N TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

NO. 5:06-CT-3 135-FL

JOSEPH JOHN URBANIAK, JR.,

1

1

Plaintiff,

1

1

v.

1

)

SGT. DONNIE STANLEY, et al.,

)

1

Defendants.

1

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 1983. The matter is before the court for
frivolity review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. g: 1915. Section 1915 provides that courts shall review
complaints in which prisoners seek relief from a governmental entity or officer and dismiss such
complaints when they are "frivolous." 28 U.S.C. 8 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),
A complaint may be found frivolous because of either legal or factual deficiencies. First, a
complaint is frivolous where "it lacks an arguable basis . . . in law." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
3 19, 325 (1989). Legally frivolous claims are based on an "indisputably meritless legal theory" and include "claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist." Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72,74 (4th Cir. 1994) ( m N e i t z k e , 490 U.S. at 327). Under this standard, complaints may be dismissed for failure to state a claim cognizable in law, although frivolity is amore lenient standard than that for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Neitzke, 490 U.S.
at 328. Second, a complaint may be frivolous where it "lacks an arguable basis . . . in fact." U a t 325.
Section 1915 permits federal courts 'Yo pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) ( W N e i t z k e , 490 U.S. at 327).

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 4 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 3

Plaintiff brings this action against Sergeant Domie Stanley (hereinafter "defendant Stanley"), Captain John Meeks (hereinafter "defendant Meeks"), Lieutenant Thomas Tart (hereinafter "defendant Tart"), Captain A.L. Gregory (hereinafter "defendant Gregory"), Sherwood R. McCabe (hereinafter "defendant McCabe"), Joseph B. Hall (hereinafter "defendant Hall"), Jeny McQueen (hereinafter "defendant McQueen"), James Currin (hereinafter "defendant Currin"), Officer Rodney S. Jackson (hereinafter "defendant Jackson"), Gerotha R. Spain (hereinafter "defendant Spain"), Officer Kenneth Jones (hereinafter "defendant Jones"), J. Baker Williams (hereinafter "defendant Williams"), Norma Batten (hereinafter "defendant Batten"), Cordelia Clark (hereinafter "defendant Clark"), R. C. Lewis (hereinafter "defendant Lewis"), and B.A. Thompson (hereinafter "defendant Thompson"). In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that his first amendment and due process rights were violated because he was denied several book and magazine publications.
Plaintiffs claims against defendants McCabe, McQueen, Hall, Jones, Williams, Thompson, and Spain arise out of their participation in plaintiffs grievance process. Plaintiff has no constitutional rightto participate in a grievance process. a A d a m s v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72,75 (4th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, plaintiffs claim against these defendants is DISMISSED as frivolous.
As for plaintift's claims against the remaining defendants, these claims are not clearly frivolous. Accordingly, plaintiff is permitted to proceed on these claims.
In sum, plaintift's claims against defendants McCabe, McQueen, Hall, Jones, Williams, Thompson, and Spain are DISMlSSEDas frivolous. However, plaintiffsremaining claims against the remaining defendants are not clearly frivolous. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to maintain management of this matter in accordance with the district plan.
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 4 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 3

&" SO ORDERED, this day ofe b e G 6 .

7

Chief United States District Judge

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 4 Filed 01/18/07 Page 3 of 3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

No. 5:06-CT-3135-FL

JOSEPH URBANIAK

)

Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

THEODIS BECK, SECRETARY OF )

THE NC DOC; BOYD BENNETT,

)

DIRECTOR OF NC PRISONS; AND )

JOSEPH HALL, ADMINISTRATOR )

OF HARNETT CORR. INST.,

)

Defendants

)

AMENDED COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action by Plaintiff Joseph Urbaniak brought under the Civil Rights Act 42

U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment to receive publications

through the mail and under the Fourteenth Amendment to due process of law. It seeks injunctive

and declaratory relief.

I. JURISDICTION

2. The jurisdiction of this Court over the claims of Plaintiff is conferred by 28 U.S.C.

§1331, in that the claims arose under the Constitution of the United States; and by 28 U.S.C.

§1343. The matters in controversy arise under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

II. VENUE

3. Venue is appropriate in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), because the events

and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the Eastern District of North

Carolina.

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 1 of 20

III. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Joseph Urbaniak is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina and is confined by the North Carolina Department of Correction (NC DOC) at Harnett Correctional Institution. 5. Defendant Theodis Beck is the Secretary for the North Carolina Department of Correction and is responsible for the operation and administration of all facilities within the NC DOC, including the administration of inmate programs and support services, and management of the DOC policies and procedures. 6. Defendant Boyd Bennett is Director of Prisons for the NC DOC and is responsible for the operation and administration of all facilities within the NC DOC, including the administration of inmate programs and support services. 7. Defendant Joseph Hall is Administrator of Harnett Correctional Institution and is responsible for the operation and administration of Harnett Correctional, including the administration of inmate programs and support services provided at Harnett Correctional. 8. All Defendants are sued in their official capacities. Each of their actions alleged herein were undertaken under cover of state law.
IV. FACTS 9. Plaintiff has been an inmate within the NC DOC system since November 6, 1995. 10. The North Carolina DOC/Division of Prisons Policy & Procedures Manual Chapter D, Section .0100 (Exhibit to this Amended Complaint) sets forth the policies and procedures to be followed with regard to NC DOC inmates receipt of magazines and other publications through the mails. 11. The DOC Regulations state that inmates are permitted, at their own expense, to subscribe to and receive magazines and books directly from publishers without prior approval.
2 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 2 of 20

Each publication is subject to search and screening at the unit level by the Warden or his/her designee prior to distribution and may be rejected if the publication is determined to pose a threat to institutional order, safety, security, or inmate rehabilitation. Prison officials must review each issue of a subscription separately. Section .0102(b).
12. According to DOC Regulations, the Warden must make a written record of the rejected publication and the rejection rationale, and then inform the inmate of the decision and his/her right to appeal. Inmates are given three options: (1) appeal the decision to the Publication Review Committee, (2) forward the publication to an alternate address and waive the right to appeal, or (3) agree to have the publication destroyed and waive the right to appeal. If the inmate chooses to appeal, he/she is permitted to explain the appeal in writing. Section .0103.
13. According to DOC Regulations, the Director of Prisons is to appoint a Publication Review Committee (PRC) which is to meet monthly, review publication denials to ensure division-wide consistency, and independently review each publication according to the policy criteria. The Committee’s decision is to be recorded on a Master List of Disapproved Publications which is to be made available for inmate review through the library or other areas accessible to inmates. Sections .0104-.0106.
14. On numerous occasions, Plaintiff has ordered several publications which upon arrival at Harnett Correctional, were denied to him by prison officials. The publications have included among others, issues of Out and The Advocate magazines, and the novels American Desert and Avoidance. These magazines contain news, fashion, health, medical, travel, and music information that focus on the gay, bisexual, lesbian and transgender community at large. Many of the rejected books feature gay protagonists.
15. These publications were rejected based on their content without a full explanation for
3 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 3 of 20

the rejections. Publications were denied without a meaningful opportunity to effectively appeal.

One magazine was rejected with no opportunity to appeal. Each response from the PRC was a

blanket rejection with no explanation. Grievances submitted by Plaintiff were not satisfactorily

answered. In addition, some PRC decisions posted on the Master List of Disapproved

Publications appeared to completely ban some magazines titles, rather specific issues.

16. Examples of DOC actions regarding Plaintiff’s rejected publications include:

a)

Every unit level rejection of Plaintiff’s publications consisted of a form letter

alleging that the publication violates DOC policy at Section D.0109. Section

D.0109 gives a non-exhaustive list of seventeen various criteria which may

support rejection of a publication. See the DOC policy in Exhibit to this

Amended Complaint and unit level rejections in Exhibits B, N, AA, AB, AC,

AK, AM, and AV of the original Complaint.

b)

No rejection rationale was ever offered in responses from the PRC. See

Exhibits C, O, and AD of the original Complaint.

c)

Plaintiff requested detailed explanations of rejection rationales in grievances,

appeals and letters to the PRC. No explanation was ever provided. See

Exhibits B, C, E, F, G, O, R, S, AK, AM, AR, AS and AT of the original

Complaint.

d)

On December 20, 2005, Plaintiff was instructed by Harnett Correctional

authorities that he could not receive his January 2006 issue of Out magazine

because all issues of Out were banned in total according to the Master List of

Disapproved Publications. Plaintiff was not allowed to receive the publication

4 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 4 of 20

or to appeal the rejection to the PRC. See Exhibits U, V, W and X of the

original Complaint.

e)

Plaintiff was forced to have destroyed or mailed out of the prison facility

several magazines and books after they were rejected at the unit level and by

the PRC. See Exhibits C, D, G, O, V, W, X, AD, and AE of the original

Complaint.

EXHAUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

17. Plaintiff has exhausted all available administrative remedies regarding the matters

described in this complaint. Copies of Plaintiff’s grievances and appeals, and DOC responses

are attached as Exhibits B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, N, O, V, W, X, AA, AB, AC, AD, AK, AM,

AN, AO, and AO-2 in the original Complaint.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

A. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT

18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-17 are incorporated herein by reference.

19. In prisons, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits arbitrary

censorship of prisoner publications and requires that any censorship by prison authorities be

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.

20. Defendants violate Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights when they arbitrarily and

capriciously deny Plaintiff access to his publications without reference to legitimate penological

interests.

21. Defendants act arbitrarily and capriciously when they ban entire magazine

subscriptions rather than individually reviewing each publication on an issue-by-issue basis.

Upon information and belief, some publication titles are banned in whole, rather than only those

5 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 5 of 20

volumes, issues or editions that have been reviewed and rejected for receipt by inmates by the Publication Review Committee.
B. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
22. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-20 are incorporated herein by reference. 23. Due Process of Law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that prisoners are granted minimum procedural safeguards to insure that their constitutional rights are not arbitrarily abrogated. 24. Defendants violate Plaintiff’s right to procedural due process when they fail to give Plaintiff the opportunity to appeal rejected publications to the PRC. In some cases, Plaintiff was not told of his option to appeal publication rejections, and in one case he was denied an opportunity to appeal when he requested it. 25. Defendants violate Plaintiff’s right to procedural due process when Plaintiff is forced to appeal publication rejections without knowledge of the specific reason for the rejection and without the opportunity to review the objectionable material. Without this information, Plaintiff can not mount an effective challenge to the publication denial, and Plaintiff is denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 26. The Defendants violate Plaintiff’s right to procedural due process when they fail to follow the policies and procedures set forth in their regulations. Upon information and belief, the PRC meets sporadically. Upon information and belief, publication rejections are not regularly recorded on the Master List of Disapproved Publications. Upon information and belief, the Master List of Disapproved Publications bans entire magazine subscription titles.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:
6 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 6 of 20

a) A declaratory judgment that the Defendants violate Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment when they prevent Plaintiff from receiving publications which present no infringement of the legitimate penological interests of the NC DOC.
b) Injunctive relief which would require Defendants to give Plaintiff notice of the specific disapproval rationale with reference to the page number(s) of the objectionable material for each publication they reject, and to permit Plaintiff to review the rejected material for the purpose of filing an effective appeal if doing so would not pose a threat to the security, safety, or order of the prison.
c) Injunctive relief which would require Defendants to review each objectionable subscription publication on an issue-by-issue basis.
d) Injunctive relief which would require Defendants to allow Plaintiff to appeal all unit level rejections to a reviewer not involved in the initial rejection decision.
e) Injunctive relief which would require the Publication Review Committee to give Plaintiff a specific legitimate penological rationale when the Committee rejects one of his publications.
f) Injunctive relief which would require the Publication Review Committee to meet regularly to review rejected publications, to regularly update the Master List of Disapproved Publications, and to make the List readily available for inmate review.
g) Award such other and further relief as justice requires.

This May 11, 2007.

/s/J. Phillip Griffin J.Phillip Griffin NCSB #14436 Attorney for Plaintiff

7 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 7 of 20

N. C. Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. Post Office Box 25397 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 (919) 856-2200 Fax: (919) 856-2223 E-mail: pgriffin@ncpls.org
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 11, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:
J.Philip Allen Assistant Attorney General North Carolina Department of Justice Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 Attorney for the Defendants pallen@ncdoj.gov This May 11, 2007.
/s/J. Phillip Griffin J.Phillip Griffin
8 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 8 of 20

EXHIBIT TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT Chapter D Inmate Publication Privileges State of North Carolina Department of Correction Division of Prisons Policies and Procedures
9 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 9 of 20

10 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 10 of 20

11 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 11 of 20

12 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 12 of 20

13 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 13 of 20

14 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 14 of 20

15 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 15 of 20

16 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 16 of 20

17 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 17 of 20

18 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 18 of 20

19 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 19 of 20

20 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 13 Filed 05/11/07 Page 20 of 20

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION

)

JOSEPH URBANIAK

)

Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

THEODIS BECK, SECRETARY OF

)

THE NC DOC; BOYD BENNETT,

)

DIRECTOR OF NC PRISONS; AND

)

JOSEPH HALL, ADMINISTRATOR

)

OF HARNETT CORR. INST.,

)

Defendants

)

__________________________________________)

)

EDWARD ALLEN, SHAWN

)

BONNETT, ANGEL GUEVARA,

)

SOVIET HOWIE, LYLE MAY, SAIYD

)

MUHAMMAD, S. SHANE SMITH, AND

)

LARRY SMITH on their own

)

behalf, and on behalf of all those

)

similarly situated,

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

THEODIS BECK, SECRETARY OF

)

THE NC DOC; BOYD BENNETT,

)

DIRECTOR OF NC PRISONS; AND

)

CORDELIA CLARK, SPECIAL

)

PROGRAM MANAGER FOR THE

)

DIVISION OF PRISONS

)

Defendants

)

__________________________________________)

No. 5:06-CT-3135-FL
PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASES AND TO GRANT CLASS CERTIFICATION OF CONSOLIDATED CASE
No. 5:07-CT-3145-H

INTRODUCTION

Presently pending in this District are two related actions, captioned above,

brought by prisoners of the State of North Carolina against officials of the North Carolina

Department of Correction (NC DOC). An action is now before the Court on a Joint

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 22 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 5

Motion for the consolidation and class certification of these cases pursuant to Rules 42(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Memorandum is filed in support of that motion.
MEMORANDUM I. Background
On November 5, 2006, Joseph Urbaniak, an inmate within the North Carolina Department of Correction ( NC DOC) filed the first above captioned complaint, Urbaniak v. Beck, et al., 5:06-CT-3135-FL (EDNC), (hereinafter “Urbaniak”), against the NC DOC under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, for illegally denying him access to his incoming books and magazines and for not permitting him to appeal his publication rejections. On May 11, 2007, Urbaniak filed an Amended Complaint to enforce his rights under the First Amendment to receive publications through the mail and under the Fourteenth Amendment to due process of law seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. This lawsuit is currently in the six month discovery stage.
On October 26, 2007, eight other inmates within the NC DOC filed the second above captioned class action complaint, Allen v. Beck, et al., 5:07-CT-3145-H (EDNC), (hereinafter “Allen”), against the NC DOC basically alleging the same First and Fourteenth Amendment violations alleged in Urbaniak.
Today, for the economy and convenience served by consolidation and because Defendants do not oppose class certification, all of the parties in these two cases jointly move this Court to consolidate the two actions and to grant class certification of the consolidated case.
II. Argument
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 22 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 5

A. Consolidation of Cases This Court should consolidate the Allen and Urbaniak cases for all purposes. Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court . . . it may order all actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” The Fourth Circuit has held that district courts have broad discretion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to consolidate causes pending in the same district. A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Const. Co., 559 F.2d 928 ( 4th Cir. 1977). 1. Consolidation is Proper Because These Actions Involve Common Questions of Law and Fact
The actions pending before this Court present virtually identical factual and legal issues. Both cases were brought by North Carolina inmates under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. sec 1983 to enforce Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment to receive publications through the mail and under the Fourteenth Amendment to due process of law. Complainants in both actions seek (1) specificity in publication rejection rationales; (2) timeliness of the publication screening and review process; (3) inmate viewing of disapproved publications for appeal purposes when doing so would not pose a security threat; and (4) no rejection of inmate publications which present no infringement of legitimate NC DOC penological interests. Both cases seek injunctive and declaratory relief. In addition, all Defendants in both actions are employees of the NC DOC and are sued in their official capacities. Finally, because legal counsel in both actions are the same, consolidation would be uncomplicated.
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 22 Filed 11/29/07 Page 3 of 5

2. This Court Should Consolidate These Related Actions for Purposes of Efficiency Consolidation would serve the economy and convenience of this Court and of all parties. Unification of these cases would expedite pretrial proceedings, simplify clerical and administrative management duties, and reduce the expenditure of time and money which would be required in multiple proceedings. In addition, consolidation would reduce the confusion and delay that may result from prosecuting these related actions separately. 3. This Court Should Consolidate These Related Actions to Avoid Duplicative and Possible Inconsistent Adjudications Because the two lawsuits are virtually identical, maintaining two separate actions would harm both the Court and the parties by requiring multiple pleadings and multiple arguments on basically the same facts and law. Consolidation would promote certainty. If both actions are maintained separately, there is a substantial risk of inconsistent orders, which could greatly affect the interests of the parties. Consolidation is appropriate and desirable to all parties for each of these reasons.
B. Class Certification
The Allen plaintiffs filed a Motion and accompanying Memorandum in Support of Class Certification in which they moved this Court pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1) or Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules for an order allowing Allen to proceed as a class action on behalf of all North Carolina inmates who are or will be incarcerated by the North Carolina Department of Correction who subscribe to and are entitled to receive incoming publications subject to review under the North Carolina DOC Policy and Procedures
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 22 Filed 11/29/07 Page 4 of 5

Chapter D. Section .0100 Publications Received/Possessed by Inmates. For the same reasons articulated in the Allen class action motion and supporting documents, Plaintiffs now seek Federal Rule 23(b)(2) class certification of a consolidated Urbaniak/Allen case on behalf of the same class. Defendants have no objections to the certification of that class under a consolidated Urbaniak/Allen case.
III. CONCLUSION For all the reasons set forth in this memorandum, Movants ask this Court to grant the accompanying Motion for Consolidation and Class Certification. This the 29th day of November, 2007.

/s/J. Phillip Griffin J. Phillip Griffin Attorney for Plaintiffs NCSB #14436 E-mail: pgriffin@ncpls.org and /s/ Dawn Ducoste Dawn Ducoste Attorney for Plaintiffs NCSB #28172 E-mail: dducoste@ncpls.org
N. C. Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. Post Office Box 25397 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 (919) 856-2200

/s/J. Philip Allen J. Philip Allen Attorney for Defendants NCSB #13246 E-mail: pallen@ncdoj.gov
Department of Justice PO Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 716-6566

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 22 Filed 11/29/07 Page 5 of 5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:06-CT-3135-FL

JOSEPH JOHN URBANIAK, JR.,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

SERGEANT DONNIE STANLEY, et )

al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

NO. 5:07-CT-3145-H

EDWARD ALLEN, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

SECRETARY THEODIS BECK, et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER ORDER

This case is before the court on the motion for class certification (DE # 2)1 filed by plaintiffs Edward Allen (hereinafter “plaintiff Allen”), Shawn Derrick Bonnett (hereinafter “plaintiff Bonnett”), Angel Guevera (hereinafter “plaintiff Guevera”), Soviet Howie (hereinafter “plaintiff Howie”), Lyle May (hereinafter “plaintiff May”), Saiyd Muhammad (hereinafter “plaintiff Muhammad”), S. Shane Smith (hereinafter “plaintiff S. Smith”), and Larry Eugene Smith, Jr.

1 Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was filed in the action captioned, Allen v. Beck, No. 5:07-CT-3145-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 2007).
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 23 Filed 05/30/08 Page 1 of 9

(hereinafter “plaintiff L. Smith”). Also before the court is the parties’ joint motion to consolidate related cases and to certify the class as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 (DE # 21).2 These motions are ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, the parties’ joint motion to consolidate related cases and to certify the class as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 is granted, and the motion for class certification filed in Allen v. Beck, No. 5:07-CT-3145-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 2007), is denied as moot.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE On December 12, 2006, plaintiff Joseph Urbaniak (hereinafter “plaintiff Urbaniak”), a state inmate, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Sergeant Donnie Stanley (hereinafter “defendant Stanley”), Captain John Meeks (hereinafter “defendant Meeks”), Lieutenant Thomas Tart (hereinafter “defendant Tart”), Captain A.L. Gregory (hereinafter “defendant Gregory”), Sherwood R. McCabe (hereinafter “defendant McCabe”), Joseph B. Hall (hereinafter “defendant Hall”), Jerry McQueen (hereinafter “defendant McQueen”), James Currin (hereinafter “defendant Currin”), Officer Rodney S. Jackson (hereinafter “defendant Jackson”), Gerotha R. Spain (hereinafter “defendant Spain”), Officer Kenneth Jones (hereinafter “defendant Jones”), J. Baker Williams (hereinafter “defendant Williams”), Norma Batten (hereinafter “defendant Batten”), Cordelia Clark (hereinafter “defendant Clark”), R. C. Lewis (hereinafter “defendant Lewis”), and B.A. Thompson (hereinafter “defendant Thompson”). In his complaint, plaintiff Urbaniak alleged that his First Amendment and due process rights were violated because he was denied several book and magazine publications. Plaintiff Urbaniak also alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights because they refused to permit him to participate in the grievance process.
2 The parties’ joint motion to consolidate related cases and to certify the class as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 was filed in the action captioned, Urbaniak v. Stanley, No. 5:06-CT-3135-FL (E.D.N.C. Dec. 12, 2006).
2
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 23 Filed 05/30/08 Page 2 of 9

On January 18, 2007, this court conducted a frivolity review and dismissed as frivolous plaintiff Urbaniak’s claim against defendants McCabe, McQueen, Hall, Jones, Williams, Thompson, and Spain. The court allowed plaintiff Urbaniak’s claim to proceed against the remaining defendants.
On May 11, 2007, plaintiff Urbaniak filed an amended complaint, alleging that defendants Theodis Beck (hereinafter “defendant Beck”), Boyd Bennett (hereinafter “defendant Bennett”), and Joseph Hall (hereinafter “defendant Hall”) violated his rights pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution when they arbitrarily and capriciously denied him access to his publications without reference to legitimate penological interests. Plaintiff Urbaniak also alleges that these defendants violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution when they failed to give him the opportunity to appeal rejected publications to the Publications Review Committee. Following the submission of his amended complaint, plaintiff Urbaniak voluntarily dismissed his claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1) against the following defendants named in his original complaint: defendants Currin, Jackson, Batten, Clark, Lewis, Stanley, Meeks, Tart, and Gregory.
On October 26, 2007, plaintiffs Allen, Bonnett, Guevera, Howie, May, Muhammad, S. Smith, and L. Smith filed essentially the same claims as those alleged in this action in a separate action captioned Allen v. Beck, No. 5:07-CT-3145-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 2007) (hereinafter “Allen”). Plaintiffs in Allen brought their action against defendants Beck, Bennett, and Clark. On November 19, 2007, the court conducted a frivolity review and allowed plaintiffs’ claims to proceed. On October 26, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in Allen. Then, on November
3
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 23 Filed 05/30/08 Page 3 of 9

29, 2007, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the related cases and to certify the class in this action. A. Motion to Consolidate
The parties jointly request that his court consolidate the above-captioned actions. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides: “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.” The Fourth Circuit has held that a district court has “broad discretion under F.R.Civ.P. 42(a) to consolidate causes pending in the same district.” A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Constr. Corp., 559 F.2d 928, 933 (4th Cir. 1977).
Upon a careful review of both cases, the court finds that the actions present common questions of law and fact. As a result, the court grants the parties’ joint request to consolidate the cases. All future filings shall bear both captions and all future docket entries shall be docketed in the lead case, Urbaniak v. Stanley, No. 5:06-CT-3135-FL. B. Motion to Grant Class Certification
ANALYSIS To be certified as a class action an action must meet the requirements of both Fed. R.Civ.P. 23 (a) and (b). Haywood v. Barnes, 109 F.R.D. 568, 575 (E.D.N.C. 1986). Rule 23(a) requires that a precisely defined class exist and that the proposed class representatives be members of the putative class. Haywood, 109 F.R.D. at 576; see East Texas Motor Freight Sys., Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977) (“a class representative must be a part of the class”). In addition, the four prerequisites expressly set out in Rule 23(a) must be satisfied. Haywood, 109 F.R.D. at 576. They are that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (hereinafter
4
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 23 Filed 05/30/08 Page 4 of 9

“numerosity requirement”); (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class (hereinafter
“commonality requirement”); (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of
the claims or defenses of the class (hereinafter “typicality requirement”); and (4) the representative
parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (hereinafter “adequacy-of-
representation requirement”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
If the prerequisites under Rule 23(a) are met, the action must then satisfy one of the three
alternative sets of conditions under Rule 23(b). The conditions under Rule 23(b) include:
(1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members that would create a risk of:
(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or
(B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or
(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. . . .
5
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 23 Filed 05/30/08 Page 5 of 9

1. Satisfaction of Rule 23(a) Prerequisites As an initial matter, the court finds that plaintiffs have proposed a precisely defined class and that they are members of the class. The court now must determine whether plaintiffs are able to satisfy the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a). Beginning with the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1), the court finds that the putative class is reasonably estimated by the parties to contain over thirty-eight thousand (38,000) inmates currently housed by the North Carolina Department of Correction (hereinafter “DOC”). The class also consists of future North Carolina inmates. (Mem. in Supp. of Pl.s’. Mot., pp. 4-5.) The class is therefore so numerous that joinder of all putative class members is impracticable. Therefore, the court finds that the numerosity requirement is satisfied. As for the commonality requirement, Rule 23(a)(2) does not require that all questions of law or fact be common to each member of the class. See Haywood, 109 F.R.D. at 577. Rather, the commonality requirement is satisfied where the plaintiffs share a single common question. Id. In this case, there are several common issues of both law and fact among the proposed class members. The common questions include: (1) whether DOC personnel fails to properly screen and review class members’ incoming publications without reference to legitimate penological concerns in violation of the First Amendment and their own regulations; (2) whether DOC personnel fail to allow class members to appeal rejected publications to the DOC Publication Review Committee in violation of due process and their own regulations; (3) whether the Publication Review Committee regularly meets to review class members’ appealed publications; and (4) whether the DOC allows class members to receive hard back and foreign language books and to order individual magazine
6
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 23 Filed 05/30/08 Page 6 of 9

issues. (Mem. in Supp. of Pl.s’ Mot., p. 5.) The court finds that these common issue are sufficient to satisfy the commonality requirement.
Turning to the Rule 23(a)(3) typicality requirement, this requirement is met where the claim “arises from the same event or course of conduct which gives rise to the claims of other class members and is based on the same legal theory.” See Haywood, 109 F.R.D. at 578. The focus on the inquiry for this requirement is whether the plaintiffs and each member of the class “have an interest in prevailing on similar legal claims.” Id. Here, the claims of the class representatives and the proposed class all arise from the same operative facts, and they all claim to have suffered the same injury attributed to the defendants’ alleged conduct. Further, the parties have shown that both plaintiffs and the class members have an interest in prevailing on the same legal claims. Based upon the foregoing, the court finds that the typicality requirement is met.
Finally, the court must determine whether the named plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent the class. The inquiry that a court should make regarding the adequacy of representation requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) is to determine that the putative named plaintiffs have the ability and the incentive to represent the claims of the class vigorously, that they have obtained adequate counsel, and that there is no conflict between their individual claims and those asserted on behalf of the class. See General Telephone Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 n. 13 (1982).
The named plaintiffs are, as indicated, all members of the proposed class. In addition, plaintiffs Guevera, Allen, L. Smith, May, S. Smith, Muhammad, Bonnett, and Howie submitted an affidavit stating that they are aware of their duties as class representatives, will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class as a whole, have no conflicts of interest, and have a genuine
7
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 23 Filed 05/30/08 Page 7 of 9

personal interest in the outcome of this action.3 (Mem. in Supp. of Pl.s’ Mot., Ex. 1.) Finally, plaintiffs are represented by North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services (hereinafter “NCPLS”), which this court finds has the requisite experience in handling prisoner civil rights litigation. Therefore, the adequacy of representation requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied.
In summary, the court has applied the certification prerequisites of Rule 23(a) to this case, and found that they are met. Therefore, the court now must determine whether plaintiffs satisfy Rule 23(b).
2. Satisfaction of Rule 23(b) Conditions Plaintiffs contend that this case satisfies the conditions set forth in Rule 23(b)(1)(A), 23(b)(1)(B), and 23(b)(2). To satisfy Rule 23(b), the plaintiff only is required to show that the proposed class meets one of its three conditions. Haywood, 109 F.R.D. at 580. The court finds that in this case plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) “has been liberally applied in the area of civil rights, including suits challenging conditions and practices at various detention facilities.” Santiago v. City of Philadelphia, 72 F.R.D. 619, 624 (1976). “The essential consideration is whether the complaint alleges that the plaintiffs have been injured by defendants’ conduct which is based on policies and practices applicable to the entire class.” Id. Plaintiffs in this action are challenging the policies and practices of the DOC in handling the distribution of written publications. Plaintiffs allege that they have been injured by the DOC’s alleged unconstitutional policies and practices, which apply to the entire class. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to remedy the alleged constitutional violations. Based upon the foregoing, plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(b)(2).
3 Regarding the conflict of interest issue, the court notes that the suit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief only, which alleviates the possibility of conflicts of interest involving pecuniary issues.
8
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 23 Filed 05/30/08 Page 8 of 9

In sum, plaintiffs have satisfied both Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b). Accordingly, all of the requirements for class certification are met.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the parties’ joint motion to consolidate related cases and to certify the class as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 (DE # 21) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification filed in Allen (DE # 2) is DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED, this the 30th day of May, 2008.
/s/ Louise W. Flanagan LOUISE W. FLANAGAN Chief United States District Judge
9 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 23 Filed 05/30/08 Page 9 of 9

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

WESTERN DIVISION 


NO.5:06-CT-3135-FL 


JOSEPH JOHN URBANIAK, JR.,

) 


Plaintiff,

) 


) 


v.

)

) 


SERGEANT DONNIE STANLEY, et ) 


aI.,

) 


Defendants.

)

ORDER

NO.5:07-CT-3145-H

EDWARD ALLEN, et aI.,

) 


Plaintiffs,

) 


)

~

)

)

SECRETARY THEODIS BECK, et aI., ) 


Defendants.

) 


ORDER

This matter is before the court onjoint motion ofthe parties to approve notice of proposed settlement (DE # 46). For the reasons that follow, parties' motion is DENIED.
On March 29,2010, the court directed the parties to file a proposed notice of the settlement and description of the method through which the parties will provide notice to class members. On April 12,2010, the parties tendered this proposed notice to the court. The proposed notice recites the parties in the case, states the parties have reached a proposed settlement, and notifies the class how they may review and object to the settlement. Said proposed notice, however, is silent as to the aspects of the settlement or any potential binding effect it may have on the parties.
While there is no strict requirements regarding what a notice must contain to be reasonable,

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 47 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 2

it must at least apprise class members ofthe terms ofthe proposed settlement "so that class members may come to their own conclusions about whether the settlement serves their interests." Int'l Union v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615,630 (6th Cir. 2007). As the proposed notice fails to apprise the class members of the terms of settlement, the court rejects it.
The parties are ORDERED to revise and resubmit a proposed notice to the court which addresses the terms of settlement and alerts class members to the potential effect of any settlement on their rights. The parties shall file this revised notice no later than fourteen (14) days from entry of this order.
SO ORDERED, this the II.{' day of April, 2010.
2 
 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 47 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

No. 5:06-CT-3135-FL

JOSEPH JOHN URBANIAK,

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

SERGEANT DONNIE STANLEY, et al., )

Defendants

)

JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NOTICE AND SETTING OF FAIRNESS HEARING

No. 5:07-CT-3145-FL

EDWARD ALLEN, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

THEODIS BECK, et al.,

)

Defendants

)

This is an action for equitable relief brought by inmates of the North Carolina Department of Correction. It was certified by the Court as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure by the Court in an Order entered May 30, 2008. On March 23, 2010, the parties tendered to the Court a Stipulated Consent Decree. On March 29, 2010, the Court ordered that the parties file a proposed notice of the settlement described in the Stipulated Consent Decree and a description of the method through which the parties will provide notice to members of the class. On April 12, 2010, the parties submitted a proposed notice to the Court. On April 14, 2010, the Court ordered the parties to revise and resubmit a proposed notice to the Court which addresses the terms of settlement and alerts class members to the potential effect of any settlement

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 48 Filed 04/27/10 Page 1 of 2

on their rights. The parties have revised the proposed notice in accordance with the

Court’s order and herewith submit it to the Court, along with a draft order describing the

method of providing notice to the members of the class of the proposed settlement.

For the reasons stated in this motion, the Plaintiffs and Defendants move the

Court to approve the proposed notice and enter the order tendered herein. Respectfully submitted, this the 27th day of April, 2010.

/s/J. Phillip Griffin J. Phillip Griffin Attorney for Plaintiffs NCSB #14436 E-mail: pgriffin@ncpls.org N. C. Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. Post Office Box 25397 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 (919) 856-2200

/s/J. Philip Allen J. Philip Allen Attorney for Defendants NCSB #13246 E-mail: pallen@ncdoj.gov Department of Justice PO Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 716-6566

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 48 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

NO. 5:06-CT-3135-FL

JOSEPH JOHN URBANIAK, JR.,

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

SERGEANT DONNIE STANLEY, et )

al.,

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER

NO. 5:07-CT-3145-FL

EDWARD ALLEN, et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

SECRETARY THEODIS BECK, et al., )

Defendants.

)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on joint motion of the parties to approve notice of proposed settlement (DE # 48).
On March 29, 2010, the court conditionally approved the proposed consent decree. On April 27, 2010, the parties filed a revised proposed notice to class members of the settlement. The motion to approve the proposed notice is GRANTED subject to the revisions below. Additionally, it is ORDERED:
1. Contents of Notice: (a) The address of the clerk’s office should be corrected to reflect that objections shall be mailed to Clerk, United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, PO Box 25670, Raleigh, NC 27611.

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 49 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 3

(b) The below referenced dates for the objection filing deadline and fairness hearing shall also be added to the notice.
2. Manner of Notice: (a) The North Carolina Department of Correction (“NCDOC”) shall, not later than fourteen (14) days from entry of this order, cause said notice to be prominently posted in each of its prison facilities on a bulletin board visible to the general inmate population. Said notice shall remain posted until the fairness hearing. (b) The NCDOC shall, not later than fourteen (14) days from entry of this order, deliver a copy of said notice to each current inmate who, because of segregated confinement or for any other reason, it reasonably expects will have no access to such a bulletin board during the notice period. (c) That NCDOC shall, throughout the notice period, make available (in its prison libraries, or otherwise) a copy of the parties’ stipulated consent decree to any inmate who wishes to review it.
3. Fairness Hearing: A hearing shall be held on July 27, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. at the Terry Sanford Federal Building and Courthouse, 310 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina, to consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should receive the court’s final approval. (a) Objections by class members to the proposed settlement will be considered if filed in writing with the clerk on or before July 13, 2010. (b) Counsel for the class and for the defendants should be prepared at the hearing
2
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 49 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 3

to respond to objections filed class members and to provide other information, as appropriate, bearing on whether or not the settlement should be approved. SO ORDERED, this the 7th day of May, 2010.
____________________________ LOUISE W. FLANAGAN Chief United States District Judge
3 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 49 Filed 05/07/10 Page 3 of 3

 
 l
r:
f i
I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION

~

I

NO.5:06-CT-3l35-FL

f
I

I

JOSEPH JOHN URBANIAK, JR., both ) individually and on behalf of all other )

I

similarly situated persons,

)

f
~:

?

)

Plaintiff,

)

ORDER

t
I

)

v.

)

)

I

SERGEANT DONNIE STANLEY, et )

a1.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

NO.5:07-CT-3145-FL

~

EDWARD ALLEN, et al., both

)

individually and on behalf ofall other )

similarly situated persons,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

ALVIN W. KELLER, et a1.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the parties' joint motion for final approval of settlement agreement (DE # 42). A fairness hearing was held to review the proposed settlement agreement on July 27,20 10. At hearing, the court raised several issues regarding the proposed consent decree and directed the parties to file a supplement. On August 23, 2010, the parties filed ajoint supplement regarding the proposed settlement. (DE # 129.) On August 27,20 I0, the court resumed the fairness

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 132 Filed 08/27/10 Page 1 of 14

hearing to detennine final approval of the amended policy. Having reviewed the record, heard arguments from the parties, and considered objections to the proposed consent decree from class members, these issues raised are ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that follow, the court approves the proposed consent decree, which is entered contemporaneously.
BACKGROUND On December 12, 2006, plaintiffJoseph John Urbaniak, Jr. ("plaintiff'), filed this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that his rights pursuant to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Due Process Clause to the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution were violated because he was denied several book and magazine publications. On April 14, 2007, North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services ("NCPLS") infonned the court that it would provide representation to plaintiff. NCPLS then filed an amended complaint on behalf of plaintiff. In his amended complaint, plaintiffalleges that defendants violated his rights pursuant to the First Amendment when they arbitrarily and capriciously denied him access to publications without reference to legitimate penological interests. Plaintiffalso alleges that defendants violated his rights under the Due Process Clause when they failed to provide him the opportunity to appeal rejected publications to the Publications Review Committee. On May 30,2008, the court consolidated Urbaniak v. Stanley, No. 5:06-CT-3135-FL, and Allen v. Beck, No. 5:07-CT-3l45-H, 1 and designated the fonner as the lead case. On that date, the court also certified Urbaniak as a class action. The class members consist of all present and future inmates ofthe North Carolina Department ofCorrection ("DOC") who seek to receive publications
I In Allen v. Beck, consolidated plaintiffs allege consolidated defendants' handling of incoming publications violates the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause. NCPLS also represents consolidated plaintiffs.
2
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 132 Filed 08/27/10 Page 2 of 14

through the mail. NCPLS continues to represent plaintiff and consolidated plaintiffs as class counsel.
After extensive but informal discovery, the parties reached a proposed consent decree and filed a stipulated settlement agreement. The agreement is closely tied to enforcement ofdefendants' revised publication policy, Division ofPrisons, Department ofCorrections, State ofNorth Carolina, Publications Received/Possessed by Inmates, D.OIOO (Mar. 22, 2010) ("policy"V The policy governs the treatment ofpublications that inmates receive in the mail and provides that DOC must explain reasons for disallowing publications and give time limits for appeals. The consent decree provides the following: (1) DOC must uniformly follow its written policy; (2) DOC must notify NCPLS of any significant change in its policy and the reason for the change at least forty-five (45) days in advance ofthe effective date ofthe change, unless an emergency requires a shorter notice;3 (3) disapproval of a publication does not prevent an inmate from challenging the disapproval in an independent action; (4) DOC staff involved in reviewing inmate publications must be trained with a video at least once per year to allow consistency among prisons; (5) DOC must provide NCPLS information regarding pending appeals and rejected publications on a quarterly basis; and (6) DOC must make certain revisions.
On March 29,2010, the court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement. Thereafter, the parties provided the class with notice of the settlement. The class members were given until
2The original draft of the policy submitted to the court was issued on March 22,2010. A proposed amended policy was submitted on August 23, 2010.
3NCPLS may then within fifteen (15) days of the notice submit to the DOC its comments and suggestions, which the DOC must consider in good faith. If the DOC makes a change in the policy which NCPLS believes to be unconstitutional, NCPLS may ask the Court to disallow or modify DOC's proposal.
3
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 132 Filed 08/27/10 Page 3 of 14

July 13, 2010, to submit objections. The court received sixty-nine (69) written objections to the

settlement agreement, most of which challenged enforcement or certain provisions of the policy.4 The objections most commonly reference the following policy provisions and themes:5

(l) Section .0 109(f)(M), which restricts receipt of publications that are larger than 8 12 x 11 inches and/or more than two inches thick ("size limit"), because it excludes many religious, legal and previously permissible publications;6

(2) Section .0101(g), which provides in part that a "CD/DVD

I
I

must be removed and destroyed prior to delivery to the inmate" ("CD/DVD limit"), as it does not give inmates the option to send the CD or DVD to someone else at their

I

expense;7 (3) Section .0101(a), which provides that an inmate in

!
i

medium or close custody may receive a reasonable number of

I
,i
.~

publications ("amount restriction"), because the provision is vague and fails to provide an inmate with notice of whether ordered publications will be allowed;8

I

(4) Section .0101(a), which requires that publications originate from a publisher ("origination restriction"), on the

!

I

!

,l
,I
"

4The court also received pro se motions during this period and untimely objections after the objection period expired. The court considers neither.

SIn addition to the objections listed above, several inmates submitted objections that are too vague, fail to

raise a question as to the fairness or adequacy of the settlement, or merely are general complaints regarding DOC

conduct. Additionally, several class members submitted objections which are unrelated to the publications policy.

I,

As these objections are not pertinent to the proposed consent decree in this action, the court need not address them. Similarly, the court does not consider any specific challenge to the rejection of a specific publication, as these issues

are preserved for review under the policy.

6 The court received objections regarding this provision from the following inmates: Joseph M. Osorio (DE # 60), Leonard Camarata (DE # 61); Antwan Hargrove (DE # 66), Matthew A. Myers (DE ## 78, 119), Bobby R. Johnson (DE # 92), Angel Guevara (DE # 106), V.R. Berrier (DE # 112), and Robert W. Stanley (DE # 115).

7 The following inmates filed objections regarding this policy: Matthew A. Myers (DE # 78), Marshall Brown (DE # 93), and Angel Guevara (DE # 106).

8 The following inmates submitted objections to this proposed policy: Jamal Haith (DE # 58), Joseph M. Osorio (DE # 60), Leonard Camarata (DE # 61), Nije1 Lee-Bey (DE # 97), and Robert W. Stanley (DE # 115).

4

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 132 Filed 08/27/10 Page 4 of 14

grounds that it restricts publications provided by charitable organizations;9
(5) General objections that the policy is enforced in an inconsistent manner, which implicates section .0110;10
(6) Section .01 09(t)(K), which bans sexually explicit material "which by its nature or content poses a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution, or facilitates a criminal activity," on the ground that the restriction is too vague and lacks a legitimate penological purpose; 11
(7) Section .0101(t), which forbids an entire publication if any portion ofthe publication is rejected, on the ground that is unfair; 12 and
(8) Sections .0109(a), (e), which respectively provide that "[n]o publication or material will be withheld solely on the basis of its appeal to a particular ethnic, racial or religious group" and that foreign language publications cannot per se demand disapproval, on the grounds that materials targeted toward African-American audiences or Spanish speakers often are rejected. 13
At hearing, the court inquired into and the parties addressed these objections. Specifically,
defendant Robert C. Lewis ("Lewis") candidly shared with the court that he personally had reviewed
9 The following inmates have submitted objections to this policy: Stanley Corbett, Jr. (DE # 53), Joshua McRavion (DE # 56), Christopher Ellerbe (DE # 98), and Carlos Sanchez (DE # 104).
10 The following class members submitted objections to this policy: Charles Alonzo Tunstall (DE # 51), Stanley Corbett, Jr. (DE # 53), Darius Rutledge (DE # 57), Maurice A. Williamson (DE # 76), and Jimmy Ramos (DE # 82).
II The following inmates have submitted objections to this proposed policy: Joseph M. Osorio (DE # 60), Leonard Camarta (DE # 61), Christopher Adams (DE #70), Nijel Lee-Bey (DE # 97), Ian Aulden Campbell (DE # 100), and Dwight Parker (DE # 116).
12 The following inmates submitted objections to this proposed policy: Raymond J. Jones (DE # 55), John Lowery (DE # 59), Jimmy Ramos (DE # 82), and Javier Rivera (DE # 89).
13 The following inmates submitted objections implicating complaints of race or national origin discrimination: Laquail Wallace (DE # 65), Edward D. Huckabee (DE # 68), Maurice A. Williamson (DE # 76), Nijel Lee-Bey (DE # 97), Carlos Sanchez (DE # 104), and Jarkesh Johnson (DE # 110).
5
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 132 Filed 08/27/10 Page 5 of 14

each of the objections raised in this action and diligently researched each objection. Defendant Lewis infonned the court that § .01 09(f)(M), the size limit, was ofparticular concern. He stated that he detennined that this policy should be amended and that he already had initiated the process of amending the policy to provide an exception for religious and legal materials. Defendant Lewis further infonned the court that the amendment to § .0109(f)(M) was memorialized in a DOC memorandum. As to the CD/DVD limit, defendant Lewis responded that, in the past, DOC officials would disapprove an entire publication if it came with a CD or DVD. He expressed concern over the administrative burden of handling CDs or DVDs in another manner but agreed to research and provide additional consideration to this provision.
In response to the amount restriction, defendant Lewis explained that flexibility in the number of publications an inmate is pennitted to possess is essential and that it would be difficult to implement a more specific policy regarding this issue because the size and storage capacity at each DOC facility varies. Defendants also reasoned that a limitation on publications was necessary for security because some inmates used their publications as weapons or to block access from DOC officials. Plaintiffs' counsel expressed concern for inmates who experience custody changes and suggested that the policy be altered to allow inmates, who have experienced changes in custody status, be pennitted to store their personal property, rather than have it destroyed. Defendants agreed to consider this policy change.
As to the origination restriction and ban on sexually explicit material, defendants responded that the fonner provision was implemented to further security at DOC by preventing contraband and the latterwas implemented for disciplinary concerns. Defendants explained the censorship provision
6
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 132 Filed 08/27/10 Page 6 of 14

was necessary because removing prohibited excerpts ofpublications would impose an administrative burden.
Regarding the enforcement objection, defendants conceded that the DOC's policies and procedures governing inmate publications were not consistently enforced in the past. Particularly, defendants stated that there was inconsistency with regard to which publications were banned. Both parties agree that the amended policies and procedures remedy these issues. Further, the parties pointed out that the policy is designed to enhance uniform enforcement. Similarly, regarding the objections charging race and foreign language discrimination, the parties noted that the policy prohibits such discrimination.
In light of the parties' continued diligence and thoughtful reflection upon the policies and procedures presented to the court at the July 27,2010 hearing, the court deemed it appropriate to allow the parties additional time to file a supplement addressing the circumstances surrounding their negotiations and the amended policy. On August 23,2010, the parties filed ajoint supplement with an amended policy attached, Division of Prisons, Department of Corrections, State of North Carolina, Publications ReceivedIPossessed by Inmates, D.OIOO (Aug. 18, 2010)14 ("amended policy"). The amended policy revises the size limit provision and allows inmates to receive softbound publications and hardbound religious and legal publications that are larger than 8~ x 11 inches and more than two inches thick; it also allows inmates to retain these religious and legal materials in most cases should their status change. 15 The amended policy includes a new provision which directs that an inmate's publications be stored when an inmate experiences a change in
J4The policy does not contain an issue date, but August 18,2010, is the date of the draft submitted. lSThe forms that enforce these provisions have been amended to direct that the facility head, rather than a staffmember, must provide the reason for rejecting these materials.
7
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 132 Filed 08/27/10 Page 7 of 14

custody status .0101(h). Additionally, the amended policy permits inmates to send removed CDs or DVDs to an alternate address at their own expense. The court reconvened the fairness hearing on August 27, 2010. At hearing, the parties asked the court to approve the consent decree in light ofthe amended policy.
DISCUSSION A. Compliance with PLRA The court must determine whether the proposed consent decree complies with the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). In 1996, Congress enacted the PLRA and made substantial changes to civil rights litigation brought by prisoners pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1983 and other federal laws. The PLRA is intended to "provid[e] reasonable limits on the remedies available in lawsuits concerning prison conditions." Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 369 (4th Cir. 1996) (citation and quotation omitted). The PLRA provides: Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation ofthe Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. 18 U.S.c. § 3626(a)(l)(A). Further, "the court shall not order any prospective relief that requires or permits a government official to exceed his or her authority under State or local law or otherwise violates State or local law" unless the following conditions are met: "(1) a federal law requires such relief to be ordered in violation of state or local law; (2) the relief is necessary to correct the violation of a federal right; and (3) no other relief will correct the violation ofthe federal right." 18 U.S.c. § 3626(a)(l )(B). In addition to limiting the type of relief a federal court may grant, the PLRA also curtails the longevity of such relief to two years after the court approves or grants the
8
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 132 Filed 08/27/10 Page 8 of 14

relief, or one year after the court has entered an order denying termination of relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)( 1).
The court has not received any objection to the proposed consent decree on the grounds that it violates the PLRA. Additionally, the court has reviewed the proposed consent decree and finds it is narrowly crafted to protect the Due Process and First Amendment rights of inmates. As it is not an intrusive remedy or overly broad, it complies with the terms of the PLRA.
B. Fairness and Adequacy Determination Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 23(e)(2) provides that a court may only approve the binding settlement of a certified class action after determining that the proposed consent decree is fair, reasonable, and adequate. When reviewing a proposed settlement, the court separates the fairness inquiry from the adequacy determination. In re Jiffy Lube Sees. Litig., 927 F.2d 155, 158-59 (4th Cir. 1991). While compromise and settlement are favored by the law, "[t]he primary concern addressed by Rule 23(e) is the protection of class members whose rights may not have been given adequate consideration during settlement negotiations." Id. at 158. Ultimately, approval of a class action settlement is committed to "the sound discretion ofthe district courts to appraise the reasonableness ofparticular class-action settlements on a case-by-case basis, in light ofthe relevant circumstances." Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717,742 (1986). However, "there is a strong initial presumption that the compromise is fair and reasonable." S.c. Nat'l Bank v. Stone, 139 F.R.D. 335, 339 (D.S.C. 1991) (quotations omitted). The manner of review is largely committed to the court's discretion: "it is entirely in order for the trial court to limit its proceedings to whatever is necessary to aid it in
9
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 132 Filed 08/27/10 Page 9 of 14

reaching an infonned, just and reasoned decision." Flinn v. FMC Corp., 528 F.2d 1169, 1173 (4th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 967 (1976).
1. Fairness Inquiry In assessing the fairness ofa proposed consent decree, the court must consider the following four factors: " '(1) the posture of the case at the time the settlement was proposed, (2) the extent of discovery that had been conducted, (3) the circumstances surrounding the negotiations, and (4) the experience of counsel in the area of class action litigation.' " In re Jiffy Lube, 927 F.2d at 158-59. Here, at the time the proposed consent decree was reached, the parties were actively litigating this case. Although the parties had only exchanged limited discovery before settlement negotiations began, they have since exchanged infonnal discovery throughout settlement negotiations. (Joint Supplement 3-4, Aug. 23, 2010.) Moreover, the circumstances surrounding negotiations indicate the process has been undertaken in good faith. Negotiations commenced in November 2007 and have been ongoing; during this process, several revisions to the policy have been considered. (ld. at 4-6.) The court also finds that counsel in this case is adequately skilled in handling prisoner civil rights cases. Accordingly, the above factors weigh in favor of finding the proposed settlement is fair.
2. Adequacy Detennination In detennining whether the proposed consent decree is adequate, relevant factors to consider include: "(1) the relative strength of the plaintiffs' case on the merits; (2) the existence of any difficulties of proof or strong defenses the plaintiffs likely are to encounter ifthe case goes to trial, (3) the anticipated duration and expenses ofadditional litigation, (4) the solvency ofthe defendants and the likelihood of recovery on a litigated judgment, and (5) the degree of opposition to the
10
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 132 Filed 08/27/10 Page 10 of 14

settlement." In re Jiffy Lube, 927 F.2d at 159. While opposition does not mandate rejection of settlement, it is important to consider whether objections raise serious reasons as to the unfairness of the settlement. Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, 7B Federal Practice & Procedure § 1797.1 (3d ed.).
Here, the merits, proof, and expense factors all weigh in favor of approving the settlement. At hearing on July 27, 2010, defendants conceded that the original DOC policy was not applied consistently and that the policy allowed for little accountability. The parties, however, agree that the new policy remedies these problems. As a result ofthese changes, plaintiffs' due process claim is weakened. Additionally, plaintiffs would face a significant obstacle were the case to continue given the deference given to prison administrators. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,547 (1979); Taylor v. Freeman, 34 F.3d 266, 268 (4th Cir. 1994) ("[A]bsent the most extraordinary circumstances, federal courts are not to immerse themselves in the management of state prisons .. . ."). Such deference is present even if constitutional rights are implicated: "when a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).16 In addition to these obstacles, resolution of the action would be burdensome and time consuming for both the parties and the court. Finally, the proposed consent decree imposes a limited burden on plaintiffs in that it does not prevent them from pursuing individual claims for violations of the policy.
'6To determine whether a regulation relied upon by a defendant is constitutionally permissible, the court must consider the following factors: (l) whether there is a "valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it"; (2) "whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates"; (3) "the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally"; and (4) "the absence of ready alternatives." Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90. An inmate bears the burden of proving that a prison regulation is unconstitutional. Hause v. Vaught, 993 F.2d 1079,1082 (4th Cir. 1993).
11
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 132 Filed 08/27/10 Page 11 of 14

Despite these factors favoring approval of the settlement, the court would be remiss not to address the objections. At the July hearing, the court asked the parties to respond to class members' complaints that the size requirement eliminates many reference, legal and religious books and that the CD/DVD provision was inconsistent with other provisions related to the handling of rejected materials. The court also allowed the parties to file a supplement addressing these concerns. The amended policy submitted takes into account many of the concerns ofthe objectors. The size limit no longer applies to religious and legal hardbound texts or any softbound publications, though these hardbound texts may still be excluded ifthey pose a security threat or storage issue. The amended policy also allows inmates to send CDIDVDs to an alternate address at their own expense. These amended provisions reflect rational and reasonable positions which would likely reduce plaintiffs' ability to prevail on the merits were the case to continue.
That many objections were not taken into account by the amended policy does not make the amended policy inadequate. Regarding the origination restriction, there is a rational connection between the proposed policy regarding publications coming from the publisher only and the legitimate governmental interest of maintaining prison security. See United States v. Stotts, 925 F.2d 83,86 (4th Cir. 1991) (noting prison official have a legitimate interest in maintaining security, discipline, and order). Likewise, the ban on sexually explicit material is justified by defendants' interest in maintaining discipline, and many ofthe objections which implicate whether material falls within a certain exception are best handled on a case-by-case basis. The censorship provision is also reasonable as forcing defendants to remove excerpts of publications would impose an extensive burden on the DOC.
12
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 132 Filed 08/27/10 Page 12 of 14

Moreover, many of the themes raised in the objections implicate challenges which are preserved as the proposed consent decree allows inmates the opportunity to pursue their individual claims regarding the handling of their publications. Thus, claims implicating inconsistent enforcement or discrimination, both of which are contrary to the policy, can still be raised in an independent challenge. (See Stipulated Consent Decree ~ 3.)
In sum, the amendments to certain provisions remedy any concerns the court had as to the adequacy of the settlement. Moreover, the other objections are neither pertinent to the adequacy inquiry nor mandate disapproval ofthe proposed consent decree agreement. Having reviewed the class members' obj ections and the amended policy, the court finds that the proposed consent decree is adequate and should be approved.
C. Opting Out Inmate class members Roger Stevenson (DE # 24), Michael Eugene Hunt (DE # 79), and Ian Aulden Campbell (DE # 100) seek to opt out of the class. The instant class action was certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). Accordingly, no class member has the right to opt out ofthe class action. See Olvera-Morales v. Intern. Labor Mgmt. Corp., 246 F.R.D. 250, 259 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 7,2007) (unpublished). Thus, the class members' requests to opt out is denied.
CONCLUSION After careful consideration ofthe record, matters taken up at the hearings conducted on July 27,2010 and August 27,2010, the court finds that the proposed consent decree, contemporaneously entered, is fair and adequate and is approved. Additionally, the court DENIES the requests to opt out of the class filed by class members Roger Stevenson (DE # 24), Michael Eugene Hunt (DE # 79), and Ian Aulden Campbell (DE # 100). For the reasons and on the terms set forth above, the
13
Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 132 Filed 08/27/10 Page 13 of 14

parties' joint motion for approval ofthe stipulated consent decree (DE # 42) as supplemented (DE #129, Ex. 1) is ALLOWED. The clerk is directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED, this the~a. day of August, 2010.
~w~~tGAN ~ Chief United States District Judge
14 Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 132 Filed 08/27/10 Page 14 of 14

 
 ..:~,,: -".
..~.;
:.:. :.
THE UNITED ST TES DISTRICf COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DIS cr OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTE DMSION

··JOSEPB ~OHN URBANIAK, JR.

)

.Plaintiff,

)

)

~

)

)

. SGT.,DOlllNIE STANLEY, et aL,

)

,. Defendants.

)

)

)

No. 5:0 ~-3145-Ji'L

.., arwARD ALLEN, et aL,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

·.·~ODISBECK, et aL,

)

. .. 'Defendants.

)

)

)

STIPULATED ONSENTDECREE

,';. .

The parties hereto, through co 1, having agreed and stipulated to the entry ofthis

. , ~. Daeree, and the Court having review the record herein and being sufficiently advised,

. THi COURT FINDS AS FACl'

1. This Consent Decree will gran prospective reliefwith respect to prison conditions

.. to the Plaintiffs herein.

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 133 Filed 08/27/10 Page 1 of 5

•. •. .' .~r ...~oto:."

2. •. The relief granted herein is

-2-
wly drawn, extends no further than necessary to

• .eor.ract a violation of a federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

-violationofa federal right.

3.

nsent Decree violate the restrictions on prospective

.reliefset forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a),

NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERE ,

1. The Defendants and their su • tes and their successors in positions within the

,~~on ofthe North Carolina Departm tofCOITeCtion (hereinafter collectivelyreferred to (~"DOC) shall uniformly apply and enforce th policy entitled Publications ReceivedIPossessedby

': Inmates, nOlOO (the Policy), as set forth as ttachment A hereto, throughout its prison facilities; -provided. however, thatminor, occasional, willful deviations from thetime limits forproccssing

,publications or from other administrativepro sions ofthe Policyshall not be considered a violation
,of tIP Consent Decree so long as DOC us its best efforts to minimize such deviations and to

'.. comet them when they occur.

·2, Unless exigent circumstances necessitate a shorter advance notice period or no

:.~ notice (in which case DOC shaI1 pro 'de written notice as soon as possible), DOC shall

.pmvide counsel for Plaintiffs, North Caro . Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. (PLS), with written

DQticeof any substantive proposed change the Policy (including the perceived penological

.' Objective ofthe proposed change) at least 4S ys in advance ofthe effective date of such proposed

,chang~. Within 1S days after receiving such D tice, PLS shall submit to DOC its written comments

end suagestions regarding the proposed c e, which DOC shall consider in good faith. IfPLS o~ta totbe change (as proposed by DOC aft considering PLS's comments and suggestions) on

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 133 Filed 08/27/10 Page 2 of 5

-3-
:~J1ItitutiQiDalgrounds.P18 may move the C urt to disallow or modify the change. as provided in '.. P81W'8Ph 9 herein.

3. Any good-faith disapproval b DOC of a publication based on one or more of the

dis.aPProv~ reasons set forth in the Policy s I not be considered a violation of the Policy or this

iCoDacnt ~; provided, however, that this Consent Decree shall not be construed to prevent an

.

.

any such disapproval in an independent legal action;

; ,,.Yided, further. that the Policy sba11 not be nstrued as a waiver byDOC ofany requirement that
;," .~.
',iJiiimnate ~ his or her available adnllill'~.trative remedies before filing a lawsuit.

. 4. DOC has produced a training deo about the Policy. Training shall be implemented

.

.

(:;"'aecor_C1 with Section D.OI10 ofthe Po cy. DOCsha11 submit any proposed changes to the

:: ':~400 to P13 for comments and suggestions.

S. No less often than quarterlyD shall provide to PIS a spreadsheet or spreadsheets

~:"

.\::fi~~ the status of all pending appeals to

's Publication Review Committee. together with

.. );;'.reopy ofOOC·s most recent Master List of0 sapproved Publications. Such spreadsheets shall be

;,::,~tially similarin fonn tothe monthlYSPll heets DOC has been voluntarilyprovidingtoPLS

.

.

"'~':IriQrto theifiling ofthis ConsemDocree. Upo receiving aspecific request by PLS. DOC shall also .

'. "

.

.'",pftwkle to ,PLS a copy of all documents reI ting to the disapproval of a particular publication

(whether or not such disapproval wu appeal

6. When DOC next revises its ate Handbook, DOC shall add to the "Authorized

:;':~" section of its Inmate Handbook two tences substantially identical to the following two

.~,:~es: ~'Some large retail organizations (4 g., Ba11le3 andNoble, Borders, etc.) are considered

';:-,:, .. , . . '.

.

'. :~butio" centers. " and "Ifyour publicatio isfound to violate policy, you will be permitted to .

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 133 Filed 08/27/10 Page 3 of 5

. .. ..~ ~~~~:.~ .

I
f

c. ';

!

I

-4-

I

. ~appeal the·rejection ofyourpublication to a blication Review Committeefor afresh review. ifthe

I

.,Ctmlmittu has not already reviewed that sa epublication. .. 7., As soon as practicable after th filing ofthis Consent Decree, DOC shall pay Three
;a~ F_fty U.S. Dollars ($350.00) in a 1 sum by a check payable to North Carolina Prisoner

I
l

'... J:.egalServices, Inc. (Employer Identification umber 58-1342594), which PLS shall deposit in its

·.clientescrow account to reimburse Joseph U aniak for his court filing fee.

.: .

8. As soon as practicable after th filing ofthis Consent Decree, counsel for the parties

;~,prepare and submit to the Court a noti e summarizing this Consent Decree and the right,

. ,P\Ii'SWIDt to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 2 (e), ofany member ofthe Plaintiffclass to object to
·'t. Upon aJjnding by this Court that said noti meets the reasonable notice requirements ofsaid

.:.,., DOC shall post said notice in each ofits rison facilities on abulletin board regularly used for

, :postmg notices to inmates.

.•. " 9 . Pursuant to the provisions ofl U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1)(A)(i), the requirements ofthis

>~onsent Decree shall terminate two years foll . its date ofentry. Prior to the expiration ofthis

:.~oyear period, either party may by motionr est that the Court enforce or otherwise resolve any

'~ concerning its application ofchanges' the Policy proposed by DOC and opposed by PLS. .

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 133 Filed 08/27/10 Page 4 of 5

j t..~

,i{-:~"-'

.

;r.1
:.,', , ':'

-510.. By their counsels' signatures ereto, the parties stipulate to the findings of fact and

,; 'conclusioDS oflaw set forth herein.

. ',;'

-;'.

'.

~....- }~:. ' "

, ~ -. ~I·: ...
"y::.". ".
':~; ·3.. ~i~;10 /0
D~
n. . ~. .i3:~ :') ~~'}..~, ~
;':l¢.
,' .. .

. Phillip orth Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. ounselfor Plaintiffs
ORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT F CORRECI'ION
LaVeeHamer General Counsel

Case 5:06-ct-03135-FL Document 133 Filed 08/27/10 Page 5 of 5
• <", ".

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

No. 5:06-CT-3135-FL

JOSEPH URBANIAK

)

Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

THEODIS BECK, SECRETARY OF )

THE NC DOC; BOYD BENNETT,

)

DIRECTOR OF NC PRISONS; AND )

JOSEPH HALL, ADMINISTRATOR )

OF HARNETT CORR. INST.,

)

Defendants

)

AMENDED COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action by Plaintiff Joseph Urbaniak brought under the Civil Rights Act 42

U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment to receive publications

through the mail and under the Fourteenth Amendment to due process of law. It seeks injunctive

and declaratory relief.

I. JURISDICTION

2. The jurisdiction of this Court over the claims of Plaintiff is conferred by 28 U.S.C.

§1331, in that the claims arose under the Constitution of the United States; and by 28 U.S.C.

§1343. The matters in controversy arise under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

II. VENUE

3. Venue is appropriate in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), because the events

and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the Eastern District of North

Carolina.

III. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Joseph Urbaniak is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina and is confined by the North Carolina Department of Correction (NC DOC) at Harnett Correctional Institution. 5. Defendant Theodis Beck is the Secretary for the North Carolina Department of Correction and is responsible for the operation and administration of all facilities within the NC DOC, including the administration of inmate programs and support services, and management of the DOC policies and procedures. 6. Defendant Boyd Bennett is Director of Prisons for the NC DOC and is responsible for the operation and administration of all facilities within the NC DOC, including the administration of inmate programs and support services. 7. Defendant Joseph Hall is Administrator of Harnett Correctional Institution and is responsible for the operation and administration of Harnett Correctional, including the administration of inmate programs and support services provided at Harnett Correctional. 8. All Defendants are sued in their official capacities. Each of their actions alleged herein were undertaken under cover of state law.
IV. FACTS 9. Plaintiff has been an inmate within the NC DOC system since November 6, 1995. 10. The North Carolina DOC/Division of Prisons Policy & Procedures Manual Chapter D, Section .0100 (Exhibit to this Amended Complaint) sets forth the policies and procedures to be followed with regard to NC DOC inmates receipt of magazines and other publications through the mails. 11. The DOC Regulations state that inmates are permitted, at their own expense, to subscribe to and receive magazines and books directly from publishers without prior approval.
2

Each publication is subject to search and screening at the unit level by the Warden or his/her designee prior to distribution and may be rejected if the publication is determined to pose a threat to institutional order, safety, security, or inmate rehabilitation. Prison officials must review each issue of a subscription separately. Section .0102(b).
12. According to DOC Regulations, the Warden must make a written record of the rejected publication and the rejection rationale, and then inform the inmate of the decision and his/her right to appeal. Inmates are given three options: (1) appeal the decision to the Publication Review Committee, (2) forward the publication to an alternate address and waive the right to appeal, or (3) agree to have the publication destroyed and waive the right to appeal. If the inmate chooses to appeal, he/she is permitted to explain the appeal in writing. Section .0103.
13. According to DOC Regulations, the Director of Prisons is to appoint a Publication Review Committee (PRC) which is to meet monthly, review publication denials to ensure division-wide consistency, and independently review each publication according to the policy criteria. The Committee’s decision is to be recorded on a Master List of Disapproved Publications which is to be made available for inmate review through the library or other areas accessible to inmates. Sections .0104-.0106.
14. On numerous occasions, Plaintiff has ordered several publications which upon arrival at Harnett Correctional, were denied to him by prison officials. The publications have included among others, issues of Out and The Advocate magazines, and the novels American Desert and Avoidance. These magazines contain news, fashion, health, medical, travel, and music information that focus on the gay, bisexual, lesbian and transgender community at large. Many of the rejected books feature gay protagonists.
15. These publications were rejected based on their content without a full explanation for
3

the rejections. Publications were denied without a meaningful opportunity to effectively appeal.

One magazine was rejected with no opportunity to appeal. Each response from the PRC was a

blanket rejection with no explanation. Grievances submitted by Plaintiff were not satisfactorily

answered. In addition, some PRC decisions posted on the Master List of Disapproved

Publications appeared to completely ban some magazines titles, rather specific issues.

16. Examples of DOC actions regarding Plaintiff’s rejected publications include:

a)

Every unit level rejection of Plaintiff’s publications consisted of a form letter

alleging that the publication violates DOC policy at Section D.0109. Section

D.0109 gives a non-exhaustive list of seventeen various criteria which may

support rejection of a publication. See the DOC policy in Exhibit to this

Amended Complaint and unit level rejections in Exhibits B, N, AA, AB, AC,

AK, AM, and AV of the original Complaint.

b)

No rejection rationale was ever offered in responses from the PRC. See

Exhibits C, O, and AD of the original Complaint.

c)

Plaintiff requested detailed explanations of rejection rationales in grievances,

appeals and letters to the PRC. No explanation was ever provided. See

Exhibits B, C, E, F, G, O, R, S, AK, AM, AR, AS and AT of the original

Complaint.

d)

On December 20, 2005, Plaintiff was instructed by Harnett Correctional

authorities that he could not receive his January 2006 issue of Out magazine

because all issues of Out were banned in total according to the Master List of

Disapproved Publications. Plaintiff was not allowed to receive the publication

4

or to appeal the rejection to the PRC. See Exhibits U, V, W and X of the

original Complaint.

e)

Plaintiff was forced to have destroyed or mailed out of the prison facility

several magazines and books after they were rejected at the unit level and by

the PRC. See Exhibits C, D, G, O, V, W, X, AD, and AE of the original

Complaint.

EXHAUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

17. Plaintiff has exhausted all available administrative remedies regarding the matters

described in this complaint. Copies of Plaintiff’s grievances and appeals, and DOC responses

are attached as Exhibits B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, N, O, V, W, X, AA, AB, AC, AD, AK, AM,

AN, AO, and AO-2 in the original Complaint.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

A. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT

18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-17 are incorporated herein by reference.

19. In prisons, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits arbitrary

censorship of prisoner publications and requires that any censorship by prison authorities be

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.

20. Defendants violate Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights when they arbitrarily and

capriciously deny Plaintiff access to his publications without reference to legitimate penological

interests.

21. Defendants act arbitrarily and capriciously when they ban entire magazine

subscriptions rather than individually reviewing each publication on an issue-by-issue basis.

Upon information and belief, some publication titles are banned in whole, rather than only those

5

volumes, issues or editions that have been reviewed and rejected for receipt by inmates by the Publication Review Committee.
B. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
22. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-20 are incorporated herein by reference. 23. Due Process of Law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that prisoners are granted minimum procedural safeguards to insure that their constitutional rights are not arbitrarily abrogated. 24. Defendants violate Plaintiff’s right to procedural due process when they fail to give Plaintiff the opportunity to appeal rejected publications to the PRC. In some cases, Plaintiff was not told of his option to appeal publication rejections, and in one case he was denied an opportunity to appeal when he requested it. 25. Defendants violate Plaintiff’s right to procedural due process when Plaintiff is forced to appeal publication rejections without knowledge of the specific reason for the rejection and without the opportunity to review the objectionable material. Without this information, Plaintiff can not mount an effective challenge to the publication denial, and Plaintiff is denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 26. The Defendants violate Plaintiff’s right to procedural due process when they fail to follow the policies and procedures set forth in their regulations. Upon information and belief, the PRC meets sporadically. Upon information and belief, publication rejections are not regularly recorded on the Master List of Disapproved Publications. Upon information and belief, the Master List of Disapproved Publications bans entire magazine subscription titles.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:
6

a) A declaratory judgment that the Defendants violate Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment when they prevent Plaintiff from receiving publications which present no infringement of the legitimate penological interests of the NC DOC.
b) Injunctive relief which would require Defendants to give Plaintiff notice of the specific disapproval rationale with reference to the page number(s) of the objectionable material for each publication they reject, and to permit Plaintiff to review the rejected material for the purpose of filing an effective appeal if doing so would not pose a threat to the security, safety, or order of the prison.
c) Injunctive relief which would require Defendants to review each objectionable subscription publication on an issue-by-issue basis.
d) Injunctive relief which would require Defendants to allow Plaintiff to appeal all unit level rejections to a reviewer not involved in the initial rejection decision.
e) Injunctive relief which would require the Publication Review Committee to give Plaintiff a specific legitimate penological rationale when the Committee rejects one of his publications.
f) Injunctive relief which would require the Publication Review Committee to meet regularly to review rejected publications, to regularly update the Master List of Disapproved Publications, and to make the List readily available for inmate review.
g) Award such other and further relief as justice requires.

This May 11, 2007.

/s/J. Phillip Griffin J.Phillip Griffin NCSB #14436 Attorney for Plaintiff
7

N. C. Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. Post Office Box 25397 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 (919) 856-2200 Fax: (919) 856-2223 E-mail: pgriffin@ncpls.org
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 11, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:
J.Philip Allen Assistant Attorney General North Carolina Department of Justice Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 Attorney for the Defendants pallen@ncdoj.gov This May 11, 2007.
/s/J. Phillip Griffin J.Phillip Griffin
8

EXHIBIT TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT Chapter D Inmate Publication Privileges State of North Carolina Department of Correction Division of Prisons Policies and Procedures
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

 
 Case: 5:06-ct-03135-FL As of: 07/22/2011 10:46 PM EDT 1 of 14
CLOSED
U.S. District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Western Division)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:06−ct−03135−FL

Urbaniak v. Stanley et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan Case in other court: 10−−6211 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/12/2006 Date Terminated: 08/27/2010 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr.

represented by J. Phillip Griffin , Jr. N. C. Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. P. O. Box 25397 Raleigh, NC 27611−5397 919−856−2200 Fax: 856−2223 Email: pgriffin@ncpls.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn Ducoste NC Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. 1110 Wake Forest Rd. P. O. Box 25397 Raleigh, NC 27604 919−865−4806 Fax: 919−856−2200 Email: dducoste@ncpls.org TERMINATED: 09/01/2009

V. Consol Plaintiff Edward Allen
Consol Plaintiff Shawn Derrick Bonnett
Consol Plaintiff Angel Guevara

represented by J. Phillip Griffin , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dawn Ducoste (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/01/2009
represented by J. Phillip Griffin , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dawn Ducoste (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/01/2009
represented by J. Phillip Griffin , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dawn Ducoste

Case: 5:06-ct-03135-FL As of: 07/22/2011 10:46 PM EDT 2 of 14

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/01/2009

Consol Plaintiff Soviet Howie

represented by J. Phillip Griffin , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn Ducoste (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/01/2009

Consol Plaintiff Lyle May

represented by J. Phillip Griffin , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn Ducoste (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/01/2009

Consol Plaintiff Saiyd Muhammad

represented by J. Phillip Griffin , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn Ducoste (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/01/2009

Consol Plaintiff S. Shane Smith

represented by J. Phillip Griffin , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn Ducoste (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/01/2009

Consol Plaintiff Larry Eugene Smith, Jr.

represented by J. Phillip Griffin , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dawn Ducoste (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/01/2009

V.
Defendant
Sgt Donnie Stanley TERMINATED: 05/18/2007

represented by James Philip Allen N. C. Dept. of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602−0629 919−716−6541

Case: 5:06-ct-03135-FL As of: 07/22/2011 10:46 PM EDT 3 of 14

Fax: 919−716−6761 Email: pallen@ncdoj.gov TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Capt. John Meeks TERMINATED: 05/18/2007

represented by James Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Lt. Thomas Tart TERMINATED: 05/18/2007

represented by James Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Cpt. A. L. Gregory TERMINATED: 05/18/2007

represented by James Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Sherwood R. McCabe TERMINATED: 01/18/2007

Defendant Joseph B. Hall

represented by Peter Andrew Regulski N.C. Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602−0629 919−716−6544 Email: pregulski@ncdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2010

Defendant
Jerry McQueen TERMINATED: 01/18/2007

Defendant
James Currin TERMINATED: 05/18/2007

represented by James Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
C/O Rodney S. Jackson TERMINATED: 05/18/2007

represented by James Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant

Case: 5:06-ct-03135-FL As of: 07/22/2011 10:46 PM EDT 4 of 14

Gerotha R. Spain TERMINATED: 01/18/2007

Defendant
Officer Kenneth Jones TERMINATED: 01/18/2007

Defendant
J. Baker Williams TERMINATED: 01/18/2007

Defendant
Norma Batten TERMINATED: 05/18/2007

represented by James Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Cordelia Clark TERMINATED: 05/18/2007

represented by James Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY

Peter Andrew Regulski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
R. C. Lewis TERMINATED: 05/18/2007

represented by James Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
B. A. Thompson TERMINATED: 01/18/2007

Defendant
Theodis Beck Secretary of the NC DOC TERMINATED: 07/27/2010

represented by James Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
Boyd Bennett Director of NC Prisons TERMINATED: 07/27/2010

represented by James Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant NC Area Administrato Robert C. Lewis

represented by Peter Andrew Regulski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Alvin W. Keller

represented by Peter Andrew Regulski (See above for address)

Case: 5:06-ct-03135-FL As of: 07/22/2011 10:46 PM EDT 5 of 14
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Consol Defendant Secretary of Correct Theodis Beck TERMINATED: 07/27/2010
Consol Defendant Director Boyd Bennett TERMINATED: 07/27/2010
Consol Defendant Cordelia Clark
Movant Michael Rankins

represented by James Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by James Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by James Philip Allen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/30/2010 LEAD ATTORNEY
Peter Andrew Regulski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael Rankins 0335880 Lanesboro Correctional Institution P.O. Box 280 Polkton, NC 28135 PRO SE

Date Filed 12/12/2006
12/12/2006 12/12/2006 01/18/2007
01/18/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against James Currin, Rodney S. Jackson, Gerotha R. Spain, Kenneth Jones, J. Baker Williams, Norma Batten, Cordelia Clark, R. C. Lewis, B. A. Thompson, Donnie Stanley, John Meeks, Thomas Tart, A. L. Gregory, Sherwood R. McCabe, Joseph B. Hall, Jerry McQueen , filed by Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Deputy Clerk − AEB, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr. (Deputy Clerk − AEB, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
3 ORDER Directing Monthly Payments be made from Prison Account of Joseph Urbaniak. Signed by Acting Clerk of Court on 12/12/06. (Deputy Clerk − AEB, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
4 ORDER DISMISSING Claims AS FRIVOLOUS as to Sherwood R. McCabe; Jerry McQueen; Gerotha R. Spain; B. A. Thompson; J. Baker Williams; Joseph B. Hall and Kenneth Jones and ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CONTINUE MANAGEMENT OF CASE as to remaining claims . Signed by Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 1/18/2007. (Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
5 ORDER of Investigation−−NCPLS to investigate pltf's claims; Response by NCPLS due by 04/18/2007 cc to pltf. w/notice and waiver form and cc to NCPLS and NCAG. Signed by Brooks, Acting Clerk of Court on 1/18/2007. (Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 01/18/2007)

Case: 5:06-ct-03135-FL As of: 07/22/2011 10:46 PM EDT 6 of 14

01/22/2007 01/23/2007 01/23/2007 02/12/2007 02/13/2007
03/08/2007 04/13/2007 04/18/2007 05/09/2007
05/11/2007 05/11/2007 05/18/2007 05/18/2007 05/18/2007 05/18/2007 05/21/2007 05/30/2007 06/07/2007 07/03/2007 07/11/2007

6 Summons Issued as to James Currin, Rodney S. Jackson, Norma Batten, Cordelia Clark, R. C. Lewis, Donnie Stanley, John Meeks, Thomas Tart, A. L. Gregory. (Deputy Clerk − AEB, ) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
7 Acceptance by plaintiff of Investigation by NCPLS by Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
8 ORDER directing the USM to make service on behalf of the plaintiff.. Signed by Judge William A. Webb on 1/23/07. (Deputy Clerk − AEB, ) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
Filing fee: $ 2.00, receipt number 105 29184 (Deputy Clerk − AEB, ) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed James Currin served on 1/24/2007, answer due 2/13/2007; Rodney S. Jackson served on 1/24/2007, answer due 2/13/2007; Norma Batten served on 1/24/2007, answer due 2/13/2007; Cordelia Clark served on 1/24/2007, answer due 2/13/2007; R. C. Lewis served on 1/24/2007, answer due 2/13/2007; Donnie Stanley served on 1/24/2007, answer due 2/13/2007; John Meeks served on 1/24/2007, answer due 2/13/2007; Thomas Tart served on 1/24/2007, answer due 2/13/2007; A. L. Gregory served on 1/24/2007, answer due 2/13/2007. (Deputy Clerk − AEB, ) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
Filing fee: $ 27.94, receipt number 104 25177 (Deputy Clerk − AEB, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
Filing fee: $ 10.47, receipt number 104 25445 (Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
10 RESPONSE to Order of Investigation filed by Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr. (Griffin, J.) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
11 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by James Currin, Rodney S. Jackson, Norma Batten, Cordelia Clark, R. C. Lewis, Donnie Stanley, John Meeks, Thomas Tart, A. L. Gregory. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Allen, James) (Entered: 05/09/2007)
12 ORDER granting 11 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer until 30 days after NCPLS files an amended complaint on behalf of plaintiff . Signed by Iavarone Clerk of Court on 5/10/2007. (Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
13 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr.(Griffin, J.) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
14 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr (Griffin, J.) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
15 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Theodis Beck, Boyd Bennett, Joseph B. Hall.(Allen, James) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
16 REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY Stipulation sent to all parties(Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery Plan due by 6/7/2007. (Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by J. Phillip Griffin, Jr on behalf of Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr (Griffin, J.) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
Filing fee: $ 14.00, receipt number 104 25850 (Deputy Clerk − AEB, ) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
18 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr. (Griffin, J.) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
Filing fee: $ 4.00, receipt number 104 26172 (Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Dawn Ducoste on behalf of Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr (Ducoste, Dawn) (Entered: 07/11/2007)

Case: 5:06-ct-03135-FL As of: 07/22/2011 10:46 PM EDT 7 of 14

07/11/2007
07/16/2007
08/08/2007 09/06/2007 11/08/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/30/2007 01/02/2008 02/05/2008 03/04/2008 04/02/2008 05/30/2008
06/03/2008 07/03/2008 08/11/2008 08/13/2008 09/02/2008 10/02/2008 11/04/2008 12/03/2008 01/08/2009 02/04/2009

NOTICE OF CORRECTION re: 19 Notice of Appearance−Corrected the docket to reflect that attorney Phil Griffin is to be noticed. (Deputy Clerk − SC, ) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
20 SCHEDULING ORDER:Discovery due by 11/8/2007,Motions due by 12/7/2007. Signed by Judge William A. Webb on 7/16/2007. (Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
Filing fee: $ 7.00, receipt number 104 26563 (Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
Filing fee: $ 7.00, receipt number 105 31208 (Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
Filing fee: $ 14.00, receipt number 104 27429 (Deputy Clerk − AEB, ) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
21 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and Certify Class by Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr. (Griffin, J.) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
22 Memorandum in Support of Joint Motions to Consolidate and Certify Class filed by Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr. (Griffin, J.) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
Motions Submitted to Staff Counsel II: 21 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and Certify Class (Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
Filing fee: $ 18.00, receipt number 104 27910 (Deputy Clerk − AEB, ) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
Filing fee: $ 7.00, receipt number 104 28248 (Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
Filing fee: $ 16.58, receipt number 104 28449 (Deputy Clerk − AEB, ) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
Filing fee: $ 17.00, receipt number RAL000046 (Deputy Clerk − AEB, ) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
23 ORDER granting 21 Motion to Consolidate Cases and to certify the class as a class action; All future filings shall bear both captions and all future docket entries shall be docketed in the lead case, Urbaniak v. Stanley, No. 5:06−CT−3135−FL. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 5/30/2008. (Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
Filing fee: $ 14.00, receipt number RAL001180 (Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
Filing fee: $ 7.00, receipt number RAL001729 (Deputy Clerk − GM, ) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
Filing fee: $ 11.00, receipt number RAL 002474 (Bunn, A.) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
Filing fee: $ 4.00, receipt number RAL002553 (Indig, A.) (Entered: 08/13/2008)
Filing fee: $ 7.00, receipt number RAL002789 (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
Filing fee: $ 7.00, receipt number RAL003342 (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
Filing fee: $ 7.40, receipt number RAL003919 (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
Filing fee: $ 7.40, receipt number RAL004381 (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
Filing fee: $ 12.87, receipt number RAL004955 (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
Filing fee: $ 7.00, receipt number RAL005356 (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 02/05/2009)

Case: 5:06-ct-03135-FL As of: 07/22/2011 10:46 PM EDT 8 of 14

03/03/2009 04/02/2009 04/22/2009 05/07/2009 06/04/2009 07/02/2009 07/06/2009 08/05/2009 08/27/2009
09/01/2009
09/02/2009 09/24/2009 10/02/2009 12/14/2009
12/14/2009 12/16/2009
01/14/2010 01/26/2010
01/26/2010
02/02/2010
02/02/2010 02/05/2010

Filing fee: $ 7.00, receipt number RAL005817 (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 03/03/2009)
Filing fee: $ 28.20, receipt number RAL006352 (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
24 Document: Notice of objection to class action settlement proposal filed by Roger Stevenson (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Shannon, K.) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
Filing fee: $ 19.00, receipt number RAL006935 (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
Filing fee: $ 6.00, receipt number RAL007342 (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
25 NOTICE by Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr Joint Status Report (Ducoste, Dawn) (Entered: 07/02/2009)
Filing fee: $ 26.00, receipt number RAL007820 (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
Filing fee: $ 21.00, receipt number RAL008395 (Indig, A.) (Entered: 08/05/2009)
26 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Dawn Ducoste of North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services by Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order to Withdraw) (Ducoste, Dawn) (Entered: 08/27/2009)
27 ORDER granting 26 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Dawn Ducoste terminated. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 9/1/2009. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
Filing fee: $7.00, receipt number RAL008835 (Indig, A.) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
28 STATUS REPORT by Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr. (Griffin, J.) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
Filing fee: $ 6.14, receipt number RAL009308 PAID IN FULL (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
29 MOTION for leave to file an Amended Complaint by Michael Rankins. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) Modified on 12/16/2009 (McDowell, G.). (Entered: 12/16/2009)
30 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Michael Rankins.. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
NOTICE OF CORRECTION re: 29 Motion for leave to filed amended complaint. The filer was corrected to show Michael Rankins (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
Motions Submitted to Staff Counsel II: 30 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 29 MOTION to Amend/Correct (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
31 ORDER dismissing without prejudice 29 Motion to Amend/Correct; dismissing without prejudice 30 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 1/25/2010. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
32 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the court should not now set the case for trial at its next regular civil session; Show Cause Response due by 2/9/2010. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 1/26/2010. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
33 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 31 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Michael Rankins. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
34 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 33 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
35 MOTION for relief from order pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60 by Michael Rankins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 02/05/2010)

Case: 5:06-ct-03135-FL As of: 07/22/2011 10:46 PM EDT 9 of 14

02/05/2010 02/08/2010 02/09/2010 02/11/2010 02/22/2010
03/03/2010 03/22/2010 03/23/2010 03/24/2010 03/24/2010 03/29/2010
04/12/2010 04/13/2010 04/14/2010
04/27/2010 04/28/2010

Motions Submitted to Staff Counsel II: 35 MOTION for relief from order pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60 (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
36 RESPONSE to Order re 32 Order to Show Cause filed by Theodis Beck, Boyd Bennett, Cordelia Clark, Theodis Beck, Boyd Bennett, Joseph B. Hall. (Allen, James) (Entered: 02/08/2010)
37 USCA Case Number 10−−6211 (J. Neal) for 33 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Michael Rankins. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
38 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Michael Rankins. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 02/11/2010)
39 ORDER denying 35 Motion for relief from order pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60; denying 38 Motion to Appoint Counsel; the parties now have until March 23, 2010, within which to submit the settlement documentation at issue in the litigation. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 2/22/2010. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 02/22/2010)
40 ORDER of USCA as to 33 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Michael Rankins. The Court denies the application to proceed without prepayment of fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
41 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel by Michael Rankins. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
42 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Stipulated Consent Decree by Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DOC Policies &Procedures Publications Received/possessed by Inmates) (Griffin, J.) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
43 ORDER of USCA as to 33 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Michael Rankins. The Court dismisses this proceeding for failure to prosecute pursuant to Local Rule 45. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
44 MANDATE of USCA as to 33 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Michael Rankins (Indig, A.) (Entered: 03/24/2010)
45 ORDER dismissing 41 Motion to Appoint Counsel. After review of the record, the court preliminarily approves the proposed consent decree. The parties shall file with the court no later than fourteen (14) days from entry of this order a proposed notice of the settlement and description of the method through which the parties will provide notice. Upon approval of the notice and notice procedures, the court will set the case for fairness hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). Until hearing, final approval of the settlement shall be held in abeyance (DE # 42). Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 3/29/2010. (Shannon, K.) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
46 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment and Notice and set fairness hearing by Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Notice to Class Members of Settlment) (Griffin, J.) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
Motions Submitted: 46 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment and Notice and set fairness hearing (Indig, A.) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
47 ORDER denying 46 Motion to Approve Consent Judgment; the parties are ORDERED to revise and resubmit a proposed notice to the court which addresses the terms of settlement and alerts class members to the potential effect of any settlement on their rights. Response due by 4/28/2010. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 4/14/2010. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
48 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment and Notice to Class Members to set Fairness Hearing by Theodis Beck, Boyd Bennett, Cordelia Clark, Theodis Beck, Boyd Bennett, Joseph B. Hall. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Notice to Class Members, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Allen, James) (Entered: 04/27/2010)
Motions Submitted: 48 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment and Notice to Class Members to set Fairness Hearing. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 04/28/2010)

Case: 5:06-ct-03135-FL As of: 07/22/2011 10:46 PM EDT 10 of 14

05/07/2010
05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/24/2010
05/24/2010 05/24/2010 05/25/2010 05/25/2010 05/25/2010 05/25/2010 05/26/2010 05/26/2010 05/26/2010 05/26/2010 05/26/2010 05/26/2010 05/26/2010 05/26/2010 05/26/2010 05/27/2010

49 ORDER granting with revisions 48 Motion to Approve Consent Judgment. A hearing shall be held on July 27, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. at the Terry Sanford Federal Building and Courthouse, 310 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina, to consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should receive the courts final approval. Objections by class members to the proposed settlement will be considered if filed in writing with the clerk on or before July 13, 2010. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 5/7/2010. (King, K.) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
50 Letter from Hildred Manuel Lyles, Jr. in reference to case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
51 Letter from Charles Alonzo Tunstall in reference to case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
52 Letter from Rashon Crawford in reference to case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
53 Letter from Stanley Corbett, Jr. in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/28/2010: # 2 Correct Letter, # 3 Correct Envelope) (King, K.). Modified on 5/28/2010 to add correct documents (King, K.). (Entered: 05/27/2010)
54 AFFIDAVIT by Marcus R. Brown in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
55 Letter from Raymond J. Jones in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
56 Letter from Joshua McRavion in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
57 Letter from Darius Rutledge in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
58 Letter from Jamal Haith in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
66 Letter from Antwan Hargrove in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
59 Letter from John Lowery in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
60 Letter from Joseph M. Osorio, Jr. in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
61 Letter from Leonard Camarata in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
62 Letter from Rashie Berfield in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
63 MOTION to Stay Proceedings and MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Michael Rankins. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
67 Letter from Darrell Lee Young in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
68 Letter from Edward D. Huckabee in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
69 Letter from Gregory S. Grosholz in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
70 Letter from Christopher M. Adams in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/28/2010)
64 Letter from William Richardson in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)

Case: 5:06-ct-03135-FL As of: 07/22/2011 10:46 PM EDT 11 of 14

05/27/2010 05/28/2010 05/28/2010 05/28/2010 05/28/2010 06/01/2010 06/01/2010 06/02/2010 06/02/2010
06/03/2010
06/03/2010 06/03/2010 06/03/2010 06/03/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010 06/10/2010 06/10/2010 06/10/2010 06/10/2010 06/14/2010 06/14/2010

65 Letter from Laquail Wallace in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
71 Letter from Stanley Earl Corbett, Jr. in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
72 Letter from John R. Allen dated May 25, 2010 in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
73 Letter from Lester Hardy dated May 25, 2010 in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 06/03/2010)
74 Letter from Derrick Danyell Boger. (objection to the pending settlement agreement.) (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
75 Letter from Shan Wilson in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
76 Letter from Maurice A. Williamson dated May 25, 2010 in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
77 Letter from Anthony Brian Clark in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
78 Letter from Matthew A. Myers in reference to the case. Letter also signed by 20 other interested parties. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/04/2010)
79 Letter from Michael Eugene Hunt dated May 27, 2010 requesting not to be considered as a member of a class action. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
80 Letter from Neil Williams. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
81 Letter from Charles R. Oliver, Jr. dated May 29, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
82 Letter from Jimmy Ramos dated May 25, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
83 Letter from Tyrone Williams dated 5/31/2010 in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
84 AFFIDAVIT by Terrance James regarding the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
85 Letter from Roosevelt S. Bennett dated June 4, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
86 Letter from Chastis Nixon in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
87 Letter from Michael Ray Williams dated June 8, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
88 Letter from Timothy Matthew Long dated May 21, 2010 regarding the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
89 Letter from Javier Rivera in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
90 Letter from Timothy Matthew Long in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
91 Letter from Durante Garrett. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
92 Letter from Bobby R. Johnson, Jr. dated June 9, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 06/14/2010)

Case: 5:06-ct-03135-FL As of: 07/22/2011 10:46 PM EDT 12 of 14

06/14/2010 06/15/2010
06/21/2010 06/24/2010 06/28/2010 06/28/2010 06/28/2010 06/30/2010 07/01/2010 07/06/2010
07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/08/2010 07/09/2010 07/09/2010 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 07/12/2010 07/12/2010

93 Letter from Marshall Brown dated June 6, 2010 in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
94 Letter (Objections) from Michael Rankins in reference to the case. Document also signed by 25 other interested parties. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
95 Letter from Terry Lytle dated June 15, 2010 in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
96 Letter from Eva McNair dated June 21, 2010 in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
97 Letter from Nijel Lee−Bey dated June 15, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
98 Letter from Christopher Ellerbe dated June 24, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
99 Letter from Jonathan Koniak. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
100 Letter from Ian Aulden Campbell in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
102 Letter from Ellis Toone. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
101 ORDER dismissing without prejudice 63 Motion to Stay; dismissing without prejudice 63 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Additionally, where it appears Mr. Rankins seeks relief unrelated to the instant action, he must bring such a claim in a separate action. As stated in this court's March 29, 2010 order, Mr. Rankins may not circumvent the filing limits of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) by raising such unrelated matters in this action. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 7/3/2010. (King, K.) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
103 Letter from Terrence Wright El dated July 1, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
104 Letter from Carlos Sanchez dated July 1, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
105 Letter from Joshua O. Mitchell. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
106 Letter from Angel Guevara dated June 30, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
107 Letter from Michael Locklear dated June 30, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
108 Letter with additional documentation from Eugene Little dated July 1, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
109 Letter with additional documentation from Henry L. Wallace dated July 8, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
110 Letter from Jarkesh Johnson dated July 4, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/09/2010)
111 Letter from Lamar Lineberger dated July 7, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
112 Letter from V.R. Berrier dated July 8, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
113 Letter from James Aaron Hayes dated July 8, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
114 Letter from Eugene Little with documents attached. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 07/12/2010)

Case: 5:06-ct-03135-FL As of: 07/22/2011 10:46 PM EDT 13 of 14

07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010 07/15/2010 07/15/2010 07/16/2010 07/16/2010 07/21/2010 07/27/2010
07/27/2010
07/30/2010 08/03/2010 08/20/2010 08/23/2010
08/23/2010 08/27/2010 08/27/2010

115 Letter from Robert W. Stanley dated July 10, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
116 Letter in opposition from Dwight Parker, Sr dated July 12, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
117 Document: Copy of Letter to Michael Locklear from the NC Department of Correction dated June 8, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
118 Document: Co−Plaintiffs Objections and Proposed Amend Complaint and Affidavit In Support. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
119 Letter from Matthew Myers dated July 12, 2010. Art books were received with the letter. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
120 Letter from Cornelius Ernie Yohe, Jr. dated July 11, 2010 regarding the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
121 Letter from Eugene Little with additional documents attached. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
122 Letter from Telly Clark dated July 12, 2010 with additional documentation. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/19/2010)
123 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter Andrew Regulski on behalf of Cordelia Clark, Joseph B. Hall, Robert C. Lewis, Alvin W. Keller. (Regulski, Peter) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
124 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan: Fairness Hearing held on 7/27/2010. Counsel to file supplement and amended policy within 30 days. (Court Reporter Donna Tomawski.) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
125 ORDER re 123 Notice of Appearance filed by Joseph B. Hall, Cordelia Clark, Robert C. Lewis, Alvin Keller; the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to substitute defendant Keller for defendant Beck and defendant Lewis for defendant Bennett on this court's docket sheet. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 7/27/2010. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
126 Notice of Substitution of Counsel by Peter Andrew Regulski on behalf of Cordelia Clark, Joseph B. Hall, Alvin W. Keller, Robert C. Lewis substituting for Phillip Allen. (Regulski, Peter) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
127 ORDER − Amended Pleadings due by 8/23/2010 and the court also sets this matter for hearing on 8/27/10 at 11 a.m. in Raleigh. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 8/3/2010. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 08/03/2010)
128 Letter from Anthony Leon Hoover dated August 12, 2010 in reference to the case. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (King, K.) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
129 Memorandum in Support − re: 127 Order, Set Deadlines, Set Hearings Joint Supplement on Proposed Settlement filed by Joseph John Urbaniak, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit August 18, 2010 Revision to Inmate Publication Policy) (Griffin, J.) (Entered: 08/23/2010)
130 Letter from Timothy M. Long dated August 18, 2010 with additional documentation. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 08/23/2010)
131 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan: Fairness Hearing held on 8/27/2010. (Court Reporter Patti A. McCullock.) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
132 ORDER − the court finds that the proposed consent decree, contemporaneously entered, is fair and adequate and is approved; the court DENIES the requests to opt out of the class filed by class members Roger Stevenson (DE # 24), Michael Eugene Hunt (DE # 79), and Ian Aulden Campbell (DE # 100); the parties' joint motion for approval of the stipulated consent decree (DE # 42) as supplemented

Case: 5:06-ct-03135-FL As of: 07/22/2011 10:46 PM EDT 14 of 14

08/27/2010 08/27/2010
05/03/2011

(DE #129, Ex. 1) is ALLOWED. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 08/27/2010. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
133 Stipulated Consent Decree. Approved and Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 08/27/2010. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
134 CLERK'S JUDGMENT − that defendants Sherwood R. McCabe, Jerry McQueen, Gerotha R. Spain, B. A. Thompson, J. Baker Williams, Joseph B. Hall and Kenneth Jones having been dismissed earlier in the action, the court approves the settlement agreement. Signed by Dennis P. Iavarone, Clerk of Court on 8/27/2010. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
135 Letter dated April 30, 2011 from Melvin Jeffries. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Taylor, B.) (Entered: 05/11/2011)