief that this Court deems just and equitable.
VI. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff, Human Rights Defense Center, by and through its attorneys, hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.
14

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/17/17 Page: 15 of 15 - Page ID#: 15

Dated: July 17, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gregory A. Belzley Gregory A. Belzley gbelzley@aol.com Camille A. Bathurst camillebathurst@aol.com BELZLEY BATHURST ATTORNEYS P.O. Box 278 Prospect, KY 40059 Telephone: (502) 292-2452
Sabarish Neelakanta, FL Bar #26623* sneelakanta@hrdc-law.org Masimba Mutamba, FL Bar #102772* mmutamba@hrdc-law.org Daniel Marshall, FL Bar # 617210* dmarshall@hrdc-law.org HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: (561) 360–2523
S Attorneys for Plaintiff
*Pro hac vice applications to be filed.

15

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 50 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 1 of 3 - Page ID#: 286

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION AT FRANKFORT
[Filed Electronically]

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, Plaintiff v.
RODNEY BALLARD, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT OF INJUNCTIVE CLAIMS Plaintiff, the Human Rights Defense Center, hereby moves the Court to approve the
settlement of the injunctive claims in the above-referenced matter. In support thereof, Plaintiff would state:
1. On March 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint (Doc. 27), which is the operative pleading in the case. The complaint requested, inter alia, injunctive relief regarding alleged violations of its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
2. On October 29, 2018 the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement that Plaintiff believed resolved the injunctive claims. The Settlement Agreement is attached to this motion as Exhibit 1. The terms of the Settlement Agreement provides that “[t]he Parties agree that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Agreement, by entry of a Stipulated Order of Dismissal stating the same.”
3. In the months following the resolution of the injunctive claims, Plaintiff was operating under the belief that Defendants would comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 50 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 2 of 3 - Page ID#: 287
agreed upon and signed by all parties, irrespective of the fact that there has been no formal order by the Court enforcing the terms therein. 4. Consistent with Plaintiff’s belief, on November 5, 2018 Defendants submitted a Status Report to the Court confirming that the parties have reached an agreement to resolve the injunctive relief portion of the Plaintiff’s Complaint, while the parties continued to discuss resolution of the other claims. (Doc. 48). 5. At no time thereafter did Defendants state that they would not comply with the injunctive terms of the Settlement Agreement until such time that the Court issued an Order adopting the same. Accordingly, Plaintiff proceeded with negotiations as to the remaining claims in the case under the belief that Defendants would comply with the injunctive terms of the Settlement Agreement in good faith. Indeed, if Plaintiff had known that Defendants would continue censoring its publications in violation of the Settlement Agreement, it would have immediately moved to have the terms of the Settlement Agreement enforced by the Court. 6. However, in correspondence that followed the discovery of a recent violation of the Settlement Agreement between the parties, Plaintiff was informed by Defendants that they believed they had no obligation to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement until it was formally approved by the Court. See correspondence attached as Exhibit 2. 7. Defendants’ claim that they were under no legal obligation to comply with a fully executed Settlement Agreement is in bad faith. Accordingly, to ensure future compliance, and hopefully expedite timely closure to this case, Plaintiff seeks an Order approving the Settlement Agreement and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms therein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court formally approve the Settlement Agreement, and retain jurisdiction to enforce its terms.
2

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 50 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 3 of 3 - Page ID#: 288

Dated: January 28, 2019

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Gregory Belzley Gregory A. Belzley Belzley, Bathurst & Bentley P.O. Box 278 Prospect, KY 40059 Telephone: (502) 292-2452 gbelzley@aol.com

Bruce E.H. Johnson, WA Bar #7667* Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 757-8069 brucejohnson@dwt.com

Sabarish Neelakanta, FL Bar #26623* sneelakanta@hrdc-law.org Masimba Mutamba, FL Bar #102772* mmutamba@hrdc-law.org Daniel Marshall, FL Bar # 617210* dmarshall@hrdc-law.org HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: (561) 360-2523

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing was filed via CM/ECF, which will send electronic notice and a copy of the foregoing to all counsel of record.

/s/ Gregory A. Belzley Counsel for Plaintiff

3

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 07/17/18 Page: 1 of 15 - Page ID#: 257

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at FRANKFORT

[Filed Electronically]

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

Plaintiff, v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-57-GFVT

RODNEY BALLARD, et al.,
-and-
ANNA VALENTINE, in her individual and official capacities Serve: Kentucky State Reformatory
3001 West Highway 146 LaGrange, KY 40032

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

Defendants. ______________________________________

I.

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff, Human Rights Defense Center (“HRDC” or “Plaintiff”) brings this action to

enjoin Defendants’ censorship of books sent from Plaintiff and other publishers to prisoners held

by the Kentucky Department of Corrections (“KDOC”), in violation of the First and Fourteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution. Defendants have adopted and implemented mail

policies prohibiting delivery of written speech from Plaintiff and other speakers, failed to provide

adequate due process notice of and an opportunity to challenge the censorship, and denied Plaintiff

equal protection as required under the Constitution.

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 07/17/18 Page: 2 of 15 - Page ID#: 258
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question), as this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343 (civil rights), as this action seeks redress for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §1983. 3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). At least one Defendant resides within this judicial district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein all occurred within this judicial district. 4. HRDC’s claims for relief are predicated upon 42 U.S.C. §1983, which authorizes actions to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured to HRDC by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States. 5. This Court has jurisdiction over claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202, and Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as nominal and compensatory damages, against all Defendants. 6. HRDC’s claim for attorneys’ fees and costs is predicated upon 42 U.S.C. §1988, which authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 7. HRDC is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that the individual Defendants acted as described herein with the intent to injure, vex, annoy and harass HRDC, and subjected HRDC to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of HRDC’s rights with the intention of causing HRDC injury and depriving it of its constitutional rights. 8. As a result of the foregoing, HRDC seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages against the individual Defendants.
2

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 07/17/18 Page: 3 of 15 - Page ID#: 259
III. PARTIES 9. The Human Rights Defense Center is a not-for-profit charitable organization recognized under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, incorporated in the state of Washington, and with principal offices in Lake Worth, Florida. The purpose of HRDC, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation, is to educate prisoners and the public about the constitutional rights of prisoners, conditions in American jails and prisons, and the economic and social costs of mass incarceration. HRDC accomplishes its mission through litigation, advocacy, and publication and/or distribution of books, magazines and other information concerning prisons and prisoner rights. 10. Defendant Rodney Ballard was the Commissioner of the KDOC from March 2016 until his resignation in May 2017. While he was Commissioner, Defendant Ballard had ultimate responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of all KDOC staff policies and procedures and was responsible for the overall management of the KDOC, to include processing of mail. Defendant Ballard is sued in his individual capacity. 11. Defendant Jim Erwin is currently the Commissioner of the KDOC, and Defendant Aaron Smith is the newly-named Deputy Commissioner of Adult Institutions. Defendants Erwin and Smith have responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of all KDOC staff policies and procedures and are responsible for the overall management of the KDOC, to include processing of mail. Both Defendants are sued in their individual and official capacities. 12. Defendant Kimberly Potter-Blair is the Deputy Commissioner for Support Services of the KDOC. Defendant Potter-Blair is responsible for the promulgation and implementation of policies, procedures, and practices at the KDOC. Defendant Potter-Blair is sued in her individual and official capacities.
3

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 07/17/18 Page: 4 of 15 - Page ID#: 260
13. Defendant Chris Kleymeyer is the Director of the KDOC Division of Operations & Programs. As such, Defendant Kleymeyer oversees the KDOC’s Policy & Procedure Branch, which is responsible for the adoption and implementation of the mail policies at the KDOC, and/or for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling and/or control of KDOC staff who interpret and implement the mail policies. Defendant Kleymeyer is sued in his individual and official capacities.
14. Defendants Ashley Short and Debbie Kays are employed in the KDOC’s Policy & Procedure Branch. As such, they were responsible for the adoption and implementation of the mail policies at the KDOC, and/or for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling and/or control of KDOC staff who interpret and implement the mail policies. Defendants Short and Kays are both sued in their individual and official capacities.
15. Defendants Helton, Ratliff, Litteral, Hart, Conover, White, Valentine, Green, Jordan, Bottom, Sims, and Lane are currently Wardens of KDOC’s penal institutions, and are allegedly vested with discretion over what publications will be permitted inside the institutions for which they are responsible. Each of these Defendants is sued in their individual and official capacities.
16. At all times material to this action, the actions of all Defendants as alleged herein were taken under the authority and color of state law.
17. At all times material to this action, all Defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment as agents and/or employees of Defendant KDOC.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. HRDC’s Mission and Outreach to the KDOC 18. For more than 26 years, the focus of HRDC’s mission has been public education, advocacy and outreach on behalf of, and for the purpose of assisting, prisoners who seek legal
4

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 07/17/18 Page: 5 of 15 - Page ID#: 261
redress for infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed and other basic human rights. HRDC’s mission, if realized, has a salutary effect on public safety.
19. As part of its mission to educate prisoners and the public about prisons, HRDC publishes and distributes publications including: 1) an award-winning, 72-page monthly magazine titled Prison Legal News: Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights, which contains news and analysis about prisons, jails and other detention facilities, prisoners’ rights, court opinions, management of prison facilities, prison conditions, and other matters pertaining to the rights and/or interests of incarcerated individuals; and 2) approximately fifty (50) different softcover books about the criminal justice system, legal reference books, and self-help books of interest to prisoners. These books are designed to foster a better understanding of prisoners’ rights and criminal justice policies and to allow prisoners to educate themselves about related issues, such as legal research, how to write a business letter, health care issues, and similar topics.
20. Accordingly, HRDC engages in core protected speech and expressive conduct on matters of public concern, such as the operation of prison facilities, prison conditions, prisoner health and safety, and prisoners’ rights. HRDC’s publications, as described above, contain political speech and social commentary, which are core First Amendment rights and are entitled to the highest protection afforded by the United States Constitution.
21. HRDC has thousands of customers in the United States and abroad, including prisoners, attorneys, journalists, public libraries, judges, and members of the general public. HRDC distributes its publications to prisoners and law librarians in more than 2,600 correctional facilities located across all fifty states, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, KDOC and various state and local facilities within the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Within KDOC alone, HRDC has sent its publications to the following facilities: Bell County Forestry Camp, Blackburn Correctional
5

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 07/17/18 Page: 6 of 15 - Page ID#: 262
Complex, Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex, Green River Correctional Complex, Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women, Kentucky State Penitentiary, Kentucky State Reformatory, Little Sandy Correctional Complex, Luther Luckett Correctional Complex, Northpoint Training Center, Roederer Correctional Complex, and Western Kentucky Correctional Complex.
22. HRDC has sent its monthly magazine, Prison Legal News, to numerous prisoners in the KDOC. The magazine has not been censored by Defendants; instead, it is delivered to the intended prisoner-recipients.
23. Unlike the magazine, however, Defendants have adopted a policy and practice of arbitrarily prohibiting receipt of various HRDC’s books sent to individual prisoners held by the KDOC. Specifically, since July 2016, HRDC has sent numerous softcover books to prisoners held by the KDOC, including: 1) The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (“Habeas Citebook”), which describes the procedural and substantive complexities of federal habeas corpus litigation with the goal of identifying and litigating claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel; 2) Prisoner Diabetes Handbook: A Guide to Managing Diabetes – for Prisoners, by Prisoners, which provides guidance on treating and managing diabetes while incarcerated; 3) the Prisoners’ Self-Help Litigation Manual, a comprehensive tool for learning about prisoner's civil rights, and providing the necessary information and background to formulate a strong legal selfdefense for those rights; 4) Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, which breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps; and 5) the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law.
24. Defendants censored a substantial portion of these books and did not deliver them to the intended prisoner-recipients in the KDOC. Since July 2016 HRDC separately sent one hundred fifty-eight (158) softcover books to various prisoners held by the KDOC. One hundred thirty-one
6

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 07/17/18 Page: 7 of 15 - Page ID#: 263
(131) of these books were sent complimentary, while twenty-seven (27) were purchased by prisoners or on behalf of prisoners.
25. On information and belief, in each of these instances the wardens of each individual KDOC penal institution, namely Defendants Helton, Ratliff, Litteral, Hart, Conover, White, Valentine, Green, Jordan, Bottom, Sims, and Lane, made and continue to make determinations over what HRDC publication will be permitted inside the institution for which they are responsible.
26. Plaintiff can identify at least twenty-six (26) books sent by HRDC to prisoners held by the KDOC which were censored by Defendants. In one instance, a copy of the Diabetes Handbook was returned to HRDC with the notations “MAIL ROOM KY STATE PENITENTIARY REFUSED”, “policy 2-C-1”, and with boxes checked indicating the refusal was due to “Colored paper/envelope/ink”, “Stickers”, “Contraband”, and “Other.” None of the other censored books were returned to HRDC; instead, Plaintiff was notified by either the prisoner-recipient or the KDOC itself that the book was not delivered.
27. On information and belief, a substantial portion of the other books mailed by HRDC to individual prisoners held by the KDOC were also censored by the Defendants.
28. Further, in several instances Defendants failed to provide HRDC any notice or opportunity to appeal these censorship decisions. When notice was sent by the Defendants, it did not adequately describe the censorship or the procedure by which KDOC’s decision could be appealed.
29. On or about August 1, 2016, HRDC received seventeen (17) separate “NOTICE OF UNAUTHORIZED MAIL” forms from the KDOC. The forms did not state what the unauthorized mail was, but presumably were in reference to books that HRDC had sent to prisoners at the
7

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 07/17/18 Page: 8 of 15 - Page ID#: 264
Kentucky State Penitentiary earlier that month. Each form referenced a different prisoner, and in every instance gave the reason for rejection as “Free Book.”
30. HRDC received additional NOTICE OF UNAUTHORIZED MAIL forms on or about February 2, 2017, March 20, 2017, and April 28, 2017. These notices were in reference to three separate books that were sent to separate prisoners at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex. In each case, the reason for rejection was “Books … not directly from publisher or authorized distributor….” The April 28, 2017 form had an additional notation in the contraband section: “Free.”
31. All of the NOTICE OF UNAUTHORIZED MAIL forms referenced the appeal policy contained in Kentucky Corrections Policy 16.2. That policy states that “[a] publisher may appeal a decision not to deliver an item to an inmate to the Commissioner [of the Department of Corrections].” The policy does not impose any time limit on when a publisher may enter an appeal.
32. The NOTICE OF UNAUTHORIZED MAIL forms received on August 1, 2016 (but not the forms received on later dates) also included the following language: “If a Publisher’s item was returned you may file an appeal within fifteen (15) calendar days to the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections @ 275 East Main St. Frankfort, Ky, 40601.”
33. For all other books that were not delivered, HRDC did not receive any notice of the KDOC’s decision to censor its mail.
34. On or about August 16, 2016, HRDC appealed the rejection of its books at the Kentucky State Penitentiary to Defendant Ballard. Plaintiff has not received a decision on its appeal.
35. HRDC continued to attempt to resolve the censorship issues at the KDOC by writing a letter to the General Counsel for the Department of Corrections on January 23, 2017, outlining the
8

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 07/17/18 Page: 9 of 15 - Page ID#: 265
constitutional infirmities in the KDOC’s mail policies. HRDC sent a follow-up letter regarding the same issues on April 5, 2017. HRDC has not received a response to either letter.
36. Plaintiff will continue to mail copies of its books and other publications to subscribers, customers and other individuals imprisoned within the KDOC, but seeks the protection of this Court to ensure that the materials are delivered and, if not, that due process is afforded to the Plaintiff so it may challenge the basis for any censorship.
B. Defendants’ Unconstitutional Mail Policies and Practices 37. Defendants’ mail policy and practice bans books sent by HRDC and other senders to prisoners in the KDOC because the books were not purchased by prisoners, but rather were sent to them as gifts, and/or because the sender was not on a pre-approved vendor list. Accordingly, Defendants’ mail policies and practices violate HRDC’s First Amendment right to free speech. 38. Defendants’ use of a pre-approved vendor list specifically excludes some publishers and vendors, like HRDC, from sending their books to prisoners within the KDOC, while allowing other publishers and vendors access to these same prisoners. Accordingly, Defendants’ mail policy and practices violates HRDC’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection 39. Further, Defendants’ policy of allowing prisoners to receive purchased books, but excluding gift books, prevents some publishers and vendors, like HRDC, from disseminating their speech to prisoners in the KDOC, while allowing other publishers and vendors access to these same prisoners. Accordingly, Defendants’ mail policy and practices violates HRDC’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. 40. Lastly, Defendants engage in a policy or practice that fails to provide senders of censored mail constitutionally adequate notice and an opportunity to appeal the censorship of the
9

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 07/17/18 Page: 10 of 15 - Page ID#: 266
mail to the intended prisoner. Accordingly, such policy violates HRDC’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process.
41. Said mail policies and practices are the moving force behind the constitutional violations at issue herein.
42. The accommodation of the free speech, expression, equal protection and due process rights of HRDC with respect to written speech protected by the Constitution will not have any significant impact on the prison, its staff or prisoners.
43. Due to Defendants’ actions as described above, HRDC has suffered damages, and will continue to suffer damages, including, but not limited to: the suppression of HRDC’s speech; the impediment of HRDC’s ability to disseminate its political message; frustration of HRDC’s nonprofit organizational mission; the loss of potential subscribers and customers; and the inability to recruit new subscribers and supporters, among other damages.
44. Defendants’ actions and inactions were and are motivated by ill motive and intent, and were and are all committed under color of law with deliberate indifference to HRDC’s rights.
45. Defendants, and other agents of the KDOC, are responsible for or personally participated in creating and implementing these unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs, or for ratifying or adopting them. Further, Defendants are responsible for training and supervising the staff persons whose conduct has injured and continues to injure HRDC.
46. Defendants’ unconstitutional policy, practices, and customs are ongoing, continue to violate HRDC’s rights, and were and are the moving force behind the injuries HRDC suffered as a direct result of the constitutional violations. As such, HRDC has no adequate remedy at law.
47. Without relief from this Court HRDC will suffer irreparable injury since its fundamental First Amendment, due process and equal protection rights are being denied. The balance of
10

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 07/17/18 Page: 11 of 15 - Page ID#: 267
hardships favors the Plaintiff and the public interest will be served by granting injunctive and declaratory relief.
48. HRDC is entitled to declaratory relief as well as injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from refusing to deliver publications and correspondence from HRDC and other senders without any legal justification, and prohibiting Defendants from censoring mail without due process of law.
V. CLAIMS Count I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violation of the First Amendment (Censorship) 49. HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 48 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 50. The acts described above constitute violations of HRDC’s rights, the rights of other publishers who have attempted to or intend to communicate with prisoners held by the KDOC, and the rights of the prisoners confined within the KDOC, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 51. HRDC has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in communicating with incarcerated individuals, a right clearly established under existing case law. 52. The conduct of Defendants was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken recklessly, intentionally, willfully, with malice, and with deliberate indifference to the rights of others. 53. HRDC’s injuries and the violations of its constitutional rights were directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Defendants, which were and are the moving force of the violations.
11

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 07/17/18 Page: 12 of 15 - Page ID#: 268
54. Defendants’ acts described above have caused damages to HRDC, and if not enjoined, will continue to cause damage to HRDC.
55. HRDC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and nominal, compensatory and punitive damages against all Defendants. HRDC seeks punitive damages against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities.
Count II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violation of Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process) 56. HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 55 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 57. The acts described above constitute violations of HRDC’s rights and the rights of other publishers who have attempted to or who intend to communicate with prisoners held by the KDOC under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 58. Because HRDC and others outside the KDOC facilities have a liberty interest in communicating with prisoners, HRDC and other senders have a right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to receive notice of and an opportunity to appeal Defendants’ decisions to censor their written speech. 59. Defendants’ policy and practice fail to provide HRDC and other senders with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. 60. The conduct of Defendants was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken recklessly, intentionally, willfully, with malice, and with deliberate indifference to the rights of others.
12

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 07/17/18 Page: 13 of 15 - Page ID#: 269
61. HRDC’s injuries and the violations of its constitutional rights were directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Defendants, which are and were the moving force of the violations.
62. Defendants’ acts described above have caused damages to HRDC, and if not enjoined, will continue to cause damage to HRDC.
63. HRDC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and nominal and compensatory damages against all Defendants. HRDC seeks punitive damages against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities.
Count III – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection) 64. HRDC re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 63 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 65. By permitting some publications to be delivered to prisoners within the KDOC, while specifically excluding books sent as gifts by HRDC and other senders, Defendants violate HRDC’s equal protection rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 66. Further, Defendants’ use of a pre-approved vendor list, which does not include Plaintiff or certain other publishers, violates HRDC’s equal protection rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 67. HRDC is suffering ongoing and irreparable harm as a direct result of Defendants’ discriminatory treatment, and the harm will continue unless the conduct is enjoined by this Court. 68. Defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken recklessly, intentionally, willfully, with malice, and with deliberate indifference to HRDC’s rights.
13

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 07/17/18 Page: 14 of 15 - Page ID#: 270
69. HRDC’s injuries and the violations of its constitutional rights were directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Defendants, which are and were the moving force of the violations.
70. Defendants’ acts described above have caused damages to HRDC, and if not enjoined, will continue to cause damage to HRDC.
71. HRDC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and nominal and compensatory damages against all Defendants. HRDC seeks punitive damages against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities.
VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests relief as follows: 72. A declaration that Defendants’ policies and practices violate the Constitution. 73. Nominal damages for each violation of HRDC’s rights by the Defendants. 74. A preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Defendants from continuing to violate the Constitution, and providing other equitable relief. 75. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial. 76. Punitive damages against the individual Defendants in an amount to be proved at trial. 77. Costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and under other applicable law. 78. Any other such relief that this Court deems just and equitable.
VII. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff, Human Rights Defense Center, by and through its attorneys, hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.
14

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 07/17/18 Page: 15 of 15 - Page ID#: 271
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gregory A. Belzley Gregory A. Belzley gbelzley@aol.com Camille A. Bathurst camillebathurst@aol.com BELZLEY BATHURST ATTORNEYS P.O. Box 278 Prospect, KY 40059 Telephone: (502) 292-2452 Sabarish Neelakanta sneelakanta@hrdc-law.org Masimba Mutamba mmutamba@hrdc-law.org Daniel Marshall dmarshall@hrdc-law.org HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: (561) 360–2523
S Counsel for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 11, 2018, the foregoing was delivered via CM/ECF to all counsel of record.
/s/ Gregory A. Belzley Counsel for Plaintiff
15

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/26/19 Page: 1 of 2 - Page ID#: 297

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION FRANKFORT

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

V.

)

)

RODNEY BALLARD, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil No. 3:17-CV-00057-GFVT ORDER

*** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Settlement of Injunctive Claims. [R. 50.] Human Rights Defense Center filed a complaint alleging violations of its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. As indicated by the settlement agreement, the parties, through counsel, have conferred and agreed that the injunctive claims should be settled without delay and expense of litigation. [R. 50-1.] Accordingly, the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Settlement Agreement of Injunctive Claims [R. 50-1] is APPROVED; 2. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Agreement; and 3. The Injunctive Claims against the Defendant are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 51 Filed: 03/26/19 Page: 2 of 2 - Page ID#: 298 This the 26th day of March, 2019.
2

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 50-1 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 1 of 6 - Page ID#: 289
IN THE MATTER OF: Human Rights Defense Center v. Ballard, eta!.
Case No. 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT U.S. DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF INJUNCTIVE CLAIMS THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF INJUNCTIVE CLAIMS (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the date this Agreement is signed, by and among the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Kentucky Department of Corrections (“KDOC”), on behalf of itself and all of its officers, directors, employees, former employees, agents, predecessors, divisions, successors, administrators, and assigns, including but not limited to Jim Erwin, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Chris Kleymeyer, Ashley Short, Debbie Kays, Keith Helton, Tiffany Ratliff, Kathy Litteral, Deedra Hart, Janet Conover, Randy WhiLe, James David Green, Scott Jordan, Don Bottom, Ravonne Sims, Tim Lane, and Anna Valentine (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), and the Human Rights Defense Center (“HRDC”), on behalf of itself and all of its officers, directors, employees, former employees, agents, predecessors, divisions, successors, administrators, and assigns. Defendants and HRDC collectively are “(he Parties”. I. Recitals A. At all times relevant hereto, the individual Defendants are or were employees of the KDOC. B. At all times relevant hereto, the Human Rights Defense Center is and was a not-for-
profit charitable organization recognized under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code,
incorporated in the state of Washington and with principal offices in Lake Worth, Florida. HRDC publishes Prison Legal News, a monthly journal of corrections news and analysis. HRDC has thousands of subscribers in the United States and abroad, including prisoners, attorneys, and

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 50-1 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 2 of 6 - Page ID#: 290
judges. Additionally, HRDC publishes and/or distributes dozens of different softcover books about the criminal justice system, legal reference books, and self-help books of interest to prisoners.
C. This Agreement addresses and resolves certain disputes arising from and relating to allegations that Defendants violated HRDC’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as it relates to the handling and delivery of its publications at KDOC’s prison facilities, and the alleged lack of due process associated with Defendants’ failure to provide HRDC notice and opportunity to be heard regarding rejected or censored publications.
D. The Parties agree that the Defendants deny any liability in this case. However, in order to avoid the expense, delay, uncertainty, and burden of litigation, the parties have agreed to a settlement of the litigation. This written Agreement memorializes the terms of the settlement reached by Defendants and HRDC as to the injunctive claims in this case. II. Injunctive terms
1. The Defendants agree that they shall deliver, if consistent with its legitimate penological interests and express policy terms based thereon, all HRDC publications (i.e., books, magazines, and newspapers) sent to prisoners held in its prison facilities.
2. The Defendants agree that all incoming HRDC publications will be reviewed on a caseby-case basis for a determination of suitability within the parameters of institutional safety and security. The Defendants shall not reject publications at any of its facilities solely because the sender is not on a list of approved publishers, vendors, and/or distributors. The Defendants shall also not condition delivery of any publication on the recipient relinquishing ownership of said publication. Further, The Defendants agree not to reject publications solely because they were free.
2

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 50-1 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 3 of 6 - Page ID#: 291
3. The Defendants agree that it will not reject books sent by HRDC to prisoners within its facilities solely because the books are mailed in envelopes, contain colored paper or ink, or are sent in packages with mailing labels. The Parties agree that, for security purposes:
If HRDC publications are mailed into the institution in colored envelopes, the contents of the envelope will be delivered to the prisoner, but the prisoner will not be allowed to possess the envelope itself. If HRDC publications are mailed into the institution in packages with mailing labels, the mailing label will be removed by the institution before the package is delivered to the prisoner. The Parties agree that (he Defendants will not be required to send a rejection notice to the Plaintiff if envelopes or mailing labels are withheld from the prisoner, as long as the contents of the package or envelope are delivered to the prisoner. 4. The Defendants agree that whenever authorities at any of its prison facilities refuse to deliver any HRDC publication sent to a prisoner for any reason, prison personnel shall place into the mail written notice to the sender within three (3) business days of making the rejection decision. The notice shall include the name and address of the publisher as well as the name(s) of the intended recipient(s), a description of the refused publication, and an explanation of why the publication was rejected. The notice shall also inform the sender of their right to appeal the decision, and include the name and address of the person to whom such appeals should be addressed and the date by which appeals must be submitted. The notice shall also be given to the intended prisoner-recipient of the publication. The refused publication will be retained by the prison in accordance with the appeal process established by the prison.
3

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 50-1 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 4 of 6 - Page ID#: 292
5. The Parties agree that Defendants Jim Erwin, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Chris Kleymeyer. Ashley Short, Debbie Kays, Keith Helton, Tiffany Ratliff, Kathy Litteral, Deedra Hart, Janet Conover, Randy White, James David Green, Scott Jordan, Don Bottom, Ravonne Sims, Tim Lane, and Anna Valentine, and their agents, assigns, employees, deputies and successors, will establish, implement and enforce policies and procedures that will fully effectuate the terms of this Agreement.
6. It is further agreed that within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Agreement, Defendants Keith Helton, Tiffany Ratliff, Kathy Litteml, Deedra Hart, Janet Conover, Randy White, James David Green, Scott Jordan, Don Bottom, Ravonne Sims, Tim Lane, and Anna Valentine will disseminate a copy of this Agreement to all employees of their respective prisons who are responsible for any part of the receipt, collection, and delivery of U.S. Mail to prisoners, and that the terms of this Agreement will be fully implemented by all prison staffpersons. Further, copies of this Agreement shall be available to prisoners in the prisons’ respective libraries, and copies of this Agreement shall be posted in the common areas of KDOC’s prison facilities for a period of ninety (90) days after the date of this Agreement. Defendants’ counsel will furnish the Court and Plaintiff’s counsel with written confirmation that Defendants have complied with the provisions of this paragraph.
7. The Parties agree that each of the KDOC’s prison facilities shall conduct an appropriate training session with all staff persons who are responsible for any part of the receipt, collection, and delivery of U.S. Mail to prisoners about the contents of this Agreement and the best practices for successful compliance herewith. The Defendants shall file with the Court a notice that said training has been conducted within ninety (90) days of the entry of the stipulation and Order by
4

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 50-1 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 5 of 6 - Page ID#: 293
the Court, and they shall provide a copy of the written materials used for such training to HRDC’s counsel at the time of filing. III. Reservation of Jurisdiction
8. The Parties agree that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Agreement, by entry of a Stipulated Order of Dismissal stating the same. IV. Miscellaneous Provisions
9. Only the named Plaintiff can maintain an action for breach of this Agreement. No other person will be considered a third-party beneficiary of this Agreement.
A. Plaintiff may move the court for reinstatement of the lawsuit, or may elect to proceed in state court and seek specific performance or institute an action for breach subject to notification as set forth in paragraph 2 of this Subsection. An action to enforce this Agreement does not include any action for damages. B. The lawsuit may not be reinstated, nor a claim for breach or specific performance of this Agreement brought, before the Plaintiff first notifies the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections of the nature of the alleged material non-compliance and gives the Department of Corrections 60 days to cure the alleged breach.
10. The Defendants and HRDC acknowledge and agree that they have been represented by legal counsel with respect to the matters that are the subject of this Agreement and that they have entered into this Agreement freely and voluntarily.
11. The Parties agree that facsimile or PDF signatures are deemed to be originals and that this Agreement may be executed in counterparts. Upon signature of the Parties, this Agreement shall be deemed executed, final, and binding.
5

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 50-1 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 6 of 6 - Page ID#: 294

12. The Parties agree that this case concerns allegations that the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of a publisher were violated, and is therefore not a case concerning prison conditions as defined in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996.
13. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the injunctive claims in this case, and there are no representations, warranties, agreements, arrangements, or undertakings, oral or written, between or among the Parties hereto relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which are not fully expressed herein. This Agreement supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, statements, or promises between the Parties, whether written or oral, as to these claims.
14. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Defendants and HRDC, and their respective successors and assigns.
15. The obligations imposed by this Agreement are severable. If for any reason a part of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable, that determination shall not affect the remainder of this Agreement.
16. This Agreement and any of its provisions may be amended, modified, or terminated only by written agreement signed by HRDC and the Defendants. Such written agreement(s) shall be effective only upon approval by the Court.
Stipulated and Agreed to:

ntucky Depa ment of Corrections

Date

Pa I Wrig xecutive Director Human Rig Defense Center

Date 6

4 7°/f

 
 Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 77 Filed: 05/15/20 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 537

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION FRANKFORT

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, Plaintiff,
V. RODNEY BALLARD, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)

)

Civil No. 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

)

&

) )

ORDER

)

*** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center’s Motion for

Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Expenses. In large part, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request to be

reasonable and appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I

As part of its mission, Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center mails publications to

prisoners to make them aware of their rights. [R. 66.] In 2016 and 2017, it mailed certain of its

publications to prisoners housed in Kentucky Department of Corrections (“KDOC”) facilities.

Id. at 2. After prison staff at KDOC facilities rejected these publications, Human Rights Center

brought suit against various KDOC personnel claiming violations of the First Amendment and

Fourteenth Amendment, respectively. [Id. at 2; R. 69 at 1.]

In July 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on the last of Human Rights

Center’s claims and the Court entered an order dismissing the case, while retaining jurisdiction

in part to address the issue of attorneys’ fees. [R. 63.] Under the terms of their settlement

agreement, the parties stipulated that Human Rights Center was designated a “prevailing party”

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 77 Filed: 05/15/20 Page: 2 of 11 - Page ID#: 538
under 42 U.S.C. §1988 and entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the course of litigation. [R. 66 at 2; R. 62-1.]
Human Rights Center has now moved for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $105,001.17 and Defendants have responded in opposition. [R. 66; R. 69.] At issue is whether the amount requested is reasonable and sufficiently supported by the evidence.
II A “The primary concern in an attorney fee case is that the fee awarded be reasonable, that is, one that is adequately compensatory to attract competent counsel yet which avoids producing a windfall for lawyers.” Adcock–Ladd v. Sec'y of Treasury, 227 F.3d 343, 349 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Reed v. Rhodes, 179 F.3d 453, 471 (6th Cir. 1999)). Under § 1988, a reasonable attorneys’ fee “is one calculated on the basis of rates and practices prevailing in the relevant market . . ..” Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 286 (1989). Notably, purely clerical or secretarial tasks are not compensable. Miller v. Davis, 267 F. Supp. 3d 961, 996–97 (E.D. Ky. 2017) (citing Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 n. 10 (1989)). This encompasses “tasks that do not require legal knowledge, such as filing motions, preparing or reviewing summons, and receiving and filing correspondence.” Id. (citation omitted). The party seeking attorneys’ fees has the burden to adequately document and submit evidence in support of the hours worked. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). “Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly.” Id. Relatedly, when a party objects to a requested fee award, the nature of the objection is important. “Where a party raises specific objections . . . a district court should state why it is rejecting them. Even if the defendant raises objections in a generalized manner, a
2

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 77 Filed: 05/15/20 Page: 3 of 11 - Page ID#: 539
district court has an obligation to review the billing statement and eliminate those portions of the fee which are unreasonable on their face.” Wooldridge v. Marlene Indus. Corp., 898 F. 2d 1169, 1176 (6th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001).
B Human Rights Center initially requested $102,910.00 in fees in compensation for work performed by six attorneys and four paralegals. [R. 66 at 2; R. 70-3.] It also requested an award of costs in the amount of $2,091.17. [R. 66 at 2.] As set out above, pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement Defendants acknowledge that Human Rights Center is entitled to attorneys’ fees or costs. They argue, however, that certain of Human Rights Center’s requests are either (1) outside the scope of what it is entitled to in terms of “reasonable attorneys’ fees or costs,” or (2) not supported by a sufficient explanation or documentation. [See R. 69.] In its reply, Human Rights Center has agreed to withdraw requests for .4 hours of post-deposition work1 and $39.80 in costs but, on the whole, maintains that its requests are reasonable. [R. 70 at 8.] Outside of the post-deposition work fees, Defendants object to fees requested for eight different tasks or categories of tasks. [R. 69 at 3–7.] After review of the record and the parties’ respective arguments, the Court finds that all eight of these objections are sufficiently specific so as to require further review.
1 First, Defendants object to fees charged for time expended on 62.6 hours of pre-litigation
1 Although neither party specifies as to the amount of fees associated with this work, the Court, on review of the record, finds that the .4 hours were completed at a rate of $275.00 and thus the award will be reduced by $110.00. [R. 66-1 at 101.]
3

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 77 Filed: 05/15/20 Page: 4 of 11 - Page ID#: 540
work “not related to drafting pleadings or developing a case theory.” Id. at 3–4. Defendants identify a large swath of disputed entries but fail to offer developed argumentation on this issue. In large part, it appears Defendants conclude that the identified entries did not relate to drafting pleadings or developing a case theory because they occurred before the decision to file a complaint was made. Id. (“[Certain] entries all occurred more than once [sic] year prior to the date the Complaint was filed . . ..”). But they offer no support for the proposition that simply because time entries occurred a certain amount of time before a complaint was filed that the resulting attorneys’ fee requests are unreasonable. Human Rights Center, in response to this objection, argues that this work was “necessary to inform the pre-litigation demand letter . . . and to file an accurate complaint.” [R. 70 at 3.] The itemized time entries at issue support Human Rights Center’s assertion and, thus, the Court finds these fee requests reasonable.
2 Next, Defendants argue that the billing entries related to letters or emails sent to inmates or families are unreasonable given that Human Rights Center “failed to explain how these activities were ‘necessary to secure the final result obtained from the litigation.’” [R. 69 at 4 (misciting Webb v. Board of Educ. Of Dyer Cty., 471 U.S. 234, 242 (1985)).] This is not the standard. “The question is not whether . . . in hindsight the time expenditure was strictly necessary to obtain the relief achieved. Rather, the standard is whether a reasonable attorney would have believed the work to be reasonably expended in the pursuit of success at the point in time when the work was performed.” Wooldridge, 898 F.2d at 1177. Viewed through the lens of the proper standard, the entries at issue are reasonable. As explained by Human Rights Center, writing to prisoners and their families was necessary to determine what was happening at KDOC facilities as it related to the alleged improper
4

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 77 Filed: 05/15/20 Page: 5 of 11 - Page ID#: 541
censorship and rejection of its publications. [R. 70 at 4.] This is certainly a reasonable explanation as it relates to developing a full factual record in order to properly litigate the case.
3 Defendants argue that the entries related to time spent reviewing newspaper articles about KDOC are also unreasonable, again relying on the incorrect standard. [R. 69 at 4–5.] Human Rights Center argues these entries were reasonable as each of the articles related to either leadership changes in KDOC or other changes within KDOC facilities. [R. 70 at 4.] The entries themselves support this assertion by Human Rights Center and, on review, a total of 1.1 hours of time spent to determine the current leadership and policies of the very organization one is suing is sufficiently reasonable.
4 Next, Defendants argue that the request for “fees for compiling and mailing copies of the Amended Complaint to each individual Defendant on March 28, 2018” is unreasonable. [R. 69 at 5.] This objection appears to take issue with two entries by a paralegal, Kathy Moses, which total .3 hours charged for a total of $37.50, and read as follows: “Add recent mail out of Amended Complaint to KY DOC case expense spreadsheet” and “Meetings w/ DM re: mailout of Amended Complaints and tallying costs on expense sheet.” [R. 66-1 at 83.] Defendants argue the fees requested in relation to these entries should not be awarded because “Plaintiff could have requested a waiver of service from counsel for the Defendants.” [R. 69 at 5.] But the Court finds these entries do not warrant compensation for another reason: their clerical nature. Miller, 267 F. Supp. 3d at 996–97 (citation omitted) (“Clerical work involves tasks that do not require legal knowledge, such as filing motions, preparing or reviewing summons, and receiving and filing correspondence.”). The Court will reduce the total amount awarded by $37.50.
5

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 77 Filed: 05/15/20 Page: 6 of 11 - Page ID#: 542
5 Next, Defendants take issue with Human Rights Center’s entries relating to “time spent reviewing emails relating to new inmate subscribers.” [R. 69 at 5.] Defendants argue that there is no indication any of these subscribers ever had their mail censored—the allegation that gave rise to this litigation—and thus these entries are unreasonable. Id. Human Rights Center responds that “[e]ven in the absence of censorship, information that publications were actually being delivered was also valuable, both in terms of determining the proper amount of damages and in determining the necessary scope of injunctive relief.” [R. 70 at 5.] This explanation is persuasive. On review, a total of .9 hours spent over the course of two years of litigation to determine the extent of the alleged problem is undoubtedly reasonable.
6 Defendants’ next argument—that fees related to Human Rights Center mailing the Settlement Agreement to prisoners were unreasonable—carries more weight. Defendants argue that these fees are unreasonable because (1) the terms of the injunctive Settlement Agreement already required Defendants to post copies at each institution in order to notify the inmate population, and (2), again citing the wrong standard, that providing individual copies to inmates “was not necessary to secure the final result obtained.” [R. 69 at 6.] Review of the relevant Settlement Agreement supports Defendants’ assertion that copies of the Agreement were to be posted in common areas at KDOC facilities. [See R. 50-1.] As such, it appears the parties already allocated the costs of notifying the prisoners of the Agreement. Further, Human Rights Center’s explanation of the reasonableness of these fees largely amounts to concerns with regaining goodwill following Defendants’ harmful actions. [R. 70 at 6.] It is unclear to the
6

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 77 Filed: 05/15/20 Page: 7 of 11 - Page ID#: 543
Court how this type of undertaking is “reasonably expended in pursuit of success” in litigation. Wooldridge, 898 F.2d at 1177. The Court will reduce the overall amount awarded by $362.50.2
7 Defendants penultimate objection concerns “fees incurred after the case was moot.” [R. 69 at 6.] Here, Defendants argue that “[f]ees incurred after the case is dismissed cannot be ‘necessary to secure the final result obtained.’” Id. Defendants argument, although unclear, appears to concern two sets of entries: those entered after the March 26, 2019 Order approving the injunctive Settlement Agreement, and those entered after the July 17, 2019 Order approving the damages Settlement Agreement. As to the first set of entries, the Court’s Order which dismissed the injunctive relief claims explicitly stated that the Court was to retain jurisdiction in part for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the first Settlement Agreement. [R. 51.] This is mind, Human Rights Center argues that the disputed entries related to alleged violations of the injunctive Settlement Agreement and the time spent was to ensure the violations did not continue. [R. 70 at 6.] The case was still open at that time and the entries in this time period support Human Rights Center’s explanation. These fees were reasonable. As to the second set of entries, the same finding applies. The July 17, 2019 Order explicitly stated that the Court “shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement of Injunctive Claims [R. 50-1] and the Settlement Agreement of Damages Claim [R. 62-1].” [R. 63 at 1.] Human Rights Center’s above explanation therefore applies in full to entries occurring after July 17, 2019. And, the three entries at issue in this postJuly 2019 set are in line with the provided explanation. [R. 66-1 at 131.] These fee requests
2 The two entries at issue total 2.9 hours expended at a rate of $125.00, for a total of $362.50. [See R. 66-1 at 114.]
7

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 77 Filed: 05/15/20 Page: 8 of 11 - Page ID#: 544
were also reasonable. 8
Finally, Defendants argue broadly “[m]any of the Plaintiff’s itemized billing entries include billing for clerical tasks such as filing pleadings, summarizing data onto spreadsheets, mailing letters, preparing summons, mailing copies of the Complaint and assembling documents.” [R. 69 at 6.] As set out above, purely clerical tasks are not compensable as part of attorneys’ fees requests. Miller, 267 F. Supp. 3d at 996–97 (citing Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 n. 10 (1989)). This encompasses “tasks that do not require legal knowledge, such as filing motions, preparing or reviewing summons, and receiving and filing correspondence.” Id.
The Court has reviewed the disputed entries and finds that Human Rights Center’s explanations in response to this objection are largely unconvincing, save for the explanation as to one group of entries—entries related to “summarizing data on spreadsheets.” Here, Human Rights Center argues that this paralegal work “required legal knowledge as to which returned items constituted unconstitutional censorship, and therefore should be included [on the spreadsheet], and which did not.” [R. 70 at 7.] This explanation shows that the paralegals were required to exercise discretion on what to include and, further, that the data summarized was necessary to understand the full extent of the alleged unconstitutional conduct by Defendants. The fee requests associated with these entries were reasonable.
The remaining tasks that Defendants take issue with, however, are not compensable. Defendants’ objection is generalized in nature and fails to point out specific entries by date. [See R. 69 at 6.] As such, the Court has simply reviewed the 134-page billing spreadsheet [R. 66-1] to determine which entries are, on their face, clerical in nature. See Wooldridge, 898 F. 2d at
8

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 77 Filed: 05/15/20 Page: 9 of 11 - Page ID#: 545
1176. The Court has identified several such entries.3 These entries took place on the following dates, and are identified further by the billing party, subject matter, and amount billed:
(i) July 17, 2017; Moses; review email of summons; $12.50; (ii) July 17, 2017; Mutamba; reviewed summons; $27.50; (iii) July 17, 2017; Stevens; review emails re: filing of complaint (two entries);
$37.50; (iv) July 17, 2017; Neelakanta; emails to and from co-counsel re: filing of complaint
and service of summons; $97.50; (v) July 18, 2017; Stevens; prepare and mail out complaint and summons; $100; (vi) March 7, 2018; Marshall; review notice of filing of summons; $35.00; (vii) March 27, 2018; Moses; mailing complaint; $62.50; (viii) March 27, 2018; Mutamba; reviewed summons; $27.50; (ix) March 28, 2018; Moses; mailout of Amended Complaint (two entries); $37.50; (x) March 28, 2018; Moses; update spreadsheets; $125.00; (xi) April 19, 2018; Moses; revise postage calculations; $12.50; (xii) June 4, 2018; Moses; reviewing Casemap entries for US certified mail receipts
(two entries); $37.50; (xiii) November 8, 2018; Moses; updating databases and preparing for “mass mail
out”; $250.00; (xiv) November 14, 2018; Moses; spoke with prisoner who had not received
Settlement Agreement mailout; $12.50; and
3 Human Rights Center argues that “in today’s court system, filing is no longer just a clerical task.” [R. 70 at 8.] But it offers no support for this proposition and the distinctions made between filing before and after “the advent of electronic filing” are unpersuasive. See id. at 7. Filing remains a clerical task.
9

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 77 Filed: 05/15/20 Page: 10 of 11 - Page ID#: 546
(xv) March 27, 2019; Montag; logging expenses in spreadsheet; $12.50. The fees requested from these clerical entries total $887.50—this amount will be reduced from the total awarded. To the extent that Defendants may argue the Court should have identified more “clerical” entries, they have waived any such argument given their initial failure to identify the specific entries. Wooldridge, 898 F.2d at 1176 n. 14.
In addition, Defendants argue that an entry in Gregory Belzley’s time log constitutes impermissible “block billing.” [R. 69 at 7.] The entry at issue reads: “Review, revise, and file Complaint; prepare and file summons and civil cover sheet; exchange emails with co-counsel re same, service of summons,” and Mr. Belzley logged 2.3 related hours. Certain of these tasks are undoubtedly clerical in nature—for example, filing summons—and thus not compensable. Moreover, given the nature of the entry, the Court cannot decipher how the 2.3 hours were allocated and any attempt to do so would be complete guesswork. Human Rights Center argues it cannot respond to Defendants’ broader concern with block billing but does not even make an attempt on the one specific example pointed out by Defendants. [R. 70 at 8.] As such, the Court must reduce the amount awarded by $920.00, 2.3 hours at a $400 hourly rate.
C In addition to the fee request in Human Rights Center’s initial motion, it now requests $4,072.50 in fees for work completed on the reply brief. [R. 70 at 1; R. 70-1.] In total, it requests compensation for 12 hours of work on the reply, 10.3 completed by Dan Marshall and 1.7 completed by Masimba Mutamba. [R. 70-1.] Given the nature of the eight-page reply brief, the Court finds this request to be slightly excessive. Moreover, a significant portion of the briefing was dedicated to matters on which Defendants’ objections were well-founded. [See, e.g., R. 70 at 6–8.] Defendants should not be punished for lodging legitimate objections.
10

Case: 3:17-cv-00057-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 77 Filed: 05/15/20 Page: 11 of 11 - Page ID#: 547
Accordingly, the Court will reduce the time claimed by Human Rights Center counsel by 50 percent. Human Rights Center will be compensated for 5.2 hours completed by Dan Marshall and .9 completed by Masimba Mutamba on the reply brief, for a total of $2,067.50.4
III Ideally on a request for attorneys’ fees, “litigants will settle the amount of a fee.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437. Here, although the parties agreed that Human Rights Center was entitled to reasonable fees, they failed to settle the amount of the fee itself. Consequently, the Court has stepped in to consider the requests and objections—both small and large—to determine a fair result. Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [R. 66] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 2. Defendants shall pay Plaintiff a total of $102,660.00 in attorneys’ fees; and 3. Defendants shall pay Plaintiff a total of $2,051.37 in costs.
This the 15th day of May, 2020.
4 Mr. Marshall’s 5.2 hours were completed at a rate of $350.00, for a total of $1,820.00; Mr. Mutamba’s .9 hours were completed at a rate of $275.00, for a total of $247.50. [See R. 70-1.]
11