Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 1 of 24 Page ID #:564

1 ERNEST GALVAN - 196065

BLAKE THOMPSON -.255600

2 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor

San Francisco, alifornia 94104-1823

Telephone: (415) 433-6830

Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

Email:

eggalvan@rbag.com

bthompsonibgg. coin

BRIAN A. VOGEL - 167413

r- zi;C )

THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN A. VOGEL, PC

^

770 County Square Drive, Suite 104

0

Ventura, alifornia 93003

w; ,,

Telephone: 805 654-0400

Facsimile: @@ 654-0326

Email:

brianbvogel.com

LANCE WEBER - Fla. Bar No. 104550* HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, Florida 33460 Telephone: (561 360-2523 Facsimile: (866) 735-7136 Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter . org

Pro Hac Vice Application To Be Filed

Attorneys for Plaintiff

[10276743)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

V f t1? 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of th HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTE'

2

COMPLAINT FOR

Plaintiff,

DECLARATORY AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ER

V.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42

U.S.C. §1983 AND DAMAGES

COUNTY OF VENTURA., GEOFF DEAN,

GARY PENTIS, LINDA OKSNER,and

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

23 RICK BARRIOS, in their individual and

official capacities DOES 1-10, in their

24 individual and official capacities,

25

Defendants.

26

27

28

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

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 2 of 24 Page ID #:565

1102767431

INTRODUCTION

2

Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS ("PLN" or "Plaintiff'), a project of the

3 Human Rights Defense Center, brings this action challenging Defendants'

4 censorship of its monthly publication and of correspondence mailed to prisoners and

5 pre-trial detainees (collectively, "inmates") held in custody at Ventura County jails,

6 in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

7 Constitution. Defendants have adopted and implemented mail policies and practices

8 that unconstitutionally restrict PLN's correspondence with inmates. Defendants'

9 mail policies are unconstitutional on their face and as applied, and are

10 constitutionally infirm because they are unduly broad and vague. Defendants' mail

11 policies and practices also do not afford adequate notice and an opportunity to

12 challenge the censorship, in violation of PLN's right to due process. Defendants'

13 policies, practices, and actions thus violate PLN's rights and the rights. of others who

seek to send mail and publications to inmates at Defendants jails under the First

Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth

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

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

JURISDICTION AND VE1\1E

1. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

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

has both subject matter jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction over this action under

22 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1343, 2201, and 2202.

23

2. Venue is proper in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C.

24 § 1391(b)(2) because substantial acts and omissions giving rise to the claims

25 occurred in this District, including Defendants' implementation of the challenged

26 mail policies and practices, and because Defendants reside in this District.

27

PARTIES

28

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

1

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,

42 U.S.C. §1983 AND DAMAGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 3 of 24 Page ID #:566

[102767431

1 Defense Center ("HRDC"), a Washington Non-Profit Corporation. The core of 2 HRDC's mission is public and prisoner education, advocacy, and outreach in 3 support of prisoners' rights in furtherance of their basic human rights. PLN 4 publishes and distributes a monthly journal of corrections news and analysis, and 5 offers and sells books about the criminal justice system, legal reference books, and 6 self-help books of interest to prisoners. PLN has a broad audience, including
prisoners, lawyers, courts, libraries, and members of the general public throughout the country and abroad.
4. Defendant COUNTY OF VENTURA is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. Defendant COUNTY OF VENTURA is, and was at all relevant times mentioned herein, responsible for the actions and/or inactions and the policies, procedures, customs and practices of the Ventura County Sheriff's Department ("the Sheriff's Department" or "the Department"), the Ventura County Sheriff's Detention Services Division ("the Detention Services Division"), and their respective employees and agents. The Department operates the Pre-Trial Detention Facility, the Todd Road Jail, and the East County Jail (collectively, the "jails"), and is and was responsible for adopting and implementing mail policies governing incoming mail for inmates at Ventura County jails.
5. Defendant GEOFF DEAN is the Sheriff of the COUNTY OF VENTURA, and has held this position since January 3, 2011. Defendant DEAN is employed by and is an agent of Defendant COUNTY OF VENTURA and the Department. He is responsible for overseeing the management and operations of the Detention Services Division, and for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and control of the personnel of the Ventura County jails who interpret and apply the Detention Services Division's mail policy for inmates. As Sheriff, Defendant DEAN is the final policymaker for Defendant COUNTY OF VENTURA with respect to the operations of the Ventura County
2
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. §1983 AND DAMAGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 4 of 24 Page ID #:567

(10276743)

1 jails, including for policies governing incoming mail for inmates. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. 6. Defendant GARY PENTIS is an Assistant Sheriff of the COUNTY OF VENTURA, and has been in charge of the Detention Services Division since approximately January 3, 2011. He is employed by and is an agent of Defendant COUNTY OF VENTURA and the Sheriff's Department. The Detention Services Division is the largest of the Department's four divisions in both personnel and budget, and includes all job positions related to inmate services, including reception, booking and classification, jail services, and court room and pre-trial security services. As Assistant Sheriff in charge of the Detention Services Division, Defendant PENTIS is responsible for the operation and management of the Ventura
12 County jails and for the promulgation and implementation of Detention Services 13 Division policies, including the inmate mail policies challenged herein. He is also 14 responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline,
counseling, and control of the personnel of the Ventura County jails who interpret and apply the Detention Services Division's mail policy for inmates. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
7. Defendant LINDA OKSNER is the Commander in charge of the Todd
s Road Jail for the Sheriff Department. She is employed by and is an agent of
Defendant COUNTY OF VENTURA and the Sheriff's Department. Defendant OKSNER is responsible for operational oversight of the Todd Road Jail, for Inmate Services, and for the Detention Services Divisional Training Unit. Prior to this 23 assignment, she was in charge of the operations and management of the Pre-Trial 24 Detention Facility and the East County Jail. In these capacities, Defendant 25 OKSNER is and was responsible for the implementation of Detention Services 26 Division policies at Ventura County jail facilities, including the inmate mail policies 27 challenged herein, and for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, 28 discipline, counseling, and control of the personnel of the Ventura County jails who
-)
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. §1983 AND DAMAGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 5 of 24 Page ID #:568

[10276743]

interpret and apply the Detention Services Division's mail policy for inmates. She

is sued in her individual and official capacities.

8. Defendant RICK BARRIOS is the Commander of the Pre-Trial

Detention Facility for the Sheriffs Department. He is employed by and is an agent

of Defendant COUNTY OF VENTURA and the Sheriffs Department. Defendant

BARRIOS is responsible for operational oversight of the Pre-Trial Detention

7 Facility. In this capacity, Defendant BARRIOS is responsible for the

implementation of Detention Services Division policies at the Pre-Trial Detention

Facility. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

9. The true names and identities of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are

presently unknown to PLN. Each of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 are or were

employed by and are or were agents of Defendant COUNTY OF VENTURA and

the Sheriffs Department when some or all of the challenged inmate mail policies

and practices were adopted and/or implemented. Each of Defendants DOES 1

through 10 are or were personally involved in the adoption and/or implementation of

the Detention Services Division's mail policies for inmates, and/or are or were

responsible for the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline,

18 counseling, and/or control of Ventura County jails' staff who interpret and

19 implement these inmate mail policies. They are sued in their individual and official

20 capacities. PLN will seek to amend this Complaint as soon as the true names and

21 identities of Defendants DOES 1 through 10 have been ascertained.

22

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

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

24 were done and are continuing to be done under the color of state law and within the

25 scope of their official duties as employees or agents of Defendant COUNTY OF

26 VENTURA and the Sheriffs Department.

27

FACTS

28

11. Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS publishes and distributes Prison

4
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,

42 U.S.C. §1983 AND DAMAGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 6 of 24 Page ID #:569

]10276743]

1 Legal News: Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights, a monthly journal of

corrections news and analysis. PLN also publishes and distributes paperback books

3 about the criminal justice system and legal issues impacting prisoners.

4

12. PLN has approximately 9,000 subscribers in the United States and

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

6 members of the public. PLN distributes its publication to prisoners and law

7 librarians in approximately 2,200 correctional facilities across the United States,

8 including institutions within the Federal Bureau of Prisons and all thirty-three adult

9 prisons of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

10

1.3 PLN engages in core protected speech and expressive conduct on

11 matters of public concern, such as the operations of corrections facilities, jail and

12 prison conditions, prisoner health and safety, and prisoners' rights. PLN regularly

13 receives correspondence from inmates in correctional facilities around the country,

14 including Ventura County jails, in which they ask questions and report on jail or

15 prison conditions.

16

14. Defendants have censored PLN's monthly journal, informational

17 brochure packets, subscription renewal letters, and Internet-based printouts mailed

18 to inmates held in custody at Ventura County jails, by refusing to deliver said items

19 to the prisoners and, in some instances, by returning items to PLN's offices via the

20 Return To Sender service of the United States Postal Service. Defendants continue

21 to censor many of the items listed above.

7.2

15. Defendants have censored materials mailed by PLN on at least 148

23 occasions from February. 2012 to the present, including the items identified below.

24

Censorship of NY's Monthly Journal

25

16. PLN's monthly journal, Prison Legal News, is a black and white 64-

26 page soft cover publication that contains articles on corrections news and analysis

27 about prisoner rights, court rulings, the management of prison and jail facilities, and

28 conditions of confinement.
5
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER TILE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,
42 U.S.C. §I983 AND DAMAGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 7 of 24 Page ID #:570

[1027674-3)

1

17. Starting in at least February 2012, Defendants censored PLN's monthly

2 journal by refusing to deliver it to the inmates to whom it was addressed, sometimes

sending it by return mail at PLN's expense, marking it with an ink stamp or

4 adhesive label noting various reasons for the return, including: (1) "CONTENTS

UNACCEPTABLE;" circling with black pen "SUGGESTIVE ITEMS" from a list

of prohibited correspondence; (2) "SUGGESTIVE ADS INSIDE. PLEASE

RETURN TO SENDER"; and (3) "UNACCEPTABLE - SUGGESTIVE IMAGES

& ADS. RETURN TO SENDER."

18. In March 2012, PLN mailed its March 2012 Prison Legal News

publication to twelve (12) prisoners at the Ventura County jails, each of whom were

in custody there at the time that the publications were received from PLN.

Defendants did not deliver the publications to the inmate-addressees and sent them

by return mail at PLN's expense, with an ink stamp with the following reason for

return: "CONTENTS UNACCEPTABLE," circling with black pen "SUGGESTIVE

ITEMS" from a list of prohibited cor respondence.

19. In April 2012, PLN mailed its April 2012 Prison Legal News

publication to seven (7) prisoners at the Ventura County jails, each of whom were in

18 custody there at the time that the publications were received from PLN. Defendants

19 did not deliver the publications to the inmate-addressees and sent them by return

20 mail at PLN's expense, with an adhesive label with the following reason for return:

21 "SUGGESTIVE ADS INSIDE. PLEASE RETURN TO SENDER."

22

20. In May 2012, PLN mailed its May 2012 Prison Legal News publication

23 to fourteen (14) inmates at the Ventura County jails, each of whom were in custody

24 there at the time that the publications were received from PLN. Defendants did not

25 deliver the publications to the inmate-addressees and sent them by return mail at

26 PLN's expense, with an adhesive label with the following reason for return:

27 "UNACCEPTABLE - SUGGESTIVE IMAGES & ADS. RETURN TO

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

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 8 of 24 Page ID #:571

110276743]

1

21. PLN's monthly journal occasionally contains advertisements for

2 distributors of sexually based material. Most of the advertisements for such

3 distributors contain no pictures. In the few instances in which pictures may be 4 found, they are barely visible: each picture is less than one square inch, there is no

nudity, and even clothed depictions of breasts, buttocks, or the groin area often are

rendered invisible by a white star. 22. On information and belief, Defendants refused to deliver additional
Prison Legal News publications that PLN mailed to inmates, other than those identified above, who were in custody at the Ventura County jails at the time the

publications were received. 23. Defendants did not provide PLN with sufficient due process notice or

with an opportunity to appeal the aforementioned censorship decisions. PLN is

informed and believes that Defendants have a written policy which allows for an

appeal of any decision rejecting inmate mail and that there is a form that is to be

sent to the sender notifying the sender of the decision. However, PLN never

received any such form.

17

24. Currently, PLN has 14 subscribers at the Ventura County jails. PLN

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

19 journalistic avenues by sending its monthly publication to. inmates confined at

20 Ventura County jails.

21

Censorship of PLN's Informational Brochure Packet

22

25. Since at least February 2012, and continuing to the present day,

2,3 Defendants have censored PLN's Informational Brochure Packet by refusing to

24 deliver it to the inmates to whom it was addressed. PLN's "Informational Brochure

25 Packet" includes the three items described below: (1) The Prison Legal News

26 Brochure and Subscription Order Form; (2) The PLN Book List; and (3) The

27 Published Books Brochure.
28 /// 7
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. §1983 AND DAMAGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 9 of 24 Page ID #:572

(a) Prison Legal News Brochure and Subscription Order Form: This brochure and order form include: a description of the topics covered in PLN's

monthly magazine; subscription rates, special subscription offers, a subscription

order form; a description of three books available for purchase or included with a

subscription to Prison Legal News-Protecting Your Health & Safety, With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of hnpriSOnment in America, and Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money . rom Mass Incarceration; and other information about PLN's

bookstore. (b) PLN Book List: The book list includes a description of 42
10 books, dictionaries, and legal resource materials available for purchase. The books 11 available for purchase cover a variety of topics, including: the basic rights of
prisoners regarding health and safety; the American criminal justice system; finding

the right lawyer; DNA testing; issues related to imprisoned women; selfrepresentation in court; developing a successful re-entry plan upon cor rectional

release; searching for a job; crime and poverty; and the mental health crisis in U.S.

prisons and jails. (c) PLN Published Books Brochure: The PLN Published Books
brochure details two books published by PLN and includes detailed information

about and an order form for (1) a comprehensive book on high school, vocational,

paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses available to prisoners through

written correspondence programs of study; and (2) a legal resource book on the

22 topic of ineffective assistance of counsel and habeas corpus litigation.

23

26. Defendants have censored PLN's Informational Brochure Packet by

¡102767431

24 refusing to deliver it to the inmates to whom it is addressed, and sometimes sending
25 it by return mail at PLN's expense, with an adhesive label indicating various reasons
26 for return, including the following: (1) "INMATES CANNOT ORDER
27 SUBSCRIPTIONS FROM JAIL. PLEASE RETURN TO SENDER.";
28 (2) "INMATES CANNOT ORDER ANYTHING FROM JAIL. PLEASE 8
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. §1983 AND DAMAGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 10 of 24 Page ID #:573

[1027674-31

1 RETURN TO SENDER."; and (3) "INMATES MAY NOT ORDER ANY 2 BILLABLE ITEMS FROM JAIL (i.e. Magazine Subscriptions, Books). RETURN

3 TO SENDER." 27. Since February 2012 to the present, Defendants have censored at least
50 of PLN's Informational Brochure Packets and frustrated PLN's attempt to deliver

it to inmates at the Ventura County jails.

7

28. Defendants did not provide PLN with sufficient notice or with an

8 opportunity to appeal any of the aforementioned censorship decisions.

29. PLN continues its educational and journalistic mission by sending its

Informational Brochure Packets to inmates confined at Ventura County jails.

Censorship of Photocopies and Internet Printouts

30. Defendants also have censored PLN's correspondence with inmates

13 containing Internet-based printouts of case law by refusing to deliver these items

14

31. These items have sometimes been sent by return mail at PLN's expense

with an adhesive label affixed with various reasons for return, including the

following: (1) "CONTENT UNACCEFTABLE/NOT A `PRISON LEGAL NEWS'

PUBLICATION, NO EN\TELOPED PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCE.

RETURN TO SENDER" or (2) "PER LEGAL DEPT.: XEROXED COPIES FROM

BOOKS ARE NOT ALLOWED. MUST BE ORIGINAL MATERIAL. RETURN

TO SENDER." 32. Since April 2012, Defendants censored PLN's correspondence with
inmates and frustrated PLN's attempt to send Internet-based printouts of case law to

forty-six (46) inmates at the Ventura County Jails.

33. Similarly, in February 2013, a third party mailed copies of articles from the Prison Legal News web site to several inmates at the Ventura County jails.

Those articles were returned to sender with the notation "Return to Sender:

Postcards Only. No Enveloped Correspondence."
34. Just as with the aforementioned instances of censorship, Defendants did 9
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. 51983 AND DAMAGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 11 of 24 Page ID #:574

1 not provide PLN with sufficient notice or with an opportunity to appeal censorship

2 decisions regarding Internet printouts of case law mailed to inmates.

3

35. PLN continues its educational and journalistic mission by sending

Internet-based printouts of case law to inmates confined at Ventura County jails.

PLN Subscription Renewal Letters

36. Defendants also have censored PLN's correspondence with inmates

containing PLN "Subscription Renewal Letters." Since at least June 2012, and

continuing to the present day, Defendants have censored PLN's Subscription

9 Renewal Letters by refusing to deliver it to the inmates to whom it is addressed, and

10 sometimes sending it by return mail at PLN's expense, with an adhesive label

11 indicating various reasons for return, including the following: (1) "RETURN TO

12 SENDER- POSTCARDS ONLY- NO ENVELOPES, and (2) "INMATES

13 CANNOT ORDER SUBSCRIPTIONS FROM JAIL. RETURN TO SENDER."

14

37. Since June 2012, Defendants censored PLN's attempt to send

Subscription Renewal Letters to 19 inmates at the Ventura County Jails. Just as

with the aforementioned instances of censorship, Defendants did not provide PLN

with sufficient notice or with an opportunity to appeal censorship decisions

regarding Internet printouts of case law mailed to inmates.

Jail Policies

38. After PLN's materials were rejected, starting in February 2012, PLN

began investigating the reasons for the rejections. PLN then learned that Defendants

22 appeared to have begun applying written policies that it had not before applied to

23 PLN to exclude PLN' s materials. These policies include the following: Article 36

24 of the Detention Services Division policy, entitled "Inmate Mail Guidelines," which

25 requires all incoming mail addressed to inmates at the Ventura County jails, with the

26 exception of legal mail, to be in postcard form (hereinafter "Postcard Only Mail

27 Policy"). Defendants' web site explaining that policy states, in pertinent part:

[1027674-3)

28 "postcards will be the only acceptable form of incoming mail" and "must be no
10
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,
42 U.S.C. §1983 AND DAMAGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 12 of 24 Page ID #:575

110276743J

1 smaller than 4 x 6 inches and no larger than 6 x 11 inches."

2

39. Defendants' Postcard Only Mail Policy has been used to censor PLN's

3 enveloped correspondence with inmates at Ventura County j ails containing

4 informational brochures packets, Internet-based printouts of case law, and

5 subscription renewal letters.

6

40. Defendants' conduct prohibiting PLN from mailing its publications,

7 informational brochure packets, Internet-based printouts of case law and

8 subscription renewal letters to inmates .confined at the Ventura County jails violates

9 the First Amendment. This policy on its face and as applied censors these

10 expressive activities and has a chilling effect on PLN's future speech and expression

11 directed at inmates confined there. Defendants' policy is unconstitutional both

12 facially and as applied to Prison Legal News.

13

41. Prison Legal News publishes and distributes content concerning the

14 rights of inmates and the means by which they may obtain relief from

15 unconstitutional conditions of confinement. As a result, PLN is informed and believes that Defendants have retaliated against PLN by refusing to deliver PLN' s

written materials to inmates held at the jails.

42. Defendants' actions have violated, continue to violate, and are

reasonably expected in the future to violate PLN' s constitutional rights, and have

caused Plaintiff financial harm in the form of lost subscriptions, lost opportunities

for purchases and sales of its publications, lost opportunities for book sales, and

diversion of resources to address the censorship. In addition, Defendants' actions

have frustrated Plaintiffs mission of education and advocacy, including the

dissemination of PLN's political message, and the reporting and publishing of news

25 regarding the human and legal rights of persons held in prisons and jails. Further, 26 Defendants' actions have interfered with PLN's ability to recruit new donors and

27 supporters.

28

43. Defendants' actions and inactions were and are motivated by ill motive

11

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,

42 U.S.C. §1983 AND DAMAGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 13 of 24 Page ID #:576

[10276743]

1 and intent, and were and are all committed under color of law with reckless indifference to PLN' s rights. 44. Defendants COUNTY OF VENTURA, DEAN, PENTIS, OKSNER, BARRIOS, DOES 1-10, and other agents of the County of Ventura are responsible

for or personally participated in creating and implementing these unconstitutional

6 policies, practices, and customs. Further, Defendants are responsible for training and 7 supervising the mail staff whose conduct has injured and continues to injure PLN,

and for ratifying or adopting them. 45. Defendants' unconstitutional policy, practices, and customs are
ongoing and continue to violate PLN's rights. As such, PLN has no adequate

remedy at law. 46. PLN is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from
refusing to deliver or refusing to allow delivery of publications, informational brochures packets, and other correspondence from Prison Le gal News, and

prohibiting Defendants from censoring mail without due process of law.

47. On or about February 13, 2013, PLN placed Defendants on actual notice through the filing of a state tort claimthat their policies and practices violate

PLN's constitutional rights. Defendants continue to violate PLN's constitutional

rights.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

21

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Against All Defendants - For Violations of the First Amendment Under Color

22

Of State Law - Free Speech; Section 1983)

23

24

48. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding

25 paragraphs.

26

49. The acts described above constitute violations of Plaintiff's rights under

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

28 and have caused and will continue to cause damages to Plaintiff.
12 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,
42 U.S.C. §1983 AND DAMAGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 14 of 24 Page ID #:577

¡1027674-3j

1

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

2 compensatory damages, against all Defendants.

3

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

engaging in the conduct alleged herein, individual Defendants acted with the intent

to injure, vex, annoy and harass Plaintiff, and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust

hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights with the intention of causing

Plaintiff injury and depriving it of its constitutional rights.

8

52. As a result of the forgoing, Plaintiff seeks exemplary and punitive

9 damages against the individual Defendants.

10

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11

(Against All Defendants - For Violations of the First Amendment Under Color Of State Law - Retaliation for Exercising Speech Rights; Section 1983)

12

13

53. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding

14 paragraphs.

-54. The acts described above constitute violations of Plaintiff's right to be

free from retaliation for exercising its constitutionally protected speech rights.

55. By retaliating against Plaintiff, Defendants have violated Plaintiff's

ri ghts under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution through 42

U.S.C. § 1983, and have caused and will continue to cause damages to Plaintiff.

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

compensatory damages, against all Defendants.

57. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that in 23 engaging in the conduct alleged herein, individual Defendants acted with the intent

24 to injure, vex, annoy and harass Plaintiff, and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust

25 hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights with the intention of causing

26 Plaintiff injury and depriving it of its constitutional rights.

27

58. As a result of the forgoing, Plaintiff seeks exemplary and punitive

28 damages against the individual Defendants.

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

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 15 of 24 Page ID #:578

1

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Against All Defendants - For Violations of the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment Under Color Of State Law; Section 1983)

59. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.
60. By failing to give Plaintiff sufficient notice of the censorship of its publications, and by failing to give an opportunity to be heard with respect to that censorship, Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiff of liberty and property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution via 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
61. The acts described above have caused and will continue to cause damage to Plaintiff.
62. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal and compensatory damages, against all Defendants.
63. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that in engaging in the conduct alleged herein, individual Defendants acted with the intent to injure, vex, annoy and harass Plaintiff, and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights with the intention of causing Plaintiff injury and depriving it of its constitutional rights.
64. As a result of the forgoing, Plaintiff seeks exemplary and punitive damages against the individual Defendants.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Against All Defendants - For Violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fo rteenth Amendment Under Color Of State Law; Section 1983)

[1O27ú743]

65. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding

paragraphs.

27

66. By prohibiting the delivery of Plaintiff's publications but allowing the

28 delivery of the publications of others who are similarly situated, Defendants have 14
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,
42 U.S.C. §1.983 AND DAMAGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 16 of 24 Page ID #:579

11027G74-3)

1 deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiff of equal protection under the laws, in 2 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution through 42

3 U.S.C. § 1983.

4

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

damage to Plaintiff.

6

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

7 compensatory damages, against all Defendants.

8

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

9 engaging in the conduct alleged herein, individual Defendants acted with the intent

10 to injure, vex, annoy and harass Plaintiff, and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust

11 hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights with the intention of causing

12 Plaintiff injury and depriving it of its constitutional rights.

70. As a result of the forgoing, Plaintiff seeks exemplary and punitive

damages against the individual Defendants.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The conduct previously alleged, unless and until enjoined by order of this

Court, will cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff. Further, a judicial

declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that all parties may know

their respective rights and act accordingly.

20

wI-mREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as follows:

21

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

22 the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

. 23

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

24 and all persons acting in concert with them from further violating Plaintiff's civil

25 rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

26

3. Nominal damages for each violation by the Defendants against the

27 Plaintiff's rights.

28

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

15

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,

42 U.S.C. §1983 AND DAMAGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 17 of 24 Page ID #:580

5. Punitive damages against the individual Defendants in an amount to be

proven at trial.

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

CCP § 1021.5, and under other applicable law.

7. Prejudgment and post judgment interest.

6

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

7

8 DATED: January 31, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

9

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN.& GRUNFELD LLP

10

11

By: /s/ Ernest Galvan

TIlE LAW OFFICES OFBRIAN A. VOGEL, PC

By:

,.•7.,--

Brian A. Vogel

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
[1027674-3)

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER By: /s/
Lance Weber Attorneys for Plaintiff
16
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. §1983 AND DAMAGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 18 of 24 Page ID #:581

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

3 DATED: Janaury 31, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

4

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

5

6

By: /s/ Ernest Galvan

7

8

TN H. LAW OFFICES OF

9

BRIAN A. VOGEL, PC

10

11

Brian A. Vogel

12 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER
13

14

By: /s/

Lance Weber

Attorneys for Plaintiff

20 21
? 23 24 25 26 27 28
[10276743]

17
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,
42 U.S.C. § 1983 AND DAMAGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 19 of 24 Page ID #:582

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES JUDGES

This case has been assigned to District Judge

Magistrate Judge is

Charles F. Eick

George H. King

and the assigned

The case number on all documents filed with the Court should read as follows:

2:14CV773 GHK Ex

Pursuant to General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Magistrate Judge has been designated to hear discovery related motions.
All discovery related motions should be noticed on the calendar of the Magistrate Judge.

January 31, 2014 Date

Clerk, U. S. District Court
By J.Prado Deputy Clerk

NOTICE TO COUNSEL
A copy of this notice must be served with the summons and complaint on all defendants (if a removal action is
filed, a copy of this notice must be served on all plaintiffs).

Subsequent documents must be filed at the following location:

Western Division 312 N. Spring Street, G-8 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Southern Division 411 West Fourth St., Ste 1053 Santa Ana, CA 92701

Eastern Division 3470 Twelfth Street, Room 134 Riverside, CA 92501

Failure to file at the proper location will result in your documents being returned to you.

CV-18 (08/13)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES JUDGES

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 20 of 24 Page ID #:583

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the Central District of California

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff(s) v.
County of Ventura; Geoff Dean, Gary Pentis, Linda Oksner, and Rick Barrios, in their individual and
official capacities, DOES 1-10, in their individual and official capacities, Defendant(s)

) CV14-0773(1-h, l^ *)
Civil Action No.
) ) )

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant's name and address) County of Ventura 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1260 Geoff Dean 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 Gary Pentis 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 Linda Oksner 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 Rick Barrios 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) - or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, whose name and address are: Brian A. Vogel
The Law Offices of Brian A. Vogel, PC 770 County Square Drive, #104 Ventura, CA 93003

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

,0,ti

Date:

JAN 31 2014

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 21 of 24 Page ID #:584
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL COVER SHEET

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS ( Check box, if you are representing yourself ^) Prison Legal News, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center

DEFENDANTS ( Check box if you are representing yourself q )
Ventura County; Geoff Dean, Gary Pentis, Linda Oksner, and Rick Barrios, in their individual and official capacities, Does 1-10, in their individual and official capacities

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Palm Beach Cty, FL
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are representing yourself, provide the same information.

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number) If you are representing yourself, provide the same information.

See attachment.

Unknown.

I!. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in one box only.)

1. U.S. Government Plaintiff

I^i

3. Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

2. U.S. Government Defendant

^4. Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES-For Diversity Cases Only

(Place an X in one box for plaintiff and one for defendant)

Citizen of This State

PTF 11 1

DEF 1

Incorporated or Principal Place of Business in this State

PTF DEF 4 4

Citizen of Another State • 2 • 2 Incorporated and Principal Place • 5 El 5 of Business in Another State

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

n 3 . 3 Foreign Nation

6 6

IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.)

1. Original

2. Removed from

Remanded from

Proceeding

State Court

J Appellate Court

4. Reinstated or q 5. Transferred from Another

Reopened

District (Specify)

6. MultiDistrict
Litigation

V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND:

Yes El No (Check "Yes" only if demanded in complaint.)

CLASS ACTION under F.R.Cv.P..23: E]Yes No

MONEY DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT: $ According to proof.

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.)

42 U.S.C. 1983: Violation of Plaintiff's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

VI!. NATURE OF_SUIT (Place an X in one box only).

OTHER' STATUTES

CONTRACT REA4'PROP..ERTY:CONT

375 False Claims Act l^ 110 Insurance

240 Torts to Land

400 State Reapportionment

IE 120 Marine

245 Tort Product Li a bility

E 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking
n 450 Commerce/ICC Rates/Etc.

E 130 Miller Act 140 Negotia ble Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment &

E 290 All Other Real Property TORTS
PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane

460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Org.

Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act

315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander

480 Con s umer Credit
E 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/Exchan g e 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts

152 Recovery o f Defaulted Student Loan (Excl. Vet.)

330 FFeed. Employers ' Lia bili ty

340 Marine

153 Recovery o f E Overpayment of
Vet. Benefits

345 Marine Product Liability

160 Stockholders' Suits

350 Motor Vehicle . 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability

893 Environmental Matters

190 Other Contract

q

360Other Personal Inj ury

895 Freedom of Info. Act

195 Contract Product Liability

362 Personal Injury(Vied Malpratice

896 Arbitration

196 Franchise

365 Personal Injury Product Liability

899 Admin. Procedures REAL PROPERTY Act/Rev iew of A ppea l o f 210 Land

367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical

Agency Decision

Condemnation

Personal Injury

220 F oreclosure

Product Liability

950 Constitutionality of 10 State Statutes

230 Rent Lease & Ejectment

368 Asbestos

^,l^.iiferdsc

ga lnJ u r) ti abihty

IMMIGRATION

PRISONER PETITIONS

PROPERTYRIGHTS

n 462 Naturalization Application
465 Other II Immigration Actions
TORTS PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud

Habeas Corpus:
E 463 Alien Detainee 510 Mo ti onsto Vacate Sentence 530 G eneral
• 535 Death Penalty
Otfier:_

E 820 Copyri g hts IN 830 Patent
840 Trademark SOCIALSECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff) • 862 Black Lung (923)

371 Truth in Lending U 540 Mandamus/Other E 863 DIWC/DIWW (405 (g))

380 Other Personal

550 Civil Rights

Property Damage

555 Prison Condition

385 Property Damage Product Liability

560 Civil Detainee Conditions of

BANKRUPTCY

Confinement

422 Appeal 28

Fo RF EITUREIR ENALTY

- USC 158

625 Drug Related

423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 CIVIL RIGHTS

II Seizure o f P roper t y 21 USC 881 690 Other

El 864 SSID Title XVI • 865 RSI (405 (g))
FEDERAL`TAY..SUtTS 870 Taxes (U. S. Plaintiff or Defendant) . 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC 7609

440 Other Civil Rights

LABOR

441 Voting

710 F a i r Labor Standards Act

E 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accomodations
445 American with DisabilitiesEmployment 446 American with Disabilities-Other
gly E-c4t^ca>+ign
!J !1 A

n 720 Labor/Mg mt. Relations
El 740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical II Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Ret. Inc. S ecuri ty Ac t

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: CV-71 (11/13)

Case Number:

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page 1 of3

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 22 of 24 Page ID #:585
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL COVER SHEET

VIII. VENUE: Your answers to the questions below will determine the division of the Court to which this case will most likely be initially assigned. This initial assignment is subject to change, in accordance with the Court's General Orders, upon review by the Court of your Complaint or Notice of Removal.

Question A: Was this case removed from state court?
Yes © No

STATE CASE WAS PENDING IN THE COUNTY OF: • Los Angeles

If "no, " go to Question B. If "yes," check the box to the right that applies, enter the corresponding division in response to Question D, below, and skip to Section IX.

• Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo • Orange • Riverside or San Bernardino

INITIAL DIVISION INGACD IS: Western Western Southern Eastern

Question B: Is the United States, or one of its agencies or em p loyees , a party to this
action?

If the United states, or one of It agencies of employees, is o party, is it

A PLAINTIFF ?

ADEFENDANT ?

Yes © No
If "no, " go to Question C. If "yes," check the box, to the right that applies, enter the corresponding division in response to . Question D, below, and skip to Section IX.

Their ch e ek the bo<below for the county in which the majouty ofDF ENL?AN T S reside
• Los Angeles
Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo
Orange

Then meek the hoz below roi the county in which the majority of PIAIETIFFS reside
El Los Angeles
Ventura, Santa Barbara, or San Luis Obispo • Orange

E Riverside or San Bernardino

• Riverside or San Bernardino

Other

• Other

INITIAL DIVISION IN
CACD IS
Western Western Southern Eastern Western

Question C: Location of plaintiffs, defendants, and claims?
(Makeonly one selection pe row)

A' Los Angeles
County

E
Ventura, Santa Baroara,or San Luis °Nanacounties

C Orano_eCounty

Indicate the location in which a

majority of plaintiffs reside:

Indicate the location in which a

e

majority of defendants reside:

Indicate the location in which a

y

majority of claims arose:

D Riverside or San Bernardino Counties

E Outside the Central District of California
X

F Other
U

C.1. Is either of the following true? If co, check the one that applies: 2 or more answers in Column C only 1 answer in Column C and no answers in Column D

C.2. Is either of the following true? If so, check the one that applies: 2 or more answers in Column D only 1 answer in Column D and no answers in Column C

Your case will initially be assigned to the SOUTHERN DIVISION.
Enter "Southern" in response to Question D, below.
If none applies, answer question C2 to the right. ow*

Your case will initially be assigned to the EASTERN DIVISION.
Enter "Eastern" in response to Question D, below.
If none applies, go to the box, below.

Your case will initially be assigned to the WESTERN DIVISION.
Enter "Western" in response to Question D below.

Question D: Initial Divisio?. Enter the initial division determined by Question A, B, or C above:

INITIAL DIVISION'IN (TACO Western

CV-71 (11/13)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 23 of 24 Page ID #:586
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL COVER SHEET

IX(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed, remanded or closed?

NO

YES

If yes, list case number(s):

IX(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present case?

NO

YES

If yes, list case number(s):

Civil cases are deemed related if a previously filed case and the present case:

El (Check all boxes that apply)

A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or

B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or
El C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; or E] D. Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright end one of the factors identified above in a, b or c also is present.

X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT):

DATE:

///7'

Notice to.Counsel/Parties: The CV-71 (JS-44) Civil Cover Sheet and the informátion contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3-1 is not filed but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet).

Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:

Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation

861

HIA

862

BL

863

DIWC

Substantive Statement of Cause of Action All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social Security Act, as amended. Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc., for certification as providers of services under the program. (42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b))
All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. (30 U.S.C. 923)
All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as

863

DMW

amended. (42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security Act, as

864

SSID

amended.

865

RSI

All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended.

(42 U.S.C. 405 (g))

CV-71 (11/13)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page 3 of 3

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 24 of 24 Page ID #:587
Attachment - Section LC- Attorneys for Plaintiff BRIAN A. VOGEL - 167413 THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN A. VOGEL, PC 770 County Square Drive, Suite 104 Ventura, California 93003 Telephone: (805) 654-0400 Facsimile: (805) 654-0326 Email: brian@bvogel.coin ERNEST GALVAN - 196065 BLAKE THOMPSON - 255600 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor San Francisco, California 94104-1823 Telephone: 415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 Email: egalvan@rbgg.com LANCE WEBER - Florida Bar No. 104550 *
RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER P.O. Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: (561) 360-2523 Facsimile: ( 866) 735-7136 Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter . org `Pro HacVice Application To Be Filed
[1050963-1)

 
 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION

3

HONORABLE GEORGE H. KING, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

4

5 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, A PROJECT OF THE )

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

)

6

) CASE NO.

PLAINTIFF,

) CV 14-0773

7

)

VS.

)

8

)

COUNTY OF VENTURA; GEOFF DEAN, GARY )

9 PENTIS, LINDA OKSNER, AND RICK

)

BARRIOS, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND

)

10 OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; DOES 1-10, IN

)

THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL

)

11 CAPACITIES,

)

)

12

DEFENDANTS.

)

________________________________________)

13

14

15

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

16

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2014

9:03 A.M.

17

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

18

19

20

21

22

________________________________________________________

23

KHOWOONSUN CHONG, CSR 12907, CRR

FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

24

255 EAST TEMPLE STREET, ROOM 181-G

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

25

kchong12907@yahoo.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

1

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:

2

3 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

4

ROSEN, BIEN, GALVAN & GRUNFELD

BY: ERNEST GALVAN, Esquire

5

315 MONTGOMERY STREET, TENTH FLOOR

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

6

7 FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

8

WISOTSKY, PROCTER & SHYER

BY: JEFFREY HELD, Esquire

9

300 ESPLANADE DRIVE, SUITE 1500

OXNARD, CALIFORNIA 93036

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

1

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2014

2

9:03 A.M.

3

-oOo-

4

THE CLERK: Calling Item 1 on the Court's calendar,

5 civil 13-773, Prison Legal News, et al. versus County of

6 Ventura, et al. Counsel, would you please state your

7 appearances for the record.

8

MR. GALVAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Ernest

9 Galvan for the plaintiff.

10

MR. HELD: Good morning, Your Honor. Jeff Held

11 appearing for the defendants.

12

THE COURT: Good morning, Counsel. This matter is

13 on the Court's calendar to consider the plaintiff's motion for

14 preliminary injunction. Counsel, I have fully considered all

15 of your filings. I have actually also considered the

16 supplemental of the defendant, and I think you've had an

17 opportunity to address the substance of it because it's very

18 short.

19

But, of course, Mr. Galvan, I'll give you further

20 opportunity to address that at the appropriate time if that's

21 what you want.

22

Let's begin. You can have a seat. Let me begin with

23 Mr. Held. Why don't you go up to the lectern. I have a few

24 questions I want to just chat with you about.

25

MR. HELD: Yes, Your Honor.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

1

THE COURT: All right. Let's talk about some of the

2 factors that we do have to discuss in this matter. Let's begin

3 by talking about this postcard-only policy. We'll get to the

4 alleged movements issued in a little bit, but let's talk about

5 the postcard-only policy.

6

We would have to, on this motion for preliminarily

7 injunction, basically assess the state of the evidence to see

8 whether or not there's some likelihood of success on the merits

9 by the plaintiff, whether there's likelihood of irreparable

10 injury, whether the hardship would tip in their favor, and what

11 the public interest analysis would tell us.

12

Is it fair to say that you have not addressed Items 3 --

13 2, 3, and 4 of the so-called Winter test and that you have

14 largely based your discussion, from my reading of your papers,

15 on the first issue? And that is that they are certainly not

16 likely to succeed on the merits, in your judgment?

17

MR. HELD: Yes, Your Honor. That's a fair

18 assessment of my presentation to you.

19

THE COURT: Okay. So let's talk about that first

20 factor, likelihood of success. To be successful, ultimately,

21 the plaintiff would have to satisfy the so-called Turner test

22 of the four factors.

23

MR. HELD: Yes.

24

THE COURT: And so let's talk about each of those

25 factors for a moment.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

1

First factor is whether or not there's a rational

2 relationship between the postcard-only policy and a legitimate

3 penological interest of your client. So I don't think -- let

4 me back up.

5

It seems to me that the only legitimate penological

6 interest that you have identified or certainly concentrated on

7 is that of prison security, jail security to prevent, and under

8 that rubric there are a lot of things. You don't want people

9 to bring in drugs or other contraband, other things that may be

10 able to be used to effectuate assaults, escapes, or other

11 communications that could be brought in which might cause

12 inmates to be able to act in an unlawful manner or to try to

13 conspire to disrupt or escape through communications in the

14 chain of command among, let's say, gangs in prison.

15

Is that a fair statement?

16

MR. HELD: Your Honor, that's a fair assessment.

17 That's a fair summary that you said because the basis of the

18 postcard-only policy is interdiction of contraband smuggling,

19 and there are a number of items under that heading. But the

20 way you summarized it is correct.

21

THE COURT: Okay. So I don't think there's really

22 any debate, at least not in my mind, that those are certainly

23 legitimate penological interests. The question I have really

24 is whether or not your policy is sufficiently rationally

25 related to that legitimate interest. So let's spend a little

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

1 bit of time on that issue.

2

You have presented no evidence to me that there was a

3 problem with the previous policy where there was a failure to

4 sufficiently interdict all of these negative things that may be

5 coming into prison through the mail. There may be a lot of

6 undesirable things that get into prison, but we're talking

7 about the mail here. So I don't see any real evidence that you

8 presented which tells me that this type of material that you're

9 trying to interdict came in through the mail.

10

Moreover, you have no evidence that I can see that

11 suggests that somehow your previous policy of allowing letters,

12 but inspecting the letters as obviously you did, failed to do

13 its job. Nor do you have evidence that, currently under this

14 postcard policy, that you have experienced a decline, a

15 substantial or at least non de minimis decline, in those type

16 of contraband -- I want to call it just under the total rubric

17 "contraband" -- coming into the jail.

18

So I'm a little concerned about the showing that's been

19 made that would cause me to assess the rationality of this

20 connection.

21

MR. HELD: Your Honor, let me retreat for a moment

22 to a point that we discussed in your previous discussion. And

23 you said that the only basis advanced for the postcard-only for

24 nonprivileged incoming mail was security. That's certainly a

25 major reason, but as indicated in my submissions, there is

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

1 another reason, and that's the logistical nightmare of using a

2 letter-based system. All of the letters have to be opened. We

3 have 1,700 inmates at any given time, so the --

4

THE COURT: None of that is before me. You have

5 chosen not to present any evidence of any of the logistical

6 issues other than in your supplemental briefing in a totally

7 bald, speculative, conclusory, non-evidentiary assertion.

8 That's not evidence. That's nothing to me. You had every

9 opportunity -- and I was looking for it -- we're sort of

10 getting into a little bit on the third prong, a little bit.

11

But I think we almost can't help it when you're talking

12 about the rationality at the first prong and ultimately whether

13 or not there are sufficient -- there is a sufficient showing of

14 an adverse effect upon inmates, guards, or administrative

15 resources. I understand that. But as long as we're talking

16 about that -- I didn't mean to cut you off, Mr. Held, but I

17 think it's very important that you understand that I have

18 examined this record with a fine-tooth comb. I literally have

19 read every word that anybody has said to me, including all of

20 the exhibits and declarations.

21

So my problem is, yes, you have hyperbole, conclusory

22 hyperbole in your supplemental, saying that this is all a

23 nightmare if this would happen. That doesn't do anything for

24 you without any evidence, without any facts.

25

MR. HELD: Your Honor, in the one case I've cited,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

1 Prison Legal News v. Babeu, which was a 2013 decision, the

2 District Court judge, in ruling in favor of the postcard-only

3 policy, held that it was a matter of common sense, for example,

4 that pieces of paper are much larger than postcards and would

5 allow much greater opportunity to allow smuggling of drugs.

6

In the same vein, the fact that there is -- that a jail of

7 the size of Ventura County would have hundreds, thousands of

8 inmates, and that hundreds and thousands of envelopes would

9 have to be opened --

10

THE COURT: You're telling me things -- that's

11 totally beyond the record, totally beyond the record. It is

12 not a matter of common sense how many people you have in your

13 jail, how many pieces of mail you have to go through, how much

14 time you would have to go through it, how much time you did in

15 fact spend going through it before you instituted the current

16 policy in any of its iterations. That's called evidence,

17 Mr. Held, and that's called the lack of it in this case.

18

MR. HELD: Then, Your Honor, given the fact that the

19 plaintiff has waited years to file the suit, may I have one

20 more day to submit that in evidentiary form?

21

THE COURT: Counsel, there was absolutely nothing to

22 prevent you from doing this. The law is very clear as to what

23 the requirements are. This is not new law. Turner has been on

24 the books for ages. Ninth Circuit cases have been talking

25 about it. In fact, couple of cases he cites and some of the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

1 cases you cite specifically talk about these factors of

2 administrative burden or whatever. You know that's one of the

3 requirements.

4

You got an extension of about a month to file your

5 opposition, if I'm not mistaken in the timing. You know, we

6 cannot just go ahead and have everybody prepare something,

7 understanding there are no surprises. We know what the law

8 says. We know what the requirements are. You don't do it.

9 You choose not to do it. You had plenty of opportunity. It is

10 not somebody who has sandbagged you.

11

Then on the day of the hearing, you say, Golly gee, I'd

12 like to make my argument a little bit better. Well, you know,

13 at what point do we stop that? So I allow you to do that, and

14 we have another argument, and I say I think you're a little

15 weak on that. Well, Judge, give me a second. Give me another

16 day, and I'll soup that up too.

17

That's not how we do business, Mr. Held. With all due

18 respect to you, you're an experienced, seasoned lawyer. You

19 know that's not how we do business.

20

MR. HELD: Let me now address the Court's comments

21 that there was -- I think you said there was no evidence that

22 the mail or that the envelope was used to smuggle contraband.

23 I have submitted declarations. They're Exhibits 1, 15, 16, and

24 17 by Aguilar, Jauregui, Wilkinson, and Margetin that have

25 described in firsthand personal knowledge detail that the seams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

1 of the envelopes were frequently used to secrete or hide tar

2 heroin, paper clips, razor blades.

3

This is vastly more of a showing than was made, for

4 instance, in the en banc Ninth Circuit decision, Mauro v.

5 Arpaio. In that case the only evidence was a sort of

6 conclusory declaration by a high ranking jail official.

7

While I certainly have submitted that in terms of

8 Commander Barrios's declaration, I have also submitted

9 firsthand personal knowledge declarations of Deputies

10 Wilkinson, Jauregui, and mailroom cadet Aguilar to show that

11 the seams of envelopes in the pre-postcard-only era were used

12 to smuggle in contraband.

13

THE COURT: Actually, I think that's an

14 overstatement. With all due respect to you, that's an

15 overstatement. Again, remember, I've read everything, every

16 word. I think that's an overrepresentation of what you have

17 shown. Let me tell you why.

18

It is not an analytically rigorous way of getting to your

19 argument because, yes, there has been declaration by some or

20 all of these people talking about the possibility of secreting

21 certain things in the creases of envelopes. You're absolutely

22 right. But that's not the issue here. The issue here is

23 whether or not those methods were used to smuggle in, as

24 opposed to used to secret while in prison.

25

Your very declarants have admitted they can't be sure

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

1 whether these things came through the mail. Ms. Aguilar, whose

2 only experience is what, a quarter century old -- but let's

3 just say we'll review it for its currency. Okay. She says

4 that, yes, she has seen certain things while working in the

5 mailroom, inspecting these things, that heroin or drugs could

6 be hidden in the seams of envelopes.

7

But the fact of that is an inspection interdicted it,

8 found it. You know, the question here is not do we either let

9 you have the postcard-only policy; or it's unrestricted mail,

10 whatever anybody wants, it just comes right through. That's a

11 false premise. That's not what we're talking about. We're not

12 talking about that kind of dichotomy.

13

We're talking about, on the one hand, should we have a

14 postcard-only policy versus should we have a policy that allows

15 letters in but subject to inspection and search just like you

16 had before you instituted this policy. Just like, according to

17 Mr. Clark, the plaintiff's expert of some apparently

18 substantial qualification and experience, a policy that is not

19 only the mainstream but virtually followed in any of the

20 well-run institutions in this country, including the Federal

21 Bureau of Prisons, the California Department of Corrections and

22 Rehabilitation, and probably most, if not all, of the other 50

23 states' prisons.

24

So when you juxtapose that type of evidence that they have

25 presented versus your lack of evidence showing that, yes,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

1 there's contraband in prison -- and I'm not debating whether or

2 not that's a problem. Of course it's a problem. Nobody is

3 going to argue that that's not a problem.

4

But the inquiry really does have to be much more nuanced

5 and focused. In other words, is this a problem that can be

6 interdicted or was caused by receiving letters in the mail?

7 Just because an envelope is capable -- more capable, even

8 assuming, than a postcard because it has more seams --

9 postcards don't have really any seams -- just because an

10 envelope might be a greater source of opportunity for hiding

11 drugs does not necessarily mean that drugs are being introduced

12 into the prison, or paper clips or any of the other things

13 introduced, because of the mail policy of allowing letters,

14 especially where that policy is not by itself. The policy is

15 in conjunction with -- and I agree, sensibly so -- with a

16 robust examination policy.

17

So I think that's really -- I don't -- I think it's a

18 little bit vague for you folks to keep saying, Well, look, all

19 these things happened. But you have to sort of be more

20 analytically rigorous and say, Okay, but is it happening

21 because it's coming through the mail and being undetected

22 through inspection and therefore this is a good way of

23 interdicting it by restricting to a postcard? None of which

24 you have evidence on.

25

And any evidence that you do have of it coming in, that

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

1 same person is saying, I found it by inspection.

2

MR. HELD: Your Honor, I'd also like to call to the

3 Court's attention the discussion in Bell v. Wolfish. The

4 Supreme Court stated there, quote, "A detention facility is a

5 unique place fraught with serious security dangers. Smuggling

6 of money, drugs, weapons, and other contraband is all too

7 common an occurrence," unquote.

8

And the Court goes on to say the fact that there had only

9 been one instance proven was more a testament to the

10 effectiveness -- to the deterrent effectiveness of the policy.

11

And in Mauro v. Arpaio --

12

THE COURT: Before you go there, Bell v. Wolfish was

13 not a postcard-only policy case.

14

MR. HELD: No, it was not.

15

THE COURT: Now we're starting to talk about, again,

16 apples to oranges. Rise to the level of generality which says

17 they're both fruit, and then we can go up to the level saying,

18 Well, they're all consumable food products. That's the key

19 thing.

20

Again, I bring you back to analytical rigor. Just because

21 we can pull some language from some other case is neither here

22 nor there. I understand smuggling can be a problem in prison.

23 I understand allowing contraband, money, drugs, is not a

24 desirable thing. And it is hard. Your clients have a hard

25 job. I admit it. I admit it. I admire them doing that job.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

1 I wouldn't want to do that job, nor would I purport to tell

2 them what to do on that level.

3

But I have to police the constitution. That's my job, and

4 that's all I'm doing. I'm policing it on the level of

5 constitutional law. I am not micromanaging them on the level

6 of detention or corrections law. So I don't think Bell stands

7 for anything that is applicable in this case that would require

8 a different conclusion.

9

Go ahead. You were starting to tell me about another

10 case.

11

MR. HELD: Yes. The same premise applies from Mauro

12 v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d at 1060, because what you've said is that

13 the fact that the contraband items -- the tar heroin, the razor

14 blades, et cetera -- were interdicted means that the policy

15 is -- does not pass constitutional muster.

16

THE COURT: Well, no. Now you're jumping again.

17 Let's get back to analytical rigor. I'm only talking about

18 this in the first element. We haven't even talked about the

19 second, third, or fourth. We don't get to constitutional

20 muster, or not yet. These are all factors that we have to

21 talk, and then we have to see how they balance out. That's

22 what the law is.

23

So just because I question the rationality of the

24 connection to your sufficiently legitimate penological purpose

25 doesn't mean that I have already concluded that this is

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

1 unconstitutional.

2

Be that as it may, go ahead.

3

MR. HELD: Nothing further on those points,

4 Your Honor.

5

THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to address the

6 second, third, and fourth issue of the Turner test?

7

MR. HELD: Well, very definitely the second.

8

THE COURT: Okay. Let's talk about that.

9

MR. HELD: The second test, as the Court is well

10 aware, is whether alternative methods remain, or alternative

11 avenues -- alternative avenues of communicating with family and

12 friends. In other words, are there means available by which

13 the inmates can still receive communications, notwithstanding

14 the challenged policy?

15

And these are described, for example, Your Honor, in

16 paragraph 18 of Commander Barrios's declaration, that there are

17 unlimited number of postcards. There's all -- all enveloped

18 mail from attorneys of record and government sources come into

19 the inmates without interdiction. We have an e-mail policy,

20 have had for about a year, under which the inmates can receive

21 any items e-mailed from any sender. In addition, publications

22 direct from the publisher are fully admissible. So in this --

23

THE COURT: Let me get a clarification on that, by

24 the way.

25

MR. HELD: Yes. Go ahead, Your Honor. I'm sorry.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

1

THE COURT: You said publications from the

2 publisher?

3

MR. HELD: Yes. Directly from the publisher.

4

THE COURT: Okay. Do you think that PLN qualifies

5 as a publisher?

6

MR. HELD: Yes. Certainly.

7

THE COURT: So they want to send a magazine, a

8 56-page magazine that they want to send in. That's fine?

9

MR. HELD: Yes.

10

THE COURT: Okay.

11

MR. HELD: Yes.

12

THE COURT: But if they want to send in not just the

13 magazine but also they want to send a letter, saying, Don't you

14 want to subscribe to this magazine, that can't happen?

15

MR. HELD: They can send it on a postcard. They can

16 send it by e-mail. They can have a subscription order form

17 within the magazine itself. But, no, under the policy as it

18 exists, they could not -- they and anyone else could not send

19 in the solicitation -- I'm sorry -- whatever you just said. I

20 think you said a subscription form via a letter envelope.

21

THE COURT: Let me ask you this: Supposing they're

22 sending in -- it's a big envelope because it's a -- I don't

23 know -- big magazine. It doesn't matter whether it's theirs or

24 Time or U.S. News or Economist. You have a magazine. You have

25 an envelope that the magazine can be in. Okay? They send that

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

1 in. It just contains the magazine. Is that okay?

2

MR. HELD: Could I have that one more time,

3 Your Honor. I'm sorry.

4

THE COURT: Sure. Sure. Think of a magazine, any

5 magazine you care to: Time, Economist, whatever. Let's say

6 the publisher of Time sends in a Time magazine in an envelope

7 that would -- that you can fit the Time magazine in. Okay?

8 They send that in. Is that okay?

9

MR. HELD: Yes. If it's -- yes, if it's readily

10 apparent that it's a magazine or newspaper or --

11

THE COURT: Okay.

12

MR. HELD: -- publication directly from the

13 publisher, then that would be fine.

14

THE COURT: Okay. Let's say Time magazine sent in

15 in that envelope its Time magazine plus a one-piece paper that

16 says, Dear Mr. So-and-so, here is your Time magazine. Enjoy

17 it. And if you like it, we've got a special promo offer. You

18 can sign up for another 65 years for this lousy little price.

19 Is that okay? Same envelope but not part of the magazine.

20 It's just sort of like a cover letter. Is that okay?

21

MR. HELD: Yes. That would be okay too.

22

THE COURT: Really? Why would that be okay?

23

MR. HELD: Because it's contained in a communication

24 directly from the publisher.

25

THE COURT: Okay. So let's say the publisher sent

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

1 this in two different envelopes. One envelope, big one with

2 Time magazine in it. No other communication. Here's the

3 magazine. You agree, that's fine?

4

MR. HELD: Yes.

5

THE COURT: PLN can do the same thing with this

6 magazine, and you would say that's fine too; right?

7

MR. HELD: Yes.

8

THE COURT: Let's say Time, instead of sending a

9 cover letter in that magazine envelope, sends a regular

10 business envelope that says, Dear Mr. Prisoner, we just sent

11 you a Time magazine. Golly gee, we sure hope you enjoy it, and

12 if you like it, we got this special offer that we can give you

13 65 more years of this magazine for a low price of X number of

14 dollars. Thank you very much. You can even use the bottom

15 part of this form to send back to us to get your wonderful

16 subscription. Okay?

17

Put in a little envelope, and it gets sent. Let's say it

18 even arrives at the same time, albeit in two different

19 containers. Is that business envelope from Time magazine okay?

20

MR. HELD: No.

21

THE COURT: Is that rational?

22

MR. HELD: In your hypothetical, is the envelope

23 clearly from the publisher?

24

THE COURT: Let's say it says Time magazine on it,

25 just like they can have PLN on it. They're a publisher. You

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

1 say they're a publisher.

2

MR. HELD: Yes.

3

THE COURT: Let's say, instead of Time magazine,

4 instead of U.S. News and World Report, substitute that for PLN.

5 Comes PLN, there it is. It's no good whether it's PLN. It's

6 no good whether it's Time magazine, no good whether it's

7 U.S. News?

8

So, anyway, look. I understand at least -- I apologize.

9 I interrupted your presentation when I wanted to get this

10 clarification under the current regulations. Now I've gotten

11 that clarification. You may go ahead and finish up what you

12 were going to say.

13

MR. HELD: Thank you.

14

THE COURT: I apologize.

15

MR. HELD: No. No apology necessary, Your Honor.

16

So the second Turner inquiry is whether there are

17 alternate avenues of communicating or of vindicating the

18 constitutional right, which in this case is communication, and

19 these are described in paragraph 18 of Commander Barrios's

20 declaration. There are unlimited numbers of postcards. There

21 are enveloped mail from attorneys of record and from any

22 government source. E-mail has been implemented in the last

23 year, publications directly from the publisher --

24

THE COURT: Let me ask -- I understand that.

25

MR. HELD: -- daily access to the inmate phone

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

1 system.

2

THE COURT: Like I said, I've read all of this. I

3 appreciate it, and I understand it. Here's my question: Do

4 the Ventura county jail inmates have access to a law library?

5

MR. HELD: Yes.

6

THE COURT: And do they have access to electronic

7 legal research?

8

MR. HELD: I believe so. I'm not prepared to -- I

9 don't know that answer. I'm the attorney for the Sheriff's

10 office, but I don't have a mastery of every aspect of their

11 operation. I believe so, but I'm not sure.

12

THE COURT: Typically, jail facilities are not going

13 to allow inmates to willy-nilly get on LexisNexis because those

14 are typically Internet-based search tools, and nobody wants the

15 inmate to have open access to the Internet. Typically, from my

16 own personal experience, that doesn't happen.

17

Nevertheless, there are certain alternatives to this, and

18 those alternatives are that I know institutions have a closed

19 database of research material so that they can search it just

20 like they're going on LexisNexis, except that it is not

21 Internet based. It is a closed database. So, yes, they can do

22 that but no more. They can't all of a sudden go on Google or

23 go on someplace else on the Internet. You have this limited

24 database which happens to be, you know, all the case law that

25 you can have that's published electronically, and then you

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

1 would be able to search it.

2

But you don't know whether Ventura has that facility?

3

MR. HELD: I don't, Your Honor. I'm sorry.

4

THE COURT: Okay. So now let's me ask you, the

5 plaintiff really is complaining about for themselves. They're

6 not talking about necessarily family, kids, and all of that,

7 although, you know, those are obviously also -- have been

8 presented.

9

Your declarations say, Hey, I went to some of these cells.

10 I saw a postcard. There's plenty of pictures of family members

11 and so forth and so on. And you tell me there are a myriad of

12 ways that the prisoners can go ahead and communicate with the

13 outside world.

14

Let's focus on what the plaintiff is saying as to what's

15 impinging upon their ability. What alternatives do the

16 plaintiffs have in communicating with the prisoners? They talk

17 about three things. One is sort of like a subscription or

18 renewal letters. Two is some sort of a brochure that talks

19 about the myriad of publications that would be available to

20 them through the inmates. And three would be recent case law.

21

Now, I of course will give an opportunity to plaintiff's

22 lawyer to address this, but it seems to me that a solicitation

23 for a subscription that could reasonably easily be put upon a

24 postcard -- and I don't know why that would not be a sufficient

25 alternative, and we understand alternatives don't have to be

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22

1 optimal. They just have to have some availability of

2 alternative communication viewed in a practical way.

3

Let me skip to the third thing, which is most troubling to

4 me. And, that is, if the plaintiffs are sending in recent case

5 law that may have an effect upon the rights or the confinement

6 conditions of these prisoners, how are we going to get case law

7 onto a bunch of postcards?

8

MR. HELD: Well, Your Honor, your question is skewed

9 in assuming that postcards are the only method of communicating

10 with the inmates. So they also send their publications. We've

11 established that publications direct from the publisher go to

12 the inmates.

13

THE COURT: These are not publications. These are

14 case law. They've said from time to time they'll Xerox off

15 cases that are important. Let's say the Columbia -- PLN v.

16 Columbia County case. That may be something that they want to

17 let the prisoners know that, you know, you may have a problem

18 with your policy, things of that kind. Not part of their

19 magazine but just case law coming in.

20

MR. HELD: Your Honor, that could easily be made

21 part of the magazine, or Prison Legal News could create a new

22 publication and put those items in that publication. As long

23 as it was direct from the publisher, it would come in.

24

THE COURT: Is that rational to say --

25

MR. HELD: It seems so, yes.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

23

1

THE COURT: So here's a case that I just photocopied

2 here from my bench book. It's the Mauro case. Okay? Right

3 here I have it photocopied, and it's, like -- I don't know how

4 many pages it is -- 15, 16 pages. They want to send this.

5 Just as a hypothetical, they want to send this to a prisoner in

6 your jail. They put this in an envelope. You say, rejected.

7 Violation of postcard-only policy; right?

8

MR. HELD: Yes.

9

THE COURT: Okay. But if somehow I turn the same

10 thing -- I put a cover on it. I say this is the Mauro magazine

11 or the magazine re Mauro v. Arpaio. I put it in the same

12 envelope. I send it in. You say, welcome in. It's okay now.

13 I'd like to know what the rational basis for that distinction

14 is.

15

I will assume from your silence that there is no rational

16 reason for it. So I'm concerned about that because this --

17 look. I'm aware that it doesn't have to be optimal. If it's a

18 reasonable substitute or at least it's available, okay. Fine.

19 But I'm really -- to be perfectly honest with you, Mr. Held, I

20 am concerned about case law. Case law cannot readily be put on

21 postcards. Case law cannot be sent in. Case law cannot

22 necessarily await the periodic publication of a magazine.

23

I don't remember how frequently -- how frequently do you

24 publish a 56-page periodical?

25

MR. GALVAN: Monthly, sir.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

24

1

THE COURT: Cases can't wait a month sometimes.

2 Some inmates may be pro per; so they can't -- you can't say,

3 Well, just give it to their lawyer. Believe me, I know we've

4 got a lot of pro per cases; so I know there are a lot of

5 pro per people doing pro per litigation. That's not getting in

6 there because they don't have a lawyer.

7

So now you have something that's happening, and under the

8 new law of Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, many of these

9 prerequisites that they have to see, they have to make sure

10 they have to go through before they can have access to the

11 courts and so forth, I don't know.

12

What I'm saying is case law is sort of like news.

13 Sometimes it can wait. Sometimes it can't. News usually can't

14 because today's newspaper headline is tomorrow's lining in a

15 birdcage. But case law sometimes can't wait a month. That's

16 why, you know, people who publish case law, like West or

17 whatever it is, they have supplements. They don't just wait

18 and say, yeah, a month later we'll let you know.

19

You wouldn't want to come before me, when a case just came

20 down yesterday that's directly on point absolutely in your

21 favor, but you can't get it for a month. So today you come to

22 me, and you can't cite it today. I have a problem with case

23 law. I do.

24

Brochures, I'm not clear on whether there is a nonoptimal,

25 but nevertheless open, avenue for an alternative way of getting

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

25

1 the contents of a brochure out on a postcard. But I don't see

2 how, given our conversation, what you've told me, what the

3 record is so far as to what the reasonable alternative would be

4 for sending case law, which obviously is a big concern of

5 theirs, their reason for communicating and of substantial

6 importance from their standpoint, from the kind of business

7 that they're in.

8

In any event, if you have something else to add to that,

9 I'll hear from you. If not, if you want to talk about any of

10 the other two of the Turner factors, I'll be happy to chat with

11 you on that.

12

MR. HELD: Your Honor, I don't have anything to add

13 to what's already in my papers.

14

THE COURT: Okay. Then why don't we skip forward to

15 the question of mootness as to your other policies. Let's put

16 postcard-only policy aside now. We're not talking about that

17 anymore. Let's talk about the other policies, that is, giving

18 notice of rejection, an opportunity for administrative appeal,

19 not giving random reasons for why things are rejected, and not

20 rejecting something just because it's Xeroxed, because that's

21 not the real reason. The real reason is it's not on a

22 postcard.

23

So you say those things have been remedied because now the

24 commander has gone over and talked to people and said, Hey,

25 you've got to stick with our policy. The policy, according to

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

26

1 you, on all of these things has been in place for two years

2 since 2012, but that somehow -- the knowledge about the policy

3 has not gotten down to the people who are purportedly

4 implementing the policy: The mailroom people, whatever.

5

So you say, Well, don't worry about any injunction on

6 that. First of all, fair to say you're not defending the

7 constitutionality of any action that has been taken contrary to

8 your very own policy; correct?

9

MR. HELD: Correct.

10

THE COURT: So then the question is do we need an

11 injunction now that you say you have gone and set those guys

12 straight? Okay. The cases you cite, with all due respect, I

13 believe are not really on point. The case about -- your

14 concern about this being a hypothetical jurisdiction, Steel

15 Company v. Citizens, this isn't hypothetical at all. They have

16 suffered an injury in fact. They have alleged it. They have

17 damage claims still ongoing. So this is not a situation in the

18 Steel case where the Supreme Court decided not to decide the

19 merits before resolving whether or not it had Article 3

20 jurisdiction.

21

We absolutely have Article 3 jurisdiction by reason of

22 their showing of being subjected to the actions of your

23 employees, contrary to your own policy. So your policy was

24 already there, but yet they still conducted themselves in a way

25 that was unconstitutional as to them.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

27

1

So this is not about hypothetical jurisdiction. What's

2 really here is whether or not you are able to establish that

3 this change now is different from just having a policy, because

4 having a policy didn't do any good, that somehow now this

5 instruction is so clear, so strong, that there's no reasonable

6 likelihood that there will be ongoing violations.

7

The burden is on you, and it's a heavy burden. So if you

8 want to be heard on that, I'll be glad to hear from you on it.

9

MR. HELD: Your Honor, I've submitted two

10 declarations, one from Commander Barrios, definitively saying

11 that the policy and practice have now been brought into

12 alignment and that those activities will no longer be tolerated

13 or engaged in.

14

And I've also submitted the declaration of the civilian

15 clerical supervisor, Laura Flowers, and her declaration

16 likewise attests to the definitive implementation of the policy

17 and practice. So these have been fully extricated and

18 therefore are no longer being implemented.

19

THE COURT: How is this different from any other

20 instance of voluntary secession? Because mere voluntary

21 secession of an otherwise unlawful or unconstitutional act is

22 not sufficient to prevent the issuance of an injunction if

23 other factors are present, are met. You have to show me how

24 somehow this oral instruction is going to give me the level of

25 confidence that I know this can't happen again.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

28

1

If you were under some court order, then I say, okay.

2 State court ordered you. Then I have to assume you're going to

3 be complying with the state court order. There are other

4 circumstances which, from a logical standpoint, it makes no

5 sense that you would go back to something like this. Okay.

6 Then I might accept that.

7

But here what I'm troubled with, Mr. Held, is that, when a

8 policy that's been set for over two years did not prevent this

9 type of conduct, how do I know that, just because your

10 commander and Ms. Flowers said a few things and said, Oh, yeah,

11 Judge, sure, we understand now, that's what we're going to do,

12 that there will be no further violations, especially when you

13 know that there will be turnover. You have some employees

14 come, some employees go. Memories fade. Things may not get --

15 the training may not pass down to whoever new is coming in.

16 These are problems.

17

If you never had the policy and you said, You know what?

18 We never had a policy. We agree that's bad. Here's a policy,

19 and people follow the policy. You might have a stronger case.

20

What's troubling to me is that you had a policy that was

21 ignored. You admitted it. You even admit that that was

22 unfortunate -- not in so many words, but you rectified it, you

23 said. You don't rectify something unless something is wrong.

24 So by using the word "rectify," I assume you admit that these

25 folks behaved wrongfully against your own policy.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

29

1

If that had happened in the past, how can you be said to

2 have met your very, very high burden when all you told me is

3 basically, Yeah, we told them again?

4

MR. HELD: As I've said, Your Honor, I believe that

5 we have met that burden because we have submitted declarations

6 from the top level and the implementation level that this is

7 now written in policy and is now taught and practiced.

8

THE COURT: When you say taught and practiced, you

9 mean as Commander Barrios instructed them?

10

MR. HELD: And as Laura Flowers, who is the clerical

11 supervisor, explained in her declaration that she had also

12 emphasized this as a method of continuing practice to the

13 mailroom staff.

14

THE COURT: Last question I want to ask you about is

15 plaintiff has asked for what they call a full injunction, not

16 just an injunction as against -- as in favor of PLN but just an

17 injunction against the enforcement of the postcard policy at

18 all. Do you want to comment on that? Because I don't think

19 you touched upon it in your papers.

20

Not that it makes that much difference to you. It seems

21 not very sensible to say, Yeah, limit it to PLN so somebody

22 else can come in and file another lawsuit. If you don't like

23 it -- I'm not saying that I'm necessarily already granting it,

24 but if I were to grant the injunction, it seems to me you're

25 better off taking an appeal to resolve that rather than limit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

30

1 it to them so other people now can sue you.

2

MR. HELD: Correct. Your analysis is just what I

3 would have said.

4

THE COURT: So if I'm going to grant the injunction,

5 you don't oppose an injunction that says, Don't enforce a

6 postcard policy as to anyone?

7

MR. HELD: Correct, Your Honor. For the reasons you

8 said, it would be pointless for me to defend multiple suits by

9 multiple publishers. If the Court were to reach that

10 determination, we might as well have it solved once and for

11 all.

12

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Held.

13

MR. HELD: Thank you, Your Honor.

14

THE COURT: Let me give Mr. Galvan an opportunity to

15 address the court on anything that he cares to, if anything.

16

MR. GALVAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

17

Regarding the question of -- and Your Honor can stop me if

18 this is too hypothetical, but if -- if the County had come with

19 a declaration about staff time, or if they came tomorrow with

20 one or the day after if an injunction issues, if they came with

21 a Rule 60(b) motion and said, well, look, here's a declaration

22 that says it would take more staff time to open the envelopes,

23 I think that declaration would fall under the logic. It would

24 fall on the weight of the logic of what they've already

25 submitted.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

31

1

What they've already submitted establishes two things

2 about postcards. One, you have to inspect them because you can

3 hide a Suboxone strip, the little sublingual film of a popular

4 drug, under the stamp of a postcard. You can hide it by -- if

5 you're gluing two postcards together, as Mr. Clark pointed out,

6 you can hide the iron tar heroin in there; so in reality there

7 isn't even a no-inspection policy regarding the postcard. So

8 the postcard takes time to inspect.

9

Second reason is, if the new training takes hold, they're

10 now complying with due process when they reject an envelope,

11 which means, when they reject an envelope or reject a postcard,

12 they have to fill out a little form and send it back. So all

13 of the mail handling takes staff time.

14

So I think the reason we have no declaration that says

15 that postcards take less staff time than opening the envelope,

16 or if they do, it's so small it's not worth talking about.

17 When the dust settles in the evidentiary sense, in the Columbia

18 County case, that's what it came to. It's de minimis. So I

19 think, if Your Honor had given Ventura the extra day, it

20 wouldn't make a difference to come in with any declarations.

21

The second point I want to address is -- actually, I

22 shouldn't promise just two. I have more than two. The other

23 problem is what counsel said about Mauro v. Arpaio, and what is

24 the significance of whether there were past incidents of

25 contraband coming in or not. And as Your Honor pointed out,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

32

1 there's no evidence here of past evidence of contraband coming

2 in. There's a dictum in the Mauro case saying they don't need

3 to show that this happened before, but if you look at what

4 actually happened in Mauro, the en banc decision has a very

5 nice recitation of the facts, and it's a very clear sequence in

6 three paragraphs.

7

First, they had a problem of harassment of female guards,

8 and they had that problem in connection -- connected to

9 pornographic materials. People said to the female staff, Oh,

10 you know, look, I'm going to compare you to the centerfold and

11 things like that.

12

Then they stopped allowing -- they confiscated the

13 pornographic magazines.

14

Then they documented that the incidents of harassment of

15 the female staff went down. So even though there's this dictum

16 that says they don't necessarily need that, they certainly had

17 it, and I certainly think it's part of the result, the en banc

18 result.

19

THE COURT: I think it also depends on where in the

20 level of the analysis. If you take a look at what the Frost

21 case says, the first level, the first factor is arguably

22 divisible into three sub-steps. And the first step, at that

23 point they just have to show some kind of a rational, logical

24 connection. They don't have to show anything about how it was

25 effective or ineffective, or at this time it became effective.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

33

1 None of that has to come in.

2

And I think that is true, very much true, and nobody would

3 expect Ventura County to have to do that at that point. And I

4 think easily they can show that there is a logical and

5 intuitive connection.

6

So the next -- then you come in, and you do present

7 evidence from your expert, Mr. Clark, among other things, that

8 this does not advance any type of institutional security or

9 interest to any significant level or any level that's more than

10 de minimis. Those are my words, not necessarily his, but

11 that's the concept.

12

At that point then they're going to have to show that

13 there is more of a robust showing of the rationality of this

14 connection so as to make it seem to be not so remote as to

15 render it irrational or arbitrary. I think at that level, if

16 you have evidence of a problem, you know, you don't have to do

17 it, but you would think that you perhaps should strongly

18 consider doing it if you have the evidence. So I think that's

19 the way I'm analyzing that.

20

And, of course, when it comes to administrative costs,

21 effect upon the guards or the prisoners, in the third prong of

22 Turner that certainly is an occasion to be telling me, with

23 evidence, as to how big of a burden, administrative burden it

24 is, how big of a cost it is, what effect it in fact will have

25 on these other people. And that may be an occasion on which

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

34

1 you would compare the pre and the post. And I merely was

2 pointing out to counsel that that's absent.

3

So I'm aware of what Mauro may have said, but I think we

4 have to read it in the context and read it in the context of

5 that being a situation of pornographic material versus this

6 case, which does not involve that but involves something else.

7 So the analysis really is quite different.

8

But be that as it may, go ahead.

9

MR. GALVAN: If I may address briefly the other

10 factors and the alternative, especially Prong 2 of the

11 alternative means under Turner, I think they -- they interact

12 with the first factor, especially for things like the brochures

13 and the case law, because I can certainly take a case, and I

14 could print it onto a stack of postcards. At that point,

15 though, now --

16

THE COURT: That would be a lot of postcards.

17

MR. GALVAN: It would be a lot of staff time to

18 inspect those postcards. So whatever de minimis benefit the

19 jail got from the postcards versus envelopes, they're going to

20 lose it because, Postcard 1, hold it up to the light, look at

21 it, Postcard 2, et cetera.

22

The same would be true of our brochures, and I think

23 Mr. Wright described the brochure in his declaration. It's

24 more than can go on the postcard. It's like a mini catalog,

25 really. And, again, one could convert it to a stack of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

35

1 postcards, but then you erase whatever staff benefit you netted

2 from Prong 1 if we do that.

3

Regarding the mootness, one thing I wanted to highlight

4 about Ms. Flowers's declaration is March 24, 2014. That's the

5 date that Ms. Flowers testifies that the training happened.

6 The policy changed April 2012. Our material is still being

7 blocked under the end of this -- until we filed the lawsuit in

8 February of this year. We filed, and then we filed for the --

9 this motion, this preliminary injunction motion at the same

10 time.

11

By March 24, 2014, the opposition to the preliminary

12 injunction motion was coming due. I think what that timing

13 tells us is it testifies that Mr. Held is very effective in

14 counseling his client to get things in order.

15

But the reason we need the preliminary injunction and

16 eventually the permanent injunction is this case will be over,

17 and as Your Honor pointed out, it is not the business of the

18 federal courts to continue being in their hair over there, how

19 they run their place. So we can't rely on Mr. Held, with the

20 license of my motion, straightening things out forever, which

21 is why I think they need the seriousness of an injunction.

22

That's all I wanted to address, Your Honor, unless you

23 have questions for me.

24

THE COURT: Thank you.

25

Mr. Held, do you have anything else you want to address

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

36

1 the Court on?

2

MR. HELD: No. That's it, Your Honor.

3

THE COURT: You know, let me do this. I'm obviously

4 going to take the matter under submission, and I'm going to

5 issue a written ruling.

6

Inasmuch as you say that in short order you can get me

7 further evidence of whatever it is you say that you can show

8 me, I'm going to give you that opportunity. I know I said this

9 is not how we do business, but just so we have the fullest

10 record that we have, I'm going to give you that opportunity.

11 How much time do you think reasonably you'll need to do that?

12

MR. HELD: Could I have, let's see -- could I have

13 through the close of business this week?

14

THE COURT: Yes. You may have until close of

15 business on Friday to do so.

16

MR. HELD: Thank you.

17

THE COURT: Mr. Galvan, you may have to the close of

18 business on Wednesday next, which will make it the 21st, to

19 file any response, and then I'll take all of that into

20 consideration.

21

MR. GALVAN: Your Honor, could I request a couple of

22 more days, just because I anticipate I may need to respond with

23 more than argument, which means I have to coordinate with and

24 schedule witnesses.

25

THE COURT: Close of business next week.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

37

1

MR. GALVAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

2

THE COURT: That would be the 23rd to my

3 calculations.

4

MR. GALVAN: Thank you.

5

THE COURT: Close of business 23rd. I'll take the

6 matter under submission then and then issue my written ruling.

7

Now, let me bring up the issue of -- have you folks had

8 any discussion about a possible informal resolution of this

9 case? Have you thought about just trying to settle this case

10 in some matter?

11

MR. HELD: Do you want to address that, or shall I?

12

MR. GALVAN: I'll let Mr. Held go first.

13

THE COURT: Sure.

14

MR. HELD: Your Honor, that's a thought that had

15 occurred to me from soon after I got the case because, on the

16 non-postcard-only aspects, there was a concession of

17 constitutional error. So I immediately contacted Mr. Vogel,

18 who is local counsel for the plaintiff, and we worked with

19 Mr. Galvan. We tried multiple iterations of a partial

20 settlement. In other words, how would we word -- how would we

21 use language or create provisions to word resolution of the

22 non-postcard-only aspects of the case?

23

THE COURT: The non-postcard aspects of the case?

24

MR. HELD: Yes.

25

THE COURT: Certainly a consent decree would do it

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

38

1 because effectively you're saying we're not doing it. If

2 you're not doing it, you're consenting to doing it the proper

3 way. I'm sure that would resolve it.

4

I'm also talking about the postcard aspect. You might

5 want to think about whether it's worth fighting all of this,

6 and maybe you want to consider conserving resources of both

7 sides.

8

MR. HELD: Yes. I understand. The problem that the

9 discussions foundered on, Your Honor, was the partial

10 resolution. We could never get the language correct to the

11 mutual satisfaction on that. The postcard issue we never

12 discussed, but let me ask the Court this: Would it be possible

13 to arrange a settlement conference with either yourself,

14 preferably, or perhaps one of your magistrate judges?

15

THE COURT: Well, I would be more than happy to do

16 this myself, except I'm a little bit hesitant because I'm still

17 going to be deciding the motion for preliminary injunction.

18 What I can do is I can prevail upon one of our magistrate

19 judges to preside at a settlement conference. Someone I have

20 in mind is a particularly effective magistrate judge who has a

21 substantial reputation of being one of the best settlement

22 judges, period. So if I could prevail upon him to do the

23 settlement, would you folks be interested in doing that?

24

MR. HELD: Just before leaving your prior point, I

25 would submit that the fact that you, as you put it, read every

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

39

1 word, makes you the most suitable person if you have the time

2 because you know all the ins and outs and the aspects of the

3 case. I think that makes you the best candidate, if you're

4 willing to do it and you have the available time.

5

THE COURT: Mr. Galvan, what do you think?

6

MR. GALVAN: My client has invest- -- he's not

7 paying me, but he has invested a lot of my time, the time that

8 I'm available to do other cases for him in trying to work out

9 this quasi-consent decree with Ventura without much result. So

10 my -- my litigation directions from my client are now litigate

11 the preliminary injunction, then talk about settlement.

12

So my -- I certainly would be happy to have Your Honor as

13 a settlement judge, but I would not want to delay your decision

14 on the preliminary injunction.

15

THE COURT: Why don't we go ahead with the -- you

16 folks file whatever it is you're going to file within the time

17 period I have just given you, and I'll decide the preliminary

18 injunction motion, and then we'll go from there and see whether

19 or not there's any interest in settlement discussions. And at

20 that time, if you folks want me to do it, I'll make time to do

21 it because I think we can probably try to resolve this. Okay?

22

MR. HELD: That would be appreciated.

23

THE COURT: Very good. Counsel, thank you very much

24 for coming in. I appreciate your argument. Have a nice

25 afternoon.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

40

1

MR. HELD: Thank you.

2

MR. GALVAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

3

(Proceedings concluded at 10:07 A.M.)

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

41

1

CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER

2

3

4

5

I, KHOWOONSUN CHONG, FEDERAL OFFICIAL REALTIME

6 COURT REPORTER, IN AND FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

7 THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT

8 PURSUANT TO SECTION 753, TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE THAT THE

9 FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE

10 STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED PROCEEDINGS HELD IN THE

11 ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER AND THAT THE TRANSCRIPT PAGE FORMAT IS IN

12 CONFORMANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF

13 THE UNITED STATES.

14

15

DATED THIS 19TH DAY OF MAY, 2014.

16

17

18

/S/ KHOWOONSUN CHONG

______

19

KHOWOONSUN CHONG, CSR NO. 12907, CRR

FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

20

21

22

23

24

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 
 )

)

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:1240

Case ' 14-cv-00773~GHK-E -

-·age 1 of 19 Page ID #:1216

[1199477-2)

1 ERNEST GALVAN - 196065

BLAKE THOMPSON - 255600

2 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor

3 San FrancIsco, Califorma 94104-1823

Telephone: (415) 433-6830

4 FacsImile: (415) 433-7104

Email:

egalvan@rb~g.com

5

bthompson@fbgg.com

CLERK, u.s.FDILIESDTRICT COURT
JUN J 6 2014

6 BRIAN A. VOGEL -167413

THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN A. VOGEL, PC

7- 770 County Sguare Drive, Suite 104 .

Ventura, California 93003

8 Telephone: (805) 654-0400 .

FacsImile: (805) 654-0326

9 Email:

brian@bvogel.com

10 LANCE WEBER-Fla. BarNo. 104550*

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

11 P.O. Box 1151

Lake Worth, Florida 33460

12 Telephone: f561) 360-2523

FacsImile: 866) 735-7136

13 Email:

weber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

14 * Admitted to Practice Pro Hac Vice

15 Attorneys for Plaintiff

16

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

\

19

20 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project ofthe Case No. 14-0773-GHK (EX)

HUMAN RIGHTS .DEFENSE CENTER, 21
Plaintiffs,

~RO'f)8'EDl ORDER . RANTING PLAINTIFF'S

22 v.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

23 COUNTY OF VENTURA; GEOFF DEAN, Judge: Hon. George H. King

24 GARY PENTIS, LINDA OKSNER, and

RICK BARRIOS, in their individual and 25 official capacitie~t<- DOES 1-10, in their
individual and ofncial capacities,

26 Defendants.

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

) ,
,

./

)

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:1241

Case :14-cv-00773-GHK-E '1

Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:1217

1

This matter is before us on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction

2 ("Motion"). We have considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to

3 the Motion and the Parties' arguments at the May 14 hearing. We have also

4 considered Defendants' supplemental opposition and Plaintiff s response, which we

5 granted the Parties leave to file after the May 14 hearing. [Dkt. No. 37]. As the

6 ' Parties are familiar with the facts, we will repeat them only as necessary.

7 Accordingly, we rule as follows: , 8 I. Background

9

On January 31, 2014, Prison Legal News ("PLN") filed this Section 1983

10 action against the County of Ventura, Sheriff Geoff Dean, Assistant Sheriff Gary

11 Pentis; and Commanders Linda Oksner and Rick Barrios,(collectively "Defendants"

12 or "County") for alleged violations of its rights under the First and Fourteenth

13 Amendments. It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages.

14

Prison Legal News is a monthly ,magazine that provides information about

15 legal news, prisoner rights, and other prison-related issues. (Wright Decl. ~ 4). The

16 Human Rights Defense Center, a nonprofit organization, has published PLN since

17 1990. (ld. ~~ 2,6). PLN currently has approximately 9,000 subscribers, including

18 prisoners in 2,200 correctional facilities. (Id.) PLN sends its subscribers monthly

19 issues as well as renewal letters near the end of their subscriptions. (ld. ~ 7). In

20 addition, by request, PLN sends inmates an "informational brochure packet" that

21 includes a subscription order form and information about the legal and self-help
j
22 books distributed by the Human Rights Defense Center. (ld. ~~ 5, 8). PLN also

23 sends this packet to inmates it identifies as potential subscribers. (ld. ~ 8). Finally,

24 PLN periodically sends inmates copies of case law printed from the internet to

25 inform them of recent legal developments. (Id. ~ 9). PLN distributes these

26 publications and correspondence inside prisons to carry out its core mission of

27 educating inmates about the criminal justice system and their legal rights. (ld. ~~ 2,

28 10).

[1199477-2)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

)

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:1242

Case '14-cv-00773-G HK-E

. .. __ __1"''''''..1... ,age 3 of 19 Page ID #:1218

(1199477-2J

1

PLN has sent publications and correspondence to inmates housed in the

2 Ventura County jail facilities-the Pre-Trial Detention Facility, the Todd Road Jail,

3 and the East County Jail-for many years. (Id. 'Il18). These deliveries were carried

4 out without incident until approximately February 2012, when the mailings began to

5 be returned to PLN. (Id. 'Il'll18-19). Since February 2012, at least 148 items sent to

6 Ventura County inmates have been returned to PLN marked "Return to Sender," and

7 additional PLN mailings have likely been rejected without being returned. (Id.

8 'Il'll19-20). The County has not given PLN an opportunity to internally challenge or

9 appeal its rejection ofPLN's publications and correspondence. (Id.)

10

The undelivered mailings that have been returned to PLN have been ink

11 stamped or labeled with various reasons for their rejection. At least 33 copies of the

12 magazine have been returned for containing advertisements deemed "suggestive." .

13 (Id. 'Il21). Subscription renewal letters and PLN's informational brochure packets

14 have been returned for violating the County's postcard-only policy, under which

15 "[p]6stcards [are] the only acceptable form of incoming mail." (Id. 'Il'll22, 23, 28).

16 On other occasions, these materials were returned with labels indicating that

17 "inmates cannot order anything from jail." (Id. 'Il'll22, 23). Finally, printouts of case

18 law sent by PLN have sometimes been rejected for not complying with the postcard-

19 only policy and have other times been rejected with the notation that "Xeroxed

20 copies from books or internet not allowed." (Id. 'Il24). These same two reasons

21 have been used to reject printouts of articles from PLN's website that have been sent

22 to Ventura County inmates by third parties. (Id. 'Il25).

23

PLN alleges that Defendants' restrictive mail policies violate its First

24 Amendment right to communicate with inmates. It further alleges that Defendants'

25 practice of rejecting mail without providing notice and an opportunity to appeal

26 violates its Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Based on these alleged

27 constitutional violations, PLN seeks to: (1) enjoin Defendants' postcard-only policy

28 in full; (2) enjoin Defendants from rejecting correspondence without providing

2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

.)
Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:1243

Case :14-cv-00773-GHK-E

Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:1219

[1199477-2)

1 written notice and an administrative appeal process; and (3) enjoin Defendants from

2 rejecting its mailings for containing (a) "suggestive" content, (b) Xeroxed material,
3 or (c) sUbscription order forms.

4

The County's postcard-only policy for incoming mail remains in full force

,

5 and effect. However, Defendants maintain that the other policies and practices

6 challenged by PLN have been "fully and permanently discontinued." (Opp.23).

7 Specifically, they 'contend that: (1) On April 6, 2012, the County rescinded its ban 8 on material that is merely sexually suggestive (Barrios Decl. ~. 22); (2) the County

9 has ceased "the clerical practice" of giving "random reasons" for rejecting incoming

10 mail when the actual reason for rejection is noncompliance with the postcard-only 11 policy (Opp. 24, Flower Decl. ~ 8, Barrios Decl. ~ 23); and (3) as of March 24,

12 2014, the County provides notice of its internal appeal process to all senders of 13 undelivered mail (Flowers Decl. ~~ 3-5, Barrios Decl. ~ 21). Defendants argue that 14 PLN's motion should be denied in full because (i) the County's postcard-only policy 15 is constitutional, and (ii) PLN's motion is moot to the extent it seeks to enjoin

16 discontinued policies and practices.

17 II. Legal Standard

18

A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy that may only be

19 awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief." Winter v.

20 Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,22 (2008). "A plaintiff seeking a

21 preliminary injunction must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits,

22 [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,

23 [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the

24 public interest." (Id. at 20).

25

The Ninth Circuit has adopted a "sliding scale approach" under which "[a]

26 preliminary injunction is appropriate" where there are "serious questions going to

27 the merits ... and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiffs favor."

28 Alliancefor the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011)

3
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

)

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:1244

Case .14-cv-00773-GHK-E

Page 5 of 19 Page 10 #:1220

1 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Under this "serious questions" test,

2 "a 'likelihood' of success per se is not an absolute requirement" to securing a

3 preliminary injunction. Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1086 (9th

4 Cir. 2014),petitionfor cert. filed, 82 USLW 3624 (Apr. 11,2014) (No. 13-1244). A

5 stronger showing on the "balance of hardships element" may offset a lesser showing

6 of "likelihood of success on the merits," so long as the other two elements of the

7 Winter test are also met. Alliance, 632 F.3d at 1135. In other words, if the balance

8 of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor, there is a likelihood of irreparable

9 injury, and the injunction is in thepublic interest, then a preliminary injunction may

10 issue so long as the plaintiff shows there are "serious questions,going to the merits."

n (Id.) Such "serious questions" are presented where the movant "has a fair chance of

12 success on the merits." Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d

13 1415, 1421 (9th Cir. 1984).

14 III. Analysis

15

A. Postcard-Only Policy '

16

1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

17

To determine PLN's likelihood of success onthe merits, we must assess the

18 constitutionality ofthe Co~nty's postcard-only policy. The first step in this analysis

19 is to "determine whether any First Amendment interest is implicated" by the

20 County's ban on letter mail. Hrdlicka v. Reniff, 631 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9thCir.

21 2011). "Publishers have a First Amendment right to communicate with prisoners by

-1

22 mail." Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692,699 (9th Cir. 2005). Because .

23 the County's postcard-only policy directly affects PLN'sability to communicate

24 with prisoners by mail, it implicates a well-established First Amendment interest.

25 However, this First Amendment interest is "subject to substantial limitations and

26 restrictions in order to allow prison officials to achieve legitimate correctional goals

27 and maintain institutional security." (Id. (citation and internal quotation marks

28 omitted).) Accordingly, the County's postcard-only policy will be upheld so long as

[1199477·21

4
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

)

) "

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 6 of 19 Page ID #:1245

Case .14-cv-00773-GHK-E -

. - - '~-I~ 4 Page 6 of 19 Page 10 #:1221

(1199477·2]

1 it is "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Turner v. Safley, 482

2 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

3

We look to four factors to determine whether a prison regulation is

4 "reasonably relatedto legitimate penological interests":

5

(1) whether the regulation is rationally related to a

6

legitimate and neutral governmental objective, (2) whether

there are alternative avenues that remain ·open ., . to

7

exercise the right, (3) the impact that accommodating the

8

asserted right will have on other guards and prisoners, and

9

on the allocation of-prison resources; and (4) whether the

existence of easy and obvious alternatives indicates that

10

the regulation is an exaggerated response by prison

11

officials.

12 Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Turner, 482

13 U.S. at 89-90). In applying this test, "[w]e are required to afford considerable 14 deference to the expertise and decisionmaking of prison administrators." (Jd.) At 15 the same time, however, Turner's "reasonableness standard is not toothless," 16 Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 414 (1989), and it "requires prison authorities

17 to show more than a formalistic logical connection between a regulation and a · 18 penological objective." Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521,535 (2006). "[O]ur 19· deference to the administrative expertise and discretionary authority of correctional

20 officials must be schooled, not absolute." Campbell v. Miller, 787 F.2d 211, 227

21 n.17 (7th Cir. 1986).

22

(i)

Rational Relationship to Legitimate Penological Objective

23

The first element of the Turner test requires us to (1) getermine whether the

24 governmental objective underlying the policy is legitimate and neutral; ~nd

25 (2) assess whether there is a rational relationship between the asserted government

26 objective and the regulation. Thornburg, 490 U.S. at 414. Ifthere is no valid,

27 rational connection between the postcard-only policy and a legitimate penological

28 interest, we need not reach the remaining Turner factors. Hrdlicka, 631 F.3d at

5
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

)
Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 7 of 19 Page ID #:1246

Case :14-cv-00773-GHK-E

Page 7 of 19 Page 10 #:1222

[1199477-2)

1 1051.

2

To satisfy the rational relationship requirement, the initial burden is on the

3 County to set forth an "intuitive, common-sense connection" between its asserted

4 objective and the postcard-only policy. See Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348,356

5 (9th Cir. 1999). Once done, the level of scrutiny we apply to this "common.;.sense

6 connection" depends on the showing made by PLN. Cook, 238 F.3 d at 1150. If 7 PLN presents evidence that refutes the County's "common-sense connection," the 8 County must "present enough counter-evidence to show that the connection is not so 9 remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational." (Id) On the other hand, if 10 PLN cannot rebut the "common-sense connection" proffered by the County, then we 11 assume the first Turner factor is satisfied without inquiring into whether "the banned 12 material actually caused problems in the past" or whether "the materials are 'likely' 13· to cause problems in the future." Cook, 238 F.3d at 1150 (quoting Mauro, 188 FJd 14 at 1060).

15

Here, Defendants contend that there is "an intuitive, common-sense

16 connection" between the postcard-only policy and interdicting the flow of

17 contraband into the prison because drugs, weapons, currency, and keys can be

18 hidden in the seams of envelopes, under postage stamps, and in between (and 19 within) sheets of paper. However, John Clark, PLN's expert who has worked in 20 corrections for 35 years (including 24 years at the Federal Bureau of Prisons), 21 opines that the postcard-only policy is "contrary to widely accepted detention 22 practices." (Clark Decl. ~ 28). He explains that allowing inmates to receive letter 23 mail actually does not pose any significant threat to security or safety because "staff 24 persons who work in jail mailrooms have a variety of means by which they can 25 detect and intercept contraband that might be sent to in!TIates inside envelopes 26 through the mail." (Id ~ 29). The relevant comparison is therefore not an 27 unrealistic "no inspection" policy, under which contraband could undoubtedly flow 28 freely into the prison. See Prison Legal News v. \Columbia Cnty., 942 F. Supp. 2d

6
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

J Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 8 of 19 Page ID #:1247

Case 14-cv-00773-GHK-E -

Page 8 of 19 Page ID #:1223

[1199477-2J

1 1068, 1083 (D. Or. 2013) ("Columba Ir). Instead, the postcard-only policy must be 2 compared to the County's prior policy of subjecting incoming mail to a routine,

3 industry-standard inspection. (See id.) When such a comparison is made, "the

4 rational relationship between the postcard-only policy and enhancing security

5 dissolves." (Id.)

6

The burden is therefore on the County to present sufficient evidence to show

7 that the connection between its security objectives and the postcard-only policy "is

8 not so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational." Frost, 197 F.3d at 357. 9 Defendants do not meet this burden because they fail to "offer any explanation why 10 a postcard-only policy is more effective at preventing the introduction of contraband 11 than opening envelopes and inspecting their contents." Columbia 11, 942 F. Supp. 12 2d at 1083 (emphasis in original). Defendants do not suggest, for example, that 13 inspecting letters does not reliably detect contraband. Instead, the County's own 14 evidence shows that mail staff have successfully discovered and disposed of

15 contraband that was concealed in the mail. (See Aguilar Decl. " 4-10). Defendants 16 also fail to offer evidence that the postcard-only policy has reduced the amount of 17 contraband coming into the jail through.the mail. Nor do they suggest that .

18 contraband cannot be smuggled via postcards. Indeed, many ofthe smuggling 19 methods described by Defendants, including liquefying drugs into paper and 20 concealing drugs under postage stamps, could be carried out just as easily with

21 postcards as with letters.

22

Defendants attempt to discharge their burden by merely detailing the variety

23 of ways in which contraband can be smuggled through the mail. But this evidence

24 fails to demonstrate a rational connection between the postcard-only policy and

25 prison security because it fails to address whether banning letters entirely (as

26 opposed to simply inspecting them) meaningfully reduces the threat of contraband

27 being introduced into the jail. See Prison Legal News v. Columbia Cnty., 2012 WL 28 1936108, at *9 (D. Or. May 29, 2012) ("Columbia f') ("The Ninth Circuit has

7
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

)

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 9 of 19 Page ID #:1248

Case 14-cv-00773-GHK-E

.. Page 9 of 19 Page ID #:1224

[1199477-2]

1 frequently rejected claims that policies broadly prohibiting certain classes of mail

2 have a rational relationship to enhancing security."). Defendants also offer evidence

.3 that jail officials found contraband in inmates' cells prior to the implementation of

4 the postcard-only policy. This evidence ,is of little help to Defendants, however,

5 because Defendants do not establish that this contraband entered thejail through the

6 mail or that the amount of contraband found in inmates' cells has materially

7 decreased under the postcard-only policy.

8

Based on the foregoing, the first Turner factor tips in PLN's favor. Given

9 that contraband can be interdicted by inspecting all incoming mail, the connection

10 between the postcard-only policy and the County's goal of reducing contraband is

11 tenuous at best. While the postcard-only policy may theoretically reduce the risk of

12 contraband entering the jail-simply because envelopes offer more creases and folds

13 for smuggling, and no inspection system is foolproof-this mere theoretical

14 possibility is insufficient to rebut PLN' s evidence that letter mail does not pose a

15 legitimate security threat. Absent any evidence that affirmatively shows that the

16 postcard-only policy enhances jail security, we conclude the postcard-only policy

17 smacks of arbitrariness and irrationality. 1 Although the first Turner factor is sine

18 qua non, Cook, 238 F.3d at 1151, the remaining Turner factors confirm that the

19 postcard-only policy is unconstitutional.

20

(ii) Availability ofAlternative Avenues for Exercise of

Asserted Right

21

The second Turner factor considers whether "other avenues remain available

22 for the exercise of the asserted right." Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. In evaluating the

23

24 1 Moreover, the County's postcard-only policy makes arbitrary exceptions. For
25 example, the mail policy allows publishers to send inmates publications, even when 26 the publications are sent in envelopes, while disallowing these same publishers from
sending letters. At the May 14 hearing, defense counsel was unable to articulate any 27 rational basis for this distinction.
28

8
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

)

)

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 10 of 19 Page ID #:1249

Case 2: 4-cv-00773-GHK-E

Page 10 of 19 Page ID #:1225

[1199477-2]

1 second Turner factor, "the right in question must be viewed sensibly and

2 expansively." Mauro, 188 F.3d at 1061. "[A]lternative means [of exercising the

3 right] need not be ideal"; "they need only be available." Overton v. Bazzetta, 539

4 U.S. 126, 135 (2003).

5

Defendants contend that the postcard-only policy has only "minimally"

6 affected First Amendment rights. (Opp.21). As support for this proposition,

7 Defendants delineate the many forms of communication with the outside world that

.

\

8 are available to inmates, including weekly visits from family and friends, phone

9 calls, and emails. Defendants' argument is off the mark. In challenging the

10 postcard-only policy, PLN asserts its own First Amendment rights (as well as the

11 r,ights of other senders of mail), not the First Amendment rights of inmates. The

12 relevant question, therefore, is not whether inmates have other avenues of

13 communication available, but whether sufficient avenues of communication remain

14 open to PLN (and other senders of mail).

15

While PLN remains able to send inmates monthly copies of its magazine/

16 under the postcard-only policy it is unable to send in1?ates subscription renewal

17 letters, informational brochures, and printouts of recent case law. Defendants have

18 not identified any alternative means by which PLN can reasonably send inmates

19 informational brochures or printouts of recent case law. These forms of

20 correspondence are simply not amenable to transmission on postcards. Even if they

21 were, PLN does not have the staffing resources to print such voluminous

22 information on postcards. And given that the jail charges between $1 and $2.50 for

23 each page sent through the jail's email system, email is not a viable alternative for a

24 small non-profit like PLN. (Wright Reply Decl. ~ 5). Where, as here, the only

25

26 2 As explained above, the County's mail policy permits publications sent directly
27 from the publisher.
28

9
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

)

)

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 11 of 19 Page ID #:1250

Case 2: 4-cv-00773-GHK-E

Page 11 of 19 Page ID #:1226

[1199477-2)

1 alternative avenues of communIcation are impractical or more costly, the second

2 factor weighs against the legitimacy of the mail policy.3 See Morrison v. Hall, 261

3 F.3d 896, 904 (9th Cir. 20,01); Clement v. Cal. Dept. o/Corrections, 220 F. Supp. 2d

4 1098, 1112 (N.D. Cal. 2002).

5

The postcard-only policy also drastically restricts the forms of

6 correspondence that can be sent to inmates by friends, families, and other

7 organizations. As the Oregon District Court summarized:

8

It prevents an inmate's family from sending items such as

9

photographs, children's report cards and drawings, and

copies of bills, doctor reports, and spiritual and religious

10

tracts. It prevents an inmate's friends and other

11

correspondents from sending printed copies of articles

12

published in newspapers, magazines, or the internet. It

prevents educational, community, and religious

13

organizations from sending lessons, book and periodical

14

offers, and fundraising appeals. Finally, and perhaps most

15

importantly, the postcard-only mail policy creates a hurdle

to thoughtful and constructive written communication

16

between an inmate and his or her unincarcerated family

17

and friends.

18

19 3 That these forms of communication are practically foreclosed under the postcard-

20 only policy is not an insubstantial hardship. PLN explains that the delivery of its informational brochures "is just as important as the publications themselves" (Reply

21 11), as they ate the means by which it informs inmates of the publications ,and

22 resOurces it offers. See Hrdlicka, 631 F.3d at 1054 ("[I]npractice, it is difficult to create abroad awareness of CJA among inmates in jails where, unlike in prisons,

23 populations turn over quickly .... [M]any inmates will have left the jail before they

24 can learn about the existence of CJA, request that it be sent to them, and then receive it."). The postcard-only policy therefore directly impedes PLN's ability to

25 reach new s~bscribers and threatens its continued vitality. Similarly, in light of its

26

mission to educate prisoners of their legal rights, PLN has ·akeen interest in sending
~ecent case law quickly, when it is most relevant to inmates. (See W~ight Decl.

27 ~ 11).

28

]0
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

)

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 12 of 19 Page ID #:1251

Case 2: 4-cv-00773-GHK-E

- age 12 of 19 Page 10 #:1227

(1199477-21

1 Columbia I, 2012 WL 1936108, at *10 (internal citations omitted).

2

In sum, although written correspondence is not completely ·foreclosed, this

3 important avenue of communication is severely limited under the postcard-only

4 policy. Accordingly, on balance, the second Turner factor favors PLN.

5

(iii) Impact ofAccommodating Right on Guards, Prisoners,

and the Allocation ofPrison Resources

..

6

7

Under the third Turner factor, we assess "the impact accommodation of the

8 asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the

9 allocation of prison resources generally." Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. Given that "few

10 changes will have no ramifications on the liberty of others or on the use of the

11 prison's limited resources for preservinginstitutional order," the third Turner factor

12 weighs most heavily where "accommodation of an asserted right will have a

13 significant 'ripple effect' on fellow inmates or prison staff." (Jd.)

14

Defendants contend that the inevitable consequence of allowing inmates to

15 receive letters is "significantly less safety for everyone in the j ail" because, without

16 the postcard-policy, inmates will have "[u]nrestricted G\ccess" to contraband:"filled

17 mail containers. (Opp.21). This is a disingenuous argument. If the County were to

18 rescind ·its postcard-only ban, inmates would not suddenly have "unrestricted access

19 to mail containers" filled with contraband-incoming mail would be inspected, and

20 jail staff would dispose of any contraband.

21

Accordingly, the ·only likely impact of accommodating letter mail is that

22 Defendants would have to implement a more expansive inspection system.

23 Defendants have made no argument whatsoever that implementing such an 24 inspection system would pose any significant administrative hurdles.4 And it is

25

26 4 Defendants' Supplemental Opposition does not address the administrative burdens

27

of an inspecti~m system generally. Instead, it focuses on the administrative feasability of a system in which envelopes are discarded before delivering mail to

28 (footnote continued)

.

] ] [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

)

)

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 13 of 19 Page ID #:1252

Case 2: 4-cv-00773-GHK-E

)age 13 of 19 Page ID #:1228

[1199477-2]

1 unlikely that they could plausibly make any such argument. PLN's expert opines
2 that effective inspection systems are "not difficult to implement" and that they are 3 used by correctional facilities throughout the country. (Clark Reply Decl. ~~ 3, 7; 4 Clark Supp. Decl. ~ 3). Furthermore, any time-savings afforded by the postcard-
5 only policy is likely too modest to be orany significance, especially given that 6 postcards must still be inspected. (See McAndrew Decl. ~ 10 ("[T]he amount of 7 additional time required to open an envelope would, at most, be very modest8 somewhere in the range of two or three seconds."); Clark Supp. Decl. ~~ 3, 5 ("The
9 minimal additional steps required for mail that coines in envelopes (opening the
10 envelope, taking the items out of!he envelope, and returning the items to the
11 envelope after inspection) do not create a significant staffing burden.")); Columbia 12 11, 942 F. Supp. 2d at 1086 ("[T]he time-savings afforded to the Jail by the postcard13 only mail policy is de minImis."). In fact, because multiple postcards would have to 14 be sent to communicate the same amount of information as a single letter, the
15 postcard-only policy could actually increase the overall volume of mail. Ultimately, 16 Defendants' silence on this point is damning. The Cou~ty inspected letter mail for
17 decades prior to implementing the postcard-only policy-it therefore has firsthand
18 knowledge of the administrative burdens imposed by a letter-inspection system.
19 Because Defendants have offered no evidence that the postcard-only policy has
20
21 inmates, a system adopted by a jail in Tennessee. While PLN offered the Tennessee 22 jail's system as one potential alternative to a letter-ban, discarding envelopes is by
no means the only way to interdict contraband. (Clark Supp. Decl. ~ 3 ("[J]ails do 23 not need to discard envelopes in 'order to achieve their security objectives. Jails and 24 corrections departments around the country are able through routine inspection to
detect contraband and deliver mail to inmates with envelopes included.")). If 25 Defendants think that discarding envelopes would introduce too many logistical 26 difficulties, Defendants can simply return items to their envelopes after they have
been inspected, a procedure adopted by correctional facilities across the country. 27 (Jd. ~~ 3-4; McAndrews Supp. Decl. ~~ 10-11). 28
12
. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

)

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 14 of 19 Page ID #:1253

Case 2: 4-cv-00773-GHK-E

4 Page 14 of 19 Page ID #:1229

[1199477-2]

1 significantly reduced these administrative costs, we infer that the savings have been

2 de minimis.

3

In sum, Defendants provide no credible evidence that rescinding the postcard-

4 only policy would make the County's facilities less secure. Nor do they proffer

5 evidence that inspecting letter mail would have a "significant ripple effect" on the

6 allocation of resources. Accordingly, the third Turner factor supports the

7 conclusion that the postcard-only policy unreasonably infringesPLN's First

8 Amendment rights.

9

(iv) Existence ofEasy and Obvious Alternatives

10

The fourth and final Turner factor requires us to consider "whether the

11 existence of easy and obvious alternatives indicates that the regulation is an

12 exaggerated response by prison officials." Cook, 238 FJd at 1149. While Turner

13 by no means requires that prisons always adopt the least restrictive alternative, "an 14 alternative that fully accommodates the [asserted] right at de minimis cost to valid

15 penological interests" is evidence that the policy does not satisfy Turner's

16 reasonable relationship standard. Turner, 482 U.S. at 90-91.

17

Here, a ready alternative to the County's outright ban on letters exists:

18 inspecting all incoming mail for contraband. As explained above, Defendants have

19 made no showing that implementing an inspection system would impose any

20 inordinate safety or administrative costs. That the Federal Bureau of Prisons as well

21 as state correctional systems across the country have been able to accommodate

22 letter mail without compromising security also suggests that the County's postcard23 only policy is art exaggerated response. (Clark Reply Decl. ~ 7); see Morrison v.

24 Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 905 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that "the policies followed at other·

25 well-run institutions" can serve as evidence that an easy and obvious alternative

26 exists); Columbia 1,2012 WL 1936108, at *12 (concluding that the many

27 correctional facilities that permit letters constitute "further evidence that opening

28 and inspecting letters is an easy and obvious alternative to [a] postcard-only mail

]3
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

)

)

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 15 of 19 Page ID #:1254

Case 2: 4-cv-00773-GHK-E ,....-

Page 15 of 19 Page ID #:1230

1 policy"). Accordingly, the final Turner factor suggests that the postcard-only policy

2 impermissibly infringes on PLN's (and other third parties') First Amendment right

3 to correspond with Ventura County inmates.

4

Based on the foregoing, all of the Turner factors weigh in PLN's favor.

5 Accordingly, we conclude that PLN is likely to succeed on the merits with respect to
I
6 its First Amendment claim.s

7

5 Defendants cite afew cases in which similar policies have been upheld to support
their argument that PLN is unlikely to prevail on the merits: Prison Legal News v. Babeau, 933 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Ariz. 2013); Covell v. Arpaio, 662 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (D. Ariz. 2009); and In re Garcia, Case No. MA-004-11 (Ventura County Superior Court). None of these cases dictates that PLN is not likely to succeed on the merits. To the extent they do, we decline to follow them.
First, Babeau can be readily distinguished because the challenged policy was less restrictive than the County's postcard-only policy. In Babeau, the jail allowed letters so long as they were limited to a single page. Covell is similarly distinguishable. The jail in Covell limited incoming mail to metered postcards because it had experienced an increase in contraband smuggling via the back of postage stamps. By contrast, stamps are not at issue here because they are permitted under the County's postcard-only policy. See Columbia 1,2012 WL 1936108, at *9 n.7 (concluding that Covell lacked precedential value in case where defendants had "not pressed the same argument"). More importantly, the defendant in Covell offered specific evidence that banning stamped mail had decreased the likelihood of contraband being smuggled into the jail. Defendants here have made no such showing with respect to the postcard-only policy. Finally, Defendants put a lot of weight on the fact that the Ventura County Superior Court sanctioned the very same policy that is challenged here. However, the Superior Court's analysis is far too summary to be persuasive. Moreover, even though the cases cited by Defendants have upheld similar policies to the one at-issue here, other cases have concluded that po~tcard-only poli~ies are unconstitutional. See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. Columbia Cnty., 942 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D. Or. 2013); Prison Legal News v. Spokane Cnty, CV-11-029, Dkt. No. 109 at 7 (E.D. Wa. Aug. 3, 2011); Hamilton v. Hall, 790 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (N.D. Fla. 2011) (denying motion to dismiss a challenge to jail's postcard-only policy).
14
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

) ,

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 16 of 19 Page ID #:1255

Case 2: 4-cv-00773-GHK-E

Page 16 of 19 Page ID #:1231 '

1

2. Likelihood of Irreparable'Harm

2

Defendants make no argument with respect to the remaining prongs of the

f~'

3 preliminary injunction test. In any event, it is well established that "[t]he loss of

4 First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably

5 constitutes irreparabkinjury." Klein v. City ofSan Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1207-

6 08 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, PLN has sufficiently established that the County's

7 postcard-only policy presents a likelihood of irreparable harm.

8

3. Balance of Equities

9

Given that the County has accepted letter mail in the past, and absent any

10 showing that reverting to this prior policy would cause any undue harm, we

11 conclude that rescinding the postcard-only policy would not impose an inordinate

12 hardship on the County. Accordingly, the balance of equities tips in PLN's favor.

13 See Columbia 1,2012 WL 1936108, at *12. ("The constitutional hardship is greater

14 than the modest impact on Defendants' time and resources.").

'15

4. Public Interest

16

"The public interest inquiry primarily addresses [the] impact on non-

17 parties ...." Sammartino v. First Judicial Dist. Court, in andfor Cnty. ofCarson

18 City, 303 F.3d 959, 974 (9th Cir. 2002), abrogated in part on other grounds by

19 Winter, 555 U.S. at 24. Here, this factor favors PLN not only because of the

20 public's general interest in "upholding free speech principles," but also because an

21 injunction would directly benefit members of the public who wish to send written

22 correspondence to Ventura County inmates: Klein, 584 F.3d at 1208; see also

23 Columbia 1,2012 WL 1936108, at *12 ("A court order enjoining Defendants from

24 enforcing the postcard-only mail policy will permit non-party members of the public

25 to more easily communicate with inmates.").

26 III

27 III

28 I I I

[1199477-2]

]5
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

)

)

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 17 of 19 Page ID #:1256

Case 2: 4-cv-00773-GHK-E

Page 17 of 19 Page ID #:1232

[1199477-2)

1

B. Purportedly Discontinued Policies and Practices

2)

Defendants do not defend the constitutionality of the remaining practices

3 challenged by 'PLN.6 While conceding 'that these practices were unconstitutional,

4 they assert that an injunction need not issue because these practices have been "fully,

5 and permanently discontinued." They insist that their voluntary cessation of these

6 practices vitiates Article III jurisdiction. We disagree.

7

This is a case that falls squarely within the voluntary cessation exception to

8 the mootness doctrine. See Friends o/the Earth v. Laidlaw, Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 9 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) ("It is well settled that a defendant's voluntary cessation ofa _ 10 challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to' determine the

11 legality of the practice."). Defendants have failed to satisfy their "heavy burden" to 12 show "that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again."

13 (Id.) They ipstead expect their "protestations ,of repentance and reform" to assure us
us. 14 that they will not return to past practices. See v. w.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629,

15 632 n.5 (1953). Mere promises are insufficient to discharge their burden, however,

16 particularly given that Defendants admit that mail staff have failed to comply with

17 policy directives in the past. For example, although Defendants' official policy has

18 been to provide notice to senders of rejected mail since April 6, 2012, in practice 19 such notice has not been provided. (Barrios Dec!. ~ 21). Similarly, eventhough

20 Defendants'rescinded their ban on suggestive content on April 6, 2012, items were

21 still being rejected on this basis after April 6, 2012. (See Wright Decl. Ex. G).

22 Finally, Defendants' assurance that the practice ofgiving incorrect reasons for

23 rejecting mail has been rectified is oflittlecomfort in light of their admission that

24

25 6 Despite Defendants'admission that these past practices fail to pass constitutional 26 muster, we have nevertheless subjected these practices to our own analysis and
conclude that a preliminary injunction is appropriate given all relevant factors and 27 requirements.
28

]6
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

\

)
Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 18 of 19 Page ID #:1257

Case 2: 4-cv-00773-GHK-E

Page 18 of 19 Page 10 #:1233

1 staff have previously rejected mail for "random reasons." (Flowers Dec!. ~ 8).

2 Accordingly, without a sufficient showing that there is no longer any threat of .

3 continuing constitutional violations, a court order is necessary to ensure that

4 Defendants will not revert to their past practices. 5 IV. Conclusion

6

Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED in full. We exercise our discretion to waive

7 the bond requirement in light ofPLN'slimited financial resources. See Save Our

8 Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113, 1126 (9th Cir. 2004).

9

10

ORDER

11

1. It is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant County of Ventura (the

12 "County") and individual Defendants DEAN, PENTIS, OKSNER, and BARRIOS,

{t

13 and their successors, officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all .

14

others

. m a. ctive

concert

or

partI.C.IpatI.On/AW1-~IthAt.hvet..u(h~er~ emaftttef2r

~~ referred

to~J~ i.~~O"Ij It. -<~-'

..

~~

15 collectively as "Defendants"), SHALL suspend enforcement of the postcard-tnly

16 policy for incoming mail no later than June 19,2014. Defendants shall not refuse to

17 deliver correspondence sent to inmates at the County's jails on the ground that

18 correspondence is not written on a postcard.

19

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL NOT refuse to

20 deliver correspondence, catalogs or subscription order forms to inmates at the Jail

21 on the basis that inmates cannot order subscriptions or other materials.

22

3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL NOT refuse to

23 deliver correspondence to inmates at the Jail on the basis that the materials were

24 Xeroxed, photocopied or printed from the Internet.

25

4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL NOT refuse to

26 deliver copies of publications from Plaintiff or other publishers on account of

27 sexually "suggestive" content unless the publication contains actual nudity or

28 graphic depictions of sexual acts.

[1199477-2]

17
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 2:14-cv-00773-GHK-E Document 51 Filed 06/16/14 Page 19 of 19 Page ID #:1258

Case 2: 4-cv-00773-GHK-E ___ _

Page 19 of 19 Page ID #:1234

[l199477-2J

1

5. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall provide written

2 notice and an administrative appeal process to senders and inmates when

3 Defendants refuse to deliver publications and correspondence to inmates at the

4 County's jails. Within 30 days of issuance of this order, the parties shall confer

5 regarding the specific policy, procedure and forms for providing noticeand an

6 appeal process.

7

6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the bond requirement is waived.

8

7. No person who has notice of this injunction shall fail to comply with it,

9 nor shall any person subvert the injunction by any sham, indirection or other artifice.

10 11 DATED: 12 13 14 15

~ (,~
I

,2014

!
Hon. George H. King United States District Judg

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

]8
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

 
 [1291842-1]

1

JS-6

FILED: 9/4/14 2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6

7 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the
8 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11 COUNTY OF VENTURA and GEOFF DEAN in his official capacity only,
12 Defendants.
13

Case No. 14-0773-GHK (EX) [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STIPULATED PERMANENT INJUNCTION [Exhibits A – B attached] Judge: Hon. George H. King

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[1291842-1]

1

[PROPOSED] PERMANENT INJUNCTION

2 The Court, having reviewed the parties’ Stipulated Permanent Injunction filed
3

4 in this matter on August 27, 2014 (ECF #61), ORDERS as follows:

5

6

I. Terms of the Permanent Injunction

7 1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Sheriff of Ventura County (the
8

9 “Sheriff”), and Defendant County of Ventura (the “County”) and their successors,

10 officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all others in active concert
11 12 or participation with them who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal

13 service or otherwise (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Defendants”), SHALL

14 NOT refuse to deliver correspondence to or from inmates at the County’s jails on 15 16 the ground that correspondence is not written on a postcard.

17

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL implement and

18 abide by the policy for incoming mail (attached hereto as Exhibit B) within thirty 19 20 (30) days of the date of the entry of this ORDER.

21

3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ventura County Sheriff’s Office,

22 Detention Services Division, SHALL conduct a four (4) hour training block in order 23 24 to adequately familiarize all mailroom staff persons with the provisions of the

25 attached mail policy and will thereafter conduct two (2) hour annual legal updates.

26 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL NOT refuse to
27 28 deliver correspondence, catalogs or subscription order forms to inmates at the Jail
1

[1291842-1]

1 on the basis that inmates cannot order subscriptions or other reading materials.

2

5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL NOT refuse to

3 deliver correspondence to inmates at the Jail on the basis that the materials were
4
5 Xeroxed, photocopied or printed from the Internet.

6

6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL NOT refuse to

7 deliver copies of publications from Plaintiff or other publishers on account of
8

9 sexually “suggestive” content unless the publication contains images of fully

10 exposed genitalia, buttocks or female breasts and/or graphic depictions of sexual

11 acts.
12

13

7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL NOT prohibit

14 inmates from ordering books, magazines or other publications. 15
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL provide written 16 17 notice and an opportunity to appeal the non-delivery of mail to both inmates and

18 senders of mail in accordance with the mail policy attached as Exhibit B. 19
9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL post the 20 21 attached mail policy (Ex. B) on their website within thirty (30) days of the date of

22 this Order and shall provide notice of the new policy to inmates by virtue of

23 updating their inmate handbook within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order.
24

25

10. No person who has notice of this injunction shall fail to comply with it,

26 nor shall any person subvert the injunction by any sham, indirection or other artifice. 27

28 2

[1291842-1]

1

II. Parties and the Court’s Continuing Jurisdiction

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except for the claims against the Sheriff in

3 his official capacity only, all claims against all named and fictitious individual
4
5 defendants in their personal and official capacities have been dismissed with

6 prejudice to refiling in this or any other Federal or State court. The correct
7 remaining defendants are the County and whoever is the current officeholder of the
8 9 Sheriff in his or her official capacity.

10

11 III. Monitoring and Compliance
12

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there will be no monitor, per se, of

14 compliance with this Permanent Injunction. In lieu thereof, the following

15 procedures will apply:
16

17

1. (a) Plaintiff will notify Defendants in writing of any perceived

18 violation of the terms of this Order. This notification will be electronically mailed to 19
jheld@wps-law.net, Gary.Pentis@ventura.org, Dave.Lareva@ventura.org, 20 21 Tracy.Martinez-Aguilar@ventura.org, and/or to additional or substituted recipients

22 of which all Plaintiff’s counsel of record are electronically notified. 23
(b) Within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of notice, 24
25 Defendants will provide a written response addressing the issues raised in Plaintiff’s

26 letter. If Defendants agree that a violation has occurred and promptly rectify the
27 violation, Plaintiff will not claim attorneys’ fees for such action. If Defendants
28
3

[1291842-1]

1 persuade Plaintiff that no violation has occurred, Plaintiff will not claim attorneys’

2 fees for such action unless the claim would comply with paragraph two (2)

3 immediately below.
4

5

2. If these informal communications become involved and complex, then

6 Plaintiff is entitled to claim fees for such action. “Involved and complex” is not
7 quantitatively ascertained; it is a common sense standard to be determined by
8 9 Magistrate Judge Gandhi.

10

3. (a) If the parties cannot resolve their dispute regarding anything,

11 including whether communications are “involved and complex,” Plaintiff will
12

13 submit briefing, with exhibits if necessary, to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Jay

14 Gandhi who will decide the matter as a binding decision. Plaintiff will 15
electronically serve those mentioned in III.1.(a) with copies of any such briefing and 16 17 exhibits.

18

(b) Defendants may submit briefing, with exhibits if necessary, within

19 fifteen (15) calendar days of Plaintiff’s filing. If that date falls on a weekend or
20

21 federally recognized holiday, the deadline is extended until the following business

22 day.
23 4. Magistrate Judge Gandhi shall decide the dispute on the briefing and
24
25 evidence submitted unless he determines that oral argument or an evidentiary

26 hearing is necessary. If Judge Gandhi’s decision sustains Plaintiff’s claim, Plaintiff
27 is entitled to claim reasonable and appropriate attorneys’ fees for such compliance
28
4

[1291842-1]

1 action.

2

5. If Judge Gandhi’s decision denies Plaintiff’s claim, then Judge Gandhi

3 shall further decide whether or not Plaintiff’s claim constituted reasonable and
4
5 appropriate monitoring of the Defendants’ compliance with this Order.

6

6. If Judge Gandhi so determines, Plaintiff shall submit its claim for fees

7 to Defendants. If Judge Gandhi determines that the claim did not constitute
8

9 reasonable and appropriate monitoring of the Defendants’ compliance with this

10 Order, Judge Gandhi shall determine whether the claim was meritless within the
11 meaning of Christianberg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978), and order
12
13 that Defendants may submit their application for attorneys’ fees as to that claim.

14

7. Any fees claimed by either party shall be submitted to the opposing

15 party so that they might have an opportunity to resolve the claim prior to submission
16

17 to the Court. If Defendants or Plaintiff dispute the reasonableness of fees claimed,

18 this also shall be submitted to Judge Gandhi for resolution as a binding arbiter. 19
8. As to any and all matters herein, either party may declare, in writing, an 20 21 impasse and promptly bring the matter to Magistrate Judge Gandhi for resolution by

22 binding arbitration as provided for herein. 23

24

25

IV. Continuing Jurisdiction of the Court

26

1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that District Court retain jurisdiction to

27 enforce the parties Settlement Agreement (Ex. A), including without limitation,
28

5

[1291842-1]

1 disputes over Defendants’ compliance with the terms thereof, this Stipulated

2 Permanent Injunction and the changes to Defendants’ policy as shown by the policy

3 attached to this Stipulated Permanent Injunction, and further including any disputes
4
5 concerning Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorneys’ fees for monitoring and

6 compliance work.
7 2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the monitoring and compliance
8 9 procedures described herein shall continue until this Permanent Injunction is

10 terminated.
11 3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that during the pendency of this
12
13 Injunction, Plaintiff shall not file new actions in this Court or in any other Federal or

14 State Court against Defendants, including those who have been dismissed,

15 concerning any matter prohibited or mandated by the provisions of this injunction.
16

17

4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file a motion to

18 terminate this Order no earlier than July 31, 2017, upon demonstration of substantial 19
compliance with the terms of this Order within the calendar year preceding the filing 20 21 of the motion and shall notify Plaintiff, in writing, of their intent to do so no later

22 than thirty (30) days prior to filing any such motion. This procedure will be deemed
23 to have satisfied Central District Local Rule 7-3.
24

25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28
6

[1291842-1]

1

The Court finds that the relief ordered herein is narrowly drawn, extends no

2 further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal rights at issue, and is

3 the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal rights.
4

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

7 DATED:
8

9/3 , 2014

9

10

Hon. George H. King

11

Chief United States District Judge

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7

SETTLEMENT AGREEEMENT

Exhibit A

NOW ON THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY 2014, Plaintiff, Prison Legal News, a project of Human Rights Defense Center ("Plaintiff'), Defendants, County of Ventura, et al. (“the parties” herein) have met and with the assistance of Magistrate Judge Jay Gandhi, have settled all claims pending in the United States District Court, Central District of California case number 14-0773GHK (EX) according to the following terms and those in the accompanying stipulated permanent injunction and its attachment.
1) Pending only approval of the County Board of Supervisors, the parties stipulate to entry of a permanent injunction in a form accompanying this addendum.
2) In addition, Defendants will pay Plaintiff $350,000 for all claims for damages, costs and fees up to and including the date of the entry of the permanent injunction.
3) Plaintiff directs the County of Ventura to make the settlement check in the amount of $350,000 payable only to Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld client trust account.
4) Plaintiff further directs the County of Ventura and its attorneys and agents not to notify it of the distribution or disbursal of the settlement funds.
5) Plaintiff's counsel will provide Defendants' counsel with a W-9 containing RBGG's taxpayer identification number for the entire amount of the settlement payment, in short order.
6) The Plaintiff is familiar with the provisions of California Civil Code section 1542. Plaintiff agrees to waive both known and unknown claims and damages, that this is not a general release, and that Plaintiff waives the protection of Civil Code section 1542 as to

Exhibit B
Ventura County Sheriff’s Office Detention Services Divisional Policy
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 6 Chapter 7
Inmate Mail Guidelines
PURPOSE: To establish guidelines for the reception, screening, and delivery of inmate mail, books, newspapers and periodicals addressed to and from inmates in jail facilities.
POLICY: Inmates are permitted to send and receive unlimited mail which does not threaten the safety and security of the jail in order to maintain communication with their legal representatives, a holder of public office, the courts, and others outside of the jail facility. Inmates may also receive softbound books, newspapers and periodicals accepted for distribution by the United States Postal Service. Acceptance of these items is subject to the security procedures outlined in this policy.
DEFINITIONS: Inmate Mail: Inmates are allowed to receive enveloped mail and postcards. Inmates are also allowed to receive softbound books, newspapers, and magazines that have been delivered from a publishing company or Internet bookstore. These items must be properly addressed to the inmate.
Confidential (Legal) Mail: Confidential mail is legal written material from any county, state or federal court, or any member of a state bar (or verified legal assistant), holder of public office, and the Board of State and Community Corrections. Inmates may also confidentially correspond with the Jail Facility Manager or Jail Facility Administrator. Mail from private attorneys must be on official letterhead and in a properly identified outer envelope to be considered confidential.
Government Mail: Official mail from local, state, or federal government entities.
Inmate E-mail Program: E-mail will be incoming only.
Outgoing Mail: Inmates are allowed to mail letters using envelopes, postcards, and greeting cards purchased through commissary.
GENERAL PROVISIONS: Inmates shall be afforded the right to send and receive mail via the United States Postal Service, unless the correspondence would jeopardize the safety, security, order, discipline, or control of the facility.
Page 1 of 7

PROCEDURE: I. U.S. Mail
A. All incoming enveloped mail, postcards, books, newspapers, and periodicals must be delivered through the U.S. Postal Service, FedEx, DHL, or UPS.

B. All incoming mail must be properly addressed with the inmates name and booking number and be mailed to: P.O. Box 6929, Ventura, CA 93006. Incoming mail addressed incorrectly, or with no booking number, or not sent directly from the publisher (i.e.: books, newspapers, and magazines) will be returned to sender.

C. Marriage and birth certificates will be allowed through the mail.

D. There is no limit to the amount of mail an Inmate may receive. If the amount of mail in an inmate’s cell is excessive and poses a fire hazard, it may be placed into the inmate’s property or mailed out at the inmate’s expense.

E. All incoming mail is opened and screened for contraband and money, as well as for jail management and law enforcement issues. Incoming mail generally takes several days to process and deliver to inmates. Incoming mail will be delivered to the inmate providing it does not jeopardize the legitimate penological interest of the jail facilities to provide a safe and secure environment for all inmates and staff.

F. Each inmate is allowed, on a weekly basis, to order a welfare kit, including one postage-paid postcard, one postage-paid envelope, two sheets of paper, one pencil, and one eraser. If an inmate has money in his or her account, the inmate’s account will be debited accordingly. If the inmate has no funds on account, or insufficient funds, he or she will still receive a welfare kit, which includes the above-described correspondence items. There will be no limit on the number of postage paid letters to attorneys and to the courts.

G. Inmate mail may be read when there is a security reason and with the approval of the Jail Facility Manager.

II. LEGAL MAIL/GOVERNMENT MAIL

A. Legal mail shall be opened and screened for contraband or other prohibited items in the presence of the inmate. The legal mail shall then be given to the inmate without delay.

B. Government mail shall be opened and screened for contraband or prohibited items, and forwarded to the inmate through regular channels.

III. OUTGOING MAIL

Page 2 of 7

A. All outgoing mail shall have the inmate’s custody return address (Inmate name, Booking Number, Ventura County Jail, P.O. Box 6929, Ventura, CA, 93006) on the envelope/postcard. Any mail not containing this information will be returned to the housing unit for an attempt to locate the sender.
B. There is no limit on the volume of mail an inmate may send out.
C. Items that cannot be mailed by the inmate include, but are not limited to:
1. County property, including law, religious, or library books
2. Items purchased by the Inmate Welfare Fund
3. Edible items purchased through commissary
4. Items made by the inmate
D. Envelopes that are suspected of containing contraband shall be forwarded to Classification. Classification will contact the inmate and ascertain what is inside the envelope. The Classification officer shall open the letter in the presence of the inmate to discover its contents. The Classification officer shall write a JIR documenting the circumstances of the incident along with a disciplinary report, if applicable.
IV. INMATE EMAIL PROGRAM
A. The email program is designed to provide a contemporary and efficient means for information to be shared with an inmate. Members of the community may send an email to an inmate by accessing the Sheriff’s website at, www.vcsd.org. The email can be sent by clicking the “VCSD Jail-Inmate Information” icon and locating the inmate.
1. Only text will be allowed in the email. Each email has a maximum of 4500 characters (equivalent to one page).
2. The email will only be printed on light grey paper and delivered to the inmate with the inmate mail.
V. SECURITY SCREENING
A. All incoming material, except confidential (legal) mail, shall be processed through the Detention Services mail system and screened by Detention Services security personnel to ensure appropriate security measures are observed. The security screening occurs for all incoming mail as an initial
Page 3 of 7

inspection to search for cash, checks, money orders, and to prevent contraband and/or sensitive material from being introduced into the jail system.
B. Any publications with writings or illustrations that contain obscenity, violence, hatred, and threaten the jail’s safety and security will not be delivered to the inmate.
C. During this process the following items will be removed from all mail: Industrial staples (if removal of industrial staple will damage the article, it will be returned), standard staples, (unless they are used to bind publications), paper clips, metal clamps, clasps, wire, currency and drugs.
VI. CHECKS
A. Only government checks from local, state, or federal government entities are accepted, and only if they are in an official envelope from the issuing agency.
VII. REJECTION OF INCOMING INMATE MAIL
A. All items deemed to contain contraband or determined to be unacceptable, will not be delivered to the inmate but will be retained pending conclusion of the internal appeal process. Certain items will be destroyed if the item cannot be placed in the inmate’s property (e.g. liquids, illegal contraband, etc.) In all cases in which incoming mail is withheld, the inmate and sender will receive a copy of a “Contents Unacceptable” form, generated by the Detention Mail Staff identifying the article, sender, and disposition. The sender will receive a “Notice of Appeal” which will explain the appeal process to the sender. In cases where inmate mail is not deliverable and placed into the inmate’s property, the inmate will receive a copy of a “Contents Unacceptable” form. The notice of appeal rights shall include sufficient information identifying the non-delivered item(s) and the reason(s) why the item(s) pose a threat to the Jail’s safety and security.
B. The following rules will govern inmate mail privileges:
1. All correspondence must be clearly addressed
2. Postcards may not be altered from their original form, including added layering, backing, wrappings, laminate, buttons, bows, glue or ribbons.
3. No gang codes or markings will be accepted: outgoing correspondence of that nature will be given Classification for review.
Page 4 of 7

4. No drugs or other contraband may be enclosed in the mail.
5. Enveloped mail or postcards may not be marked with paint, heavy crayon, foil, heavy ink, glitter, cloth, string, watermarks, stains or stickers (excluding US Postage Stamps and address labels).
6. Enveloped mail or postcards cannot contain any perceived biohazard, i.e., lipstick, gloss, scents, etc.
7. Publications, photographs, postcards, and letters cannot show images, drawings, artwork or photographs of fully exposed genitalia, buttocks or female breasts, and/or graphic depictions of sexual acts. Medical, anthropological, literarily artistic and scientific journals and publications are not prohibited.
8. Correspondence or pictures that tend to incite violence, riot, racism or threaten the security of the facility are prohibited.
9. Blank postcards, envelopes, greeting cards or postage stamps will not be accepted.
10. Magazines/newspapers/books/booklets will not be accepted unless sent from the publisher or directly from an authorized retail distributor.
11. Publications and letters may not contain wire, spiral bindings, pens, pencils, or any other items determined to be inappropriate or unacceptable for safety or security reasons.
NOTE: Inmates shall not possess excessive amounts of paper products; inmate’s personal books, magazines, newspapers and mail must be able to fit in their Commissary box. Newspapers must have the inmate’s name on the address label. This limitation does not apply to inmates’ legal mail. Extra items will be sent to inmate property or be subject to the inmate’s agreed upon voluntary destruction.
VIII. INTERNAL APPEAL PROCESS FOR RETURNED MAIL
A. If incoming mail, including any publication, is withheld for one of the reasons listed above under “Security Screening” or “Rejection of Incoming Inmate Mail,” both the sender and the inmate will receive notification of the opportunity to appeal. The notification will be given in the form of written “Notice” to the sender and inmate, within five (5) business days.
B. The notice to the inmate will contain the name of the publication or item, the inmate’s name, the date that the publication or item was deemed unacceptable, the
Page 5 of 7

reason for the withholding and the name of the person authorizing the withholding. It will also include instructions how the inmate may appeal the withholding by following the facility Grievance Procedures.

C. The inmate may appeal the withholding decision within ten (10) business days of the receipt of the notice using a Grievance Form. The appeal must include the inmate’s name, date, the name of the publication or item in question, and all the reasons the inmate disagrees with the decision. Further appeals will comply with the facility Grievance Procedures.

D. Notice to the “Sender” will contain the name of the publication, or item, the inmate’s name, date the publication or item was deemed unacceptable, the reason for the withholding and the name of the person authorizing the withholding. The notice will also provide the sender the information and instructions how to appeal the withholding decision. The withheld publication or item will be retained pending final disposition of any such appeal.

E. The sender may appeal within ten (10) business days after the receipt of the notice. The sender must send the appeal by United States Mail, addressed to the Detention Services Administration Captain, Ventura County Sheriff’s Office 800 S. Victoria Ave. Ventura, CA 93009. If the sender chooses not to use certified mail, the burden to demonstrate timely mail deposit is upon the sender. Likewise, if the sheriff chooses not to send the notice of withholding via certified mail, the burden to demonstrate timely receipt of the notice is upon the sheriff.

1. The appeal must include the inmate’s name, a contact person’s name and address at the company or sender’s location, the date, and the name of the publication or item, and all of the reasons that the sender disagrees with the return decision.

2. Senders will be notified of the appeal decision within ten (10) business days of the receipt of the appeal. The written appeal decision by the Administrative Captain will contain a written explanation, detailing the reasons for the rejection.

F. If the Detention Services Administration Captain, handling the appeals, needs longer than ten (10) days due to the length of the publication or the number of appeals being filed, notice will be provided to the sender than an extension of time is necessary to respond.

G. If the internal appeal by an inmate or sender overturns the non-delivery decision, the item or items shall be promptly be delivered to the inmate and the sender shall be notified of this decision.

IX. INVESTIGATIONS

Page 6 of 7

A. Mail is not to be read except where there is a valid security reason to justify such action and the Facility Manager approves.
B. Incoming original articles of inmate mail and copies of inmate mail may be viewed or released to authorized law enforcement officials and investigators pursuant to an official investigation. Those authorized persons shall articulate a specific need for the contents of the requested information to the Facility Manager.
REFERENCES: California Penal Code Section 2601 Title 15, California Code of Regulations, Sections 1063, 1066, 1068 Permanent Injunction Prison Legal News v. Ventura, County, USDC CD CA, Case No. 14-0773-
GHK (EX)
Page 7 of 7

 
 Case: 2:14-cv-773 As of: 11/19/2017 01:02 PM PST 1 of 12
(Ex),CLOSED,DISCOVERY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14−cv−00773−GHK−E

Prison Legal News v. County of Ventura et al Assigned to: Judge George H. King Referred to: Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick Case in other court: 9th CCA, 14−56029 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff
Prison Legal News a project of the Human Rights Defense Center

Date Filed: 01/31/2014 Date Terminated: 09/04/2014 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Blake Thompson Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP 50 Fremont Street 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: bthompson@rbgg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian Arnold Vogel The Law Offices of Brian A Vogel PC 770 County Square Drive Suite 104 Ventura, CA 93003 805−654−0400 Fax: 805−654−0326 Email: brian@bvogel.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest Galvan Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 50 Fremont Street 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: egalvan@rbgg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lance T Weber Human Rights Defense Center P O Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−360−2523 Fax: 866−735−7136 Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant County of Ventura

represented by Alan E Wisotsky Wisotsky Procter & Shyer 300 Esplanade Drive Suite 1500 Oxnard, CA 93036 805−278−0920 Fax: 805−278−0289 Email: awisotsky@wps−law.net

Case: 2:14-cv-773 As of: 11/19/2017 01:02 PM PST 2 of 12

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony Allen Zepeda Ventura County Counsel 800 South Victoria Avenue L C no. 1830 Ventura, CA 93009−1830 805−654−2652 Fax: 805−654−2185 Email: anthony.zepeda@ventura.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James N Procter , II Procter and Shyer LLP 300 Esplanade Drive Suite 1500 Oxnard, CA 93036 805−278−0920 Fax: 805−278−0289 Email: shellye@proctershyer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Held Wisotsky Procter & Shyer 300 Esplanade Drive Suite 1500 Oxnard, CA 93036 805−278−0920 Fax: 805−278−0289 Email: jheld@wps−law.net TERMINATED: 01/04/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Geoff Dean in their individual TERMINATED: 08/22/2014

represented by Alan E Wisotsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony Allen Zepeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James N Procter , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Held (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Geoff Dean official capacities

represented by Alan E Wisotsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anthony Allen Zepeda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-773 As of: 11/19/2017 01:02 PM PST 3 of 12

Defendant Gary Pentis in their individual TERMINATED: 08/22/2014
Defendant Gary Pentis official capacities TERMINATED: 08/22/2014
Defendant Linda Oksner individual TERMINATED: 08/22/2014
Defendant Linda Oksner official capacities TERMINATED: 08/22/2014

James N Procter , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Held (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan E Wisotsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James N Procter , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Held (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan E Wisotsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James N Procter , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Held (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan E Wisotsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James N Procter , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey Held (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan E Wisotsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-773 As of: 11/19/2017 01:02 PM PST 4 of 12

James N Procter , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Held (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Rick Barrios individual TERMINATED: 08/22/2014

represented by Alan E Wisotsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James N Procter , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Held (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Rick Barrios official capacities TERMINATED: 08/22/2014

represented by Alan E Wisotsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James N Procter , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey Held (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Does 1−10 in their individual

Defendant
Does 1−10 official capacities

Date Filed 01/31/2014
01/31/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Defendants Rick Barrios(individual), Rick Barrios(official capacities), County of Ventura, Geoff Dean(in their individual), Geoff Dean(official capacities), Does(1−10 official capacities), Does(1−10 in their individual), Linda Oksner(official capacities), Linda Oksner(individual), Gary Pentis(official capacities), Gary Pentis(in their individual). Case assigned to Judge George H. King for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F Eick. (Filing fee $ 400 PAID.) Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News.(et) (mg). (Entered: 02/04/2014)
2 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to Defendants Rick Barrios(individual), Rick Barrios(official capacities), County of Ventura, Geoff Dean(in their individual), Geoff Dean(official capacities), Linda Oksner(official capacities), Linda Oksner(individual), Gary Pentis(official capacities), Gary Pentis(in

Case: 2:14-cv-773 As of: 11/19/2017 01:02 PM PST 5 of 12

01/31/2014 02/04/2014
02/04/2014
02/05/2014 02/07/2014 02/07/2014 02/07/2014 02/07/2014 02/07/2014 02/10/2014

their individual). (et) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
3 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (et) (mg). (Entered: 02/04/2014)
4 NOTICE OF FILING FEE DUE on Pro Hac Vice Application mailed to attorney Lance Weber for Plaintiff Prison Legal News. Pro Hac Vice application has not been received by the court. Please return your completed Application of Non−Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case, form G−64, or a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing of your application and the $325.00 fee and this notice immediately. Out−of−state federal government attorneys who are not employed by the U.S. Department of Justice are required to file a Pro Hac Vice application;no filing fee is required. You have been removed as counsel of record from this case for failure to submit this filing fee. (et) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need immediate judicial review, please call 213−894−2485 to advise that a Preliminary Injunction has been electronically filed. Failure to call the courtroom deputy, or the after hours filing contact number, may result in a delay of judicial review. Motion filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. Motion set for hearing on 3/17/2014 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Declaration of Paul Wright in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 3 Exhibit A−G to Declaration of Paul Wright in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 4 Exhibit H−N to Declaration of Paul Wright in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 5 Declaration of John Clark in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 6 Declaration of Brian Vogel in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 7 Declaration of Steve C. Marshall in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 8 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction)(Galvan, Ernest) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
6 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News, upon Defendant County of Ventura served on 2/5/2014, answer due 2/26/2014. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Rochelle Beltran, front office at the Clerk of the Board in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by personal service. Original Summons NOT returned. (Vogel, Brian) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
7 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by plaintiff Prison Legal News. Waiver of Service signed by Jeffrey Held. (Vogel, Brian) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by plaintiff Prison Legal News. upon Geoff Dean(in their individual) waiver sent by Plaintiff on 2/5/2014, answer due 4/6/2014. Waiver of Service signed by Jeffrey Held. (Vogel, Brian) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by plaintiff Prison Legal News. upon Gary Pentis(official capacities) waiver sent by Plaintiff on 2/5/2014, answer due 4/6/2014. Waiver of Service signed by Jeffrey Held. (Vogel, Brian) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by plaintiff Prison Legal News. upon Linda Oksner(individual) waiver sent by Plaintiff on 2/5/2014, answer due 4/6/2014. Waiver of Service signed by Jeffrey Held. (Vogel, Brian) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by plaintiff Prison Legal News. upon Rick Barrios(individual) waiver sent by Plaintiff on 2/5/2014, answer due 4/6/2014. Waiver of Service signed by Jeffrey Held. (Vogel, Brian) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
12 ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT by Judge George H. King: This case has been assigned to the calendar of Chief Judge George H. King. The court fully adheres to Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that the Rules be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of

Case: 2:14-cv-773 As of: 11/19/2017 01:02 PM PST 6 of 12

02/11/2014 02/13/2014
02/14/2014 02/14/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/25/2014
02/25/2014 02/25/2014 02/27/2014 03/07/2014

every action and proceeding. (See order for details.) (kti) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
13 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to April 6, 2014 re Complaint − (Discovery),, 1 filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Vogel, Brian) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
14 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Response as to MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need im 5 , Joint STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction from March 17, 2014 to May 5, 2014 Re: MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need im 5 filed by plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Vogel, Brian) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
15 DECLARATION of Lucy Lennox In Support Of MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need im 5 filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Thompson, Blake) (Entered: 02/14/2014)
16 OF SERVICE filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News, re Declaration (Motion related), 15 served on 2/14/14. (Thompson, Blake) (Entered: 02/14/2014)
17 ORDER by Judge George H. King, re Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, Stipulation to Continue Motion for Preliminary Injunction 14 . The filing deadline for Defendants Opposition to the Motion for PreliminaryInjunction is March 31, 2014; the filing deadline for Plaintiffs Reply is April 21, 2014; and the hearing date for the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is extended to May 5, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. (shb) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
18 ORDER granting Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer (More than 30 days) 13 , Defendant County of Ventura answer due 4/6/2014 by Judge George H. King (shb) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
19 of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Rick Barrios(individual), Rick Barrios(official capacities), County of Ventura, Geoff Dean(in their individual), Geoff Dean(official capacities), Linda Oksner(official capacities), Linda Oksner(individual), Gary Pentis(official capacities), Gary Pentis(in their individual), identifying County of Ventura, Geoff Dean, Gary Pentis, Linda Oksner, Rick Barrios. (Attorney Jeffrey Held added to party Rick Barrios(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Held added to party Rick Barrios(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Held added to party County of Ventura(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Held added to party Geoff Dean(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Held added to party Geoff Dean(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Held added to party Linda Oksner(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Held added to party Linda Oksner(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Held added to party Gary Pentis(pty:dft), Attorney Jeffrey Held added to party Gary Pentis(pty:dft))(Held, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
20 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing Date of Preliminary Injunction Motion from May 5, 2014 to May 12, 2014 filed by Defendants Rick Barrios(individual), Rick Barrios(official capacities), County of Ventura, Geoff Dean(in their individual), Geoff Dean(official capacities), Linda Oksner(official capacities), Linda Oksner(individual), Gary Pentis(official capacities), Gary Pentis(in their individual). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Held, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
21 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re [Proposed] Order Continuing Hearing Date of Preliminary Injunction Motion re Stipulation to Continue, 20 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Held, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
22 ORDER by Judge George H. King, re Notice of Lodging 21 . The Hearing re Preliminary Injunction Motion is continued to May 12, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. (shb) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
23 DECLARATION of Kim Snowden In Support Of MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom

Case: 2:14-cv-773 As of: 11/19/2017 01:02 PM PST 7 of 12

03/31/2014
03/31/2014 04/03/2014 04/11/2014 04/18/2014 04/18/2014 04/21/2014

deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need im 5 filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Thompson, Blake) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
24 Opposition to Plaintiff's Preliminary Injunction Motion; Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declarations in Support Thereof Opposition re: MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need im 5 filed by Defendants Rick Barrios, Rick Barrios, County of Ventura, Geoff Dean, Geoff Dean, Linda Oksner, Linda Oksner, Gary Pentis, Gary Pentis. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21)(Held, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
25 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery),, 1 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendants Rick Barrios(individual), Rick Barrios(official capacities), County of Ventura, Geoff Dean(in their individual), Geoff Dean(official capacities), Linda Oksner(official capacities), Linda Oksner(individual), Gary Pentis(official capacities), Gary Pentis(in their individual).(Held, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
26 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge George H. King. Counsel shall read this order carefully and shall have available the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 in complying with this Order. I. THIS MATTER IS SET FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ON: MONDAY, JUNE 2, 2014 AT 1:30 P.M., at the Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 E. Temple Street, Suite 650, Los Angeles, California. Counsel primarily responsible for the conduct of this litigation and who has the authority to enter into stipulations and to make admissions regarding all matters that the participants may reasonably anticipate may be discussed, or the party if unrepresented, SHALL ATTEND IN PERSON. (See order for further details). (shb) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
27 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Answer to Complaint (Discovery), 25 . The following error(s) was found: Local Rule 7.1−1 No Certification of Interested Parties and or no copies. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (shb) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
28 REPLY in Support of MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need im 5 filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John L. Clark in Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Declaration of Paul Wright in Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 3 Declaration of Emilie Palazuelos in Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 4 Declaration of Kevin Jones in Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction)(Thompson, Blake) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
29 PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need im 5 filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Thompson, Blake) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
30 ORDER by Judge George H. King The document is accepted as filed. CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES FILED FEBRUARY 25, 2014. RE: Answer to Complaint (Discovery), 25 (shb) (Entered: 04/22/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-773 As of: 11/19/2017 01:02 PM PST 8 of 12

04/30/2014 05/02/2014 05/06/2014
05/06/2014 05/07/2014 05/09/2014 05/14/2014
05/14/2014 05/16/2014
05/16/2014

31 APPLICATION for attorney Lance Weber to Appear Pro Hac Vice(PHV Fee of $325 receipt number 0973−13742349 paid.) filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Vogel, Brian) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
32 ORDER by Judge George H. King: granting 31 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Lance T. Weber on behalf of Plaintiff, designating Brian A. Vogel as local counsel. (lt) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
33 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion; Declaration of Defense Counsel Appended re Objection/Opposition (Motion related),,, 24 filed by Defendants Rick Barrios(individual), Rick Barrios(official capacities), County of Ventura, Geoff Dean(in their individual), Geoff Dean(official capacities), Linda Oksner(official capacities), Linda Oksner(individual), Gary Pentis(official capacities), Gary Pentis(in their individual). (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion, # 2 Proposed Order re Supplemental Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion)(Held, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
34 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re [Proposed] Order re EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion; Declaration of Defense Counsel Appended re Objection/Opposition (Motion related),,, 24 33 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Held, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
35 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion; Declaration of Defense Counsel Appended re Objection/Opposition (Motion related),,, 24 33 filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Galvan, Ernest) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
36 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS ORDER Continuing Hearing on Plaintiffs Motion forPreliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 5] by Judge George H. King: On the Courts own motion, Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, currently set forhearing on May 12, 2014, is hereby CONTINUED to May 14, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. (shb) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
37 MINUTES OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 5 : Motion Hearing held before Judge George H. King: Defendants may file a supplemental opposition that addresses their newly asserted administrative burden argument by Friday, May 16, 2014. Plaintiff may file a written response to Defendants supplemental opposition by Friday, May 23, 2014. This matter will be taken under submission at that time. Court Reporter: Khowoonsun Chong. (shb) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
38 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Prison Legal News Prison Legal News Court Reporter. Court will contact Ernest Galvan at egalvan@rbgg.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Galvan, Ernest) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
39 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need im 5 , EX PARTE APPLICATION to Supplement Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion; Declaration of Defense Counsel Appended re Objection/Opposition (Motion related),,, 24 33 Supplemental Opposition to Preliminary Injunction Motion filed by Defendants Rick Barrios, Rick Barrios, County of Ventura, Geoff Dean, Geoff Dean, Linda Oksner, Linda Oksner, Gary Pentis, Gary Pentis. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Exhibit A)(Held, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
40 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendants Rick Barrios(individual), Rick Barrios(official capacities), County of Ventura, Geoff Dean(in their individual), Geoff Dean(official capacities), Linda Oksner(official capacities), Linda Oksner(individual), Gary Pentis(official capacities), Gary Pentis(in their individual) Court Reporter. Court will contact Kyle Robson at Krobson@wps−law.net with any questions regarding this order. Transcript portion requested: Pre−Trial Proceeding: 05/14/2014. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter/recorder. (Held, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/16/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-773 As of: 11/19/2017 01:02 PM PST 9 of 12

05/19/2014 05/20/2014 05/20/2014 05/23/2014 05/23/2014 05/29/2014
06/02/2014

41 REPORT of Parties' Planning Meeting filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Galvan, Ernest) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
42 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on May 14, 2014, at 9:03 A.M. Court Reporter: Khowoonsun Chong, CSR 12907, phone number 213−894−3507. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 6/10/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/20/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/18/2014. (kch) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
43 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on May 14, 2014, at 9:03 A.M. re Transcript 42 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (kch) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/20/2014)
44 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need im 5 filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John L. Clark in Support of Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Supplemental Opposition, # 2 Declaration of Ron McAndrew in Support of Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Supplemental Opposition, # 3 Declaration of Paul Wright in Support of Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Supplemental Opposition)(Galvan, Ernest) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
45 PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF TRACY AGUILAR re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need im 5 filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Galvan, Ernest) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
46 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER re: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No.5] by Judge George H. King: This matter is before us on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("Motion"). We have considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion and the Parties' arguments at the May 14 hearing. We have also considered Defendants' supplemental opposition and Plaintiff's response, which we granted the Parties leave to file after the May 14 hearing. [Dkt. No. 37]. As the Parties are familiar with the facts, we will repeat them only as necessary. Accordingly, we rule as follows: Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED in full. We exercise our discretion to waive the bond requirement in light of PLN's limited financial resources. See Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 F.3d.11113, 1126 (9th Cir.2004). Pending final resolution of this litigation, Defendant SHALL suspend enforcement of the postcard−only policy for incoming mail within 21 days hereof. Defendants SHALL forthwith give senders of rejected mail written notice and an opportunity to appeal the rejection decision, and SHALL not reject mail for containing "suggestive" content, Xeroxed material, or subscription order forms. Within 7 days hereof, PLN SHALL propose a suitable preliminary injunction incorporating this Order. Within 7 days thereafter, Defendant may file any objection as to the form of the proposed preliminary injunction. (bp) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
47 MINUTES OF (IN CHAMBERS) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND ORDER: Scheduling Conference held before Judge George H. King. We now enter the following scheduling order: Any stipulation or motion to amend as to any claims, defenses and/or parties shall be lodged/filed by no later than July 2, 2014, failing which it shall be deemed that partys waiver of any such amendments in thisaction. All discovery (fact and expert) shall be COMPLETED by no later than November 21, 2014. The parties shall designate their expert witnesses, and make the required disclosures, by no later than October 17, 2014, and do likewise for any rebuttal expert witnesses by no later than November 7, 2014. The parties shall comply with Local Rule 16−15 by no later than December 5, 2014. No motion for summary judgment may be filed without a joint certification by counsel that they have complied in good faith with Local Rule 16−15 as set forth above. Any motion for summary judgment shall be filed in compliance with the Local Rules, as well as our Order Re: Summary Judgment Motions issued concurrently herewith, by no later than January 16, 2015, and noticed for hearing thereafter regularly under the Local Rules. The court will set

Case: 2:14-cv-773 As of: 11/19/2017 01:02 PM PST 10 of 12

06/02/2014 06/05/2014 06/05/2014 06/16/2014
06/23/2014 06/26/2014 06/27/2014

pre−trial conference and trial dates, if necessary, after resolution of the summary judgment motion(s), if any. Failure by any party and/or counsel to strictly comply with the Federal and Local Rules, as well as our Orders, will result in the imposition of an appropriate sanction against the offending party/counsel. (See order for further details)Court Reporter: N/A. (shb) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
48 ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS by Judge George H. King. A deadline for dispositive motions has been set in the above−captioned case. Any motion(s) for summary judgment SHALL comply with all Federal and Local Rules, as well as this Order. Please be advised that this Order contains requirements more specificthan the Local and Federal Rules. (See order for details). (shb) (Entered: 06/04/2014)
49 NOTICE OF LODGING OF PROPOSED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction .. If this is filed during normal business hours, please contact the courtroom deputy assigned to the judge. If you are filing this document after 5:00 Monday through Friday, on a weekend or holiday, and need im 5 filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Galvan, Ernest) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
50 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. ( Settlement Conference set for 6/23/2014 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi.) (twdb) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
51 ORDER by Judge George H. King: GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. IT IS ORDERED that Defendant County of Ventura and individual Defendants, DEAN, PENTIS, OKSNER and BARRIOS and their successors, officers, agents, employees, and all others in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise SHALL suspend enforcement of the postcard−only policy for incoming mail no later than June 19,2014. Defendants shall not refuse to deliver correspondence sent to inmates at the County's jails on the ground that correspondence is not written on a postcard. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL not refuse to deliver correspondence, catalogs or subscription orders or other materials. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL NOT refuse to deliver correspondence to inmates at the Jail on the basis that the materials were Xeroxed, photocopied or printed from the internet. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL NOT refuse to deliver copies of publications from Plaintiff or other publishers on account of sexually "suggestive" content unless the publication contains actual nudity or graphic depictions of sexual acts. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall provide written notice an administrative appeal process to senders and inmates when Defendants refuse to deliver publications and correspondence to inmates at the County's jails. Within 30 days if the issuance of this order, the parties shall confer regarding the specific policy, procedure and forms for providing notice and an appeal process. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the bond requirement is waived. N person who has notice of this injunction shall fail to comply with it, nor shall any person subvert the injunction by any sham, indirection or other artifice. (shb) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
52 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. The settlement conference scheduled for June 23, 2014 at 10:00 A.M. was vacated on the Court's own motion, due to exigent circumstances, and shall be rescheduled at the earliest opportunity. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (lbe) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/23/2014)
53 SCHEDULING NOTICE by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. Settlement Conference has been rescheduled to 7/2/2014 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (lbe) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/26/2014)
54 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Defendants Rick Barrios(individual), Rick Barrios(official capacities), County of Ventura, Geoff Dean(in their individual), Geoff Dean(official capacities), Linda Oksner(official capacities), Linda Oksner(individual), Gary Pentis(official capacities), Gary Pentis(in their individual). Appeal of Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction,,,,, 46 , Order on Ex Parte

Case: 2:14-cv-773 As of: 11/19/2017 01:02 PM PST 11 of 12

06/27/2014 06/27/2014 07/02/2014 08/18/2014
08/18/2014 08/22/2014
08/27/2014 09/02/2014 09/04/2014

Application to Supplement,,,,,,, 51 (Appeal fee FEE NOT PAID.) (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Minute Order of 5.29.14, # 2 Appendix Order 6.16.14)(Held, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
55 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 14−56029, 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 54 . (dmap) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
56 FILING FEE LETTER issued as to Defendants Rick Barrios, Rick Barrios, County of Ventura, Geoff Dean, Geoff Dean, Linda Oksner, Linda Oksner, Gary Pentis, Gary Pentis, re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 54 . (dmap) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
57 MINUTES OF Order Regarding Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: The matter was resolved pursuant to a written settlement agreement and an accompanying proposed stipulated permanent injunction. The parties shall effectuate dismissal of this action forthwith. Court Recorder: CS 7/2/14. (mt) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
58 STIPULATION to Dismiss Defendants Geoff Dean(in their individual), Linda Oksner(official capacities), Gary Pentis(official capacities), Rick Barrios(individual), Gary Pentis(in their individual), Rick Barrios(official capacities), Linda Oksner(individual) filed by Defendants Geoff Dean(in their individual), Linda Oksner(official capacities), Geoff Dean(official capacities), Gary Pentis(official capacities), Rick Barrios(individual), Gary Pentis(in their individual), Rick Barrios(official capacities), Linda Oksner(individual), County of Ventura. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Held, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
59 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re [Proposed] Order for Partial Prejudicial Dismissal re Individual Defendants re Stipulation to Dismiss Party,, 58 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Held, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
60 ORDER by Judge George H. King, GRANTING Stipulation for Partial Prejudicial Dismissal re Individual Defendants 58 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:1. All named and fictitious defendants are hereby dismissed with prejudiceas to any state or federal cause of action in any state or federal court, including any claim for legal and/or equitable relief, except as otherwise provided herein. 2. These named defendants being dismissed with prejudice are Geoff Dean, in his individual capacity only, Gary Pentis, Rick Barrios, and Linda Oksner, in their personal, individual and official capacities.3. Each side is to fully and permanently bear all of its and their own past,present, and future attorneys fees and ordinary and expert costs, with the single exception of future fees and costs relating to monitoring, more clearly described in the order approving the stipulated permanent injunction.4. The only remaining proper defendants are and will be the County ofVentura and the current sheriff of the Ventura County Sheriffs Office, but only in his or her official capacity. 5. The dismissal with prejudice of the individual defendants in all capacities was an integrally negotiated aspect of the settlement reached with the assistance of Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi during the negotiations conducted in federal court on July 2, 2014.6. The Court retains jurisdiction pursuant to the terms of the StipulatedPermanent Injunction which will be issued forthwith. (shb) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
61 STIPULATION for Permanent Injunction filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News.(Vogel, Brian) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
62 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 54 filed by Geoff Dean, Rick Barrios, Linda Oksner, Gary Pentis, County of Ventura, CCA # 14−56029. This appeal is dismissed. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). This order served on the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court. Order received in this district on 9/2/2014. (dmap) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
63 PERMANENT INJUNCTION filed by Judge George H. King. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Sheriff of Ventura County (the Sheriff), and Defendant County of Ventura (the County) and their successors, officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all others in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise (hereinafter referred to collectively as Defendants), SHALL NOT refuse to deliver correspondence to or from inmates at the Countys jails on the ground that correspondence is not written on a

Case: 2:14-cv-773 As of: 11/19/2017 01:02 PM PST 12 of 12

09/28/2015 12/30/2015 01/04/2016

postcard. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL implement and abide by the policy for incoming mail (attached hereto as Exhibit B) within thirty (30) days of the date of the entry of this ORDER. Ventura County Sheriffs Office, Detention Services Division, SHALL conduct a four (4) hour training block in order to adequately familiarize all mailroom staff persons with the provisions of the attached mail policy and will thereafter conduct two (2) hour annual legal updates. Defendants SHALL NOT refuse to deliver correspondence, catalogs or subscription order forms to inmates at the Jail on the basis that inmates cannot order subscriptions or other reading materials. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the monitoring and compliance procedures described herein shall continue until this Permanent Injunction is terminated. During the pendency of this Injunction, Plaintiff shall not file new actions in this Court or in any other Federal orState Court against Defendants, including those who have been dismissed,concerning any matter prohibited or mandated by the provisions of this injunction. Defendants shall file a motion to terminate this Order no earlier than July 31, 2017, upon demonstration of substantial compliance with the terms of this Order within the calendar year preceding the filing of the motion and shall notify Plaintiff, in writing, of their intent to do so no laterthan thirty (30) days prior to filing any such motion. This procedure will be deemed to have satisfied Central District Local Rule 7−3. (See order for further details). (MD JS−6. Case Terminated) (shb) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
64 NOTICE of Change of address by Blake Thompson attorney for Plaintiff Prison Legal News. Changing attorneys address to 50 Fremont St, 19th Floor, San Francisco CA 94105. Filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Thompson, Blake) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
65 REQUEST TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY Anthony A. Zepeda in place of attorney Jeffrey Held filed by defendants County of Ventura, Geoff Dean(in their individual), Geoff Dean(official capacities). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Attorney Anthony Allen Zepeda added to party County of Ventura(pty:dft), Attorney Anthony Allen Zepeda added to party Geoff Dean(pty:dft), Attorney Anthony Allen Zepeda added to party Geoff Dean(pty:dft)) (Zepeda, Anthony) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
66 ORDER ON REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY by Judge George H. King: granting 65 Request to Substitute Attorney: The Court hereby orders that the request of: County of Ventura, Geoff Dean, Defendant, to substitute Anthony A. Zepeda, who is Retained Counsel, as attorney of record instead of Lisa Shyer and Jeffrey Held. (bm) (Entered: 01/05/2016)