1

2

L .&7RiCT OF

3

RECEIVED

4
SEP I 8 2000
5

6

lUatK, U £ . DISTRICT COURT

7 jtiY.

8

CO

Prison Legal News v. Crawford

9

CO

10
PC-NV-007-001 11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14

15

16 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a Washington State Corporation,
17 and ROLLIN WRIGHT,
18
Plaintiffs,
19

20

v.

CASE NO. CV-N-00-0373-HDM-RAM

21 JACKIE CRAWFORD in her official capacity, JOHN SLANSKY, in his
22 official and individual capacities, 23 ROBERT BAYER, in his
official and individual capacities, 24 DOES I-XXV, Defendant RED 25 AND WHITE CORPORATIONS
I-X, and BLACK AND BLUE STATE 26 and/or MUNICIPAL ENTITIES I-X,
27
Defendants.
28

STIPULATION AND JUDGMENT/ORDER

A

1

STIPULATION

2

3

The parties, by their undersigned counsel of record, stipulate and agree that the

4
following judgment shall be entered by the Court. 5

6

DATED): This / > / day of ^ 9y t*~—^i

2000.

7

8

9 DONALD YORK EVANS, ESQ. -Bar No. 1070

/FRANKIE SUE DEL PA£A, ESQ. ^Attorney General 1/

10 P.O. Box 864

JOE WARD, JR., ESQ.

Reno,NV 89504 11 (775) 348-7400

Senior Deputy Attorney General Litigation Division

12

100 N. Carson Street

DAVID C. FATHI, ESQ. 13 National Prison Project of the

Carson City, NV 89701-4717 (775)684-1249

14

ACLU Foundation

1875 Connecticut Ave. NW #410 15 Washington, DC 20009

Attorneys for Defendants, JACKIE CRAWFORD, JOHN SLANSKY and

16 (202) 234-4830

ROBERT BAYER

Practice Limited to the Federal Courts

17

18 Attorneys For Plaintiffs, PRISON LEGAL NEWS and ROLLIN WRIGHT
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

JUDGMENT

2

This matter having come before the Court, and the parties having stipulated to the

3 entry of this Judgment, IT IS ORDERED:
4 1. Defendants CRAWFORD and SLANSKY, and their officers, agents,

6 servants, employees, and successors in office, shall implement and maintain the following

7 policy regarding prisoner subscription to publications:

8

POLICY

9
Prisoners in the custody of the Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP) shall
10 be permitted to subscribe to the publications of their choice, and shall receive all
11

issues of those publications without interference, except as provided below.

13

Wardens may designate staff to screen and, where appropriate, approve incoming

14

publications, but only a Warden may reject a publication. Wardens are authorized to

reject a publication only if it is determined, after reasonable consideration, to be
16 detrimental to the safety, security, good order, or discipline of the institution or if it
17 might facilitate criminal activity. The following is a non-exhaustive list of criteria
18

19

that may support rejection of a publication:

20

1. Content depicts or describes procedures for the construction or use of

weapons, ammunition, bombs or incendiary devices;

22
2. Content depicts, encourages, or describes methods of escape from
23
correctional facilities, or contains blueprints, drawings or similar descriptions 24

22

of prison institutions;

26

3. Content depicts or describes procedures for the brewing of alcoholic

27

beverages, or the manufacture of drugs;

28 4. Content is written in code;

1
2
3 4 5
6 i 7
8
9 10 11 12
13 14

16 17 18
19 20
21
22 23 24 -s 26
27

28

//

5. Content describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption; 6. Content encourages or instructs in the commission of criminal activity;
7. Content is sexually explicit material which by its nature or content poses a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution, or facilitates criminal activity. All publications mailed to NDOP prisoners shall be reviewed according to the same criteria. There shall be no separate category of "inmate publications" or "inmate newsletters." No publication shall be excluded in perpetuity. Each issue of a publication must be individually reviewed under the criteria set forth in this policy. In the event a Warden rejects an issue of a publication, he or she must advise the subscribing inmate promptly in writing of the reasons for the rejection and send a copy of such rejection memorandum to the publisher. The rejection memorandum must refer to the specific article(s) or material(s) considered objectionable. The rejection memorandum must also advise the publisher that he or she may obtain an independent review of the rejection by the Director of the Nevada Department of Prisons by requesting it within 20 days (plus 3 for mailing) of the date the rejection memorandum is mailed to the publisher. The subscribing inmate may grieve the
rejection through the prison's administrative grievance process. The grieving inmate is not provided the rejected material. However, he or she may review it unless such review may provide the inmate with information of a nature which is deemed to pose

1

a threat or detriment to the security, good order or discipline of the institution or to

2

encourage or instruct in criminal activity.

3 A Warden may not reject an issue of a publication solely because its content
4 is religious, philosophical, political, social, or sexual, or because its content is
5

unpopular, repugnant, or disagreed with by the Warden.

7

2. Defendants CRAWFORD and SLANSKY, and their officers, agents,

8 servants, employees, and successors in office, shall not implement or enforce any policy or
Q
practice that is inconsistent with the requirements of f 1 above.
10
3. No later than thirty (30) days after entry of this Judgment, Defendants
11
CRAWFORD and SLANSKY, and their officers, agents, servants, and employees, shall

13 cause to be posted in all law libraries within the NDOP system a notice stating that Prison

14 Legal News is no longer a banned publication, and that NDOP prisoners may subscribe to

Prison Legal News. The notice shall also include subscription information, including Prison
16 Legal News' mailing address. The notices shall remain posted for at least sixty (60) days.
17 The parties shall attempt to reach agreement on the form of the notice. If the parties are
18
•jg unable to agree, the Court will determine the form of the notice.

20

4. Promptly after entry of this Judgment, no later than September 30, 2000,

21 Defendants CRAWFORD, SLANSKY and BAYER shall pay to Plaintiffs PRISON LEGAL
22 NEWS and ROLLIN WRIGHT damages in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars
23
($5,000.00):
24

^

5. In exchange for this payment, Plaintiffs PRISON LEGAL NEWS and

26 ROLLIN WRIGHT will execute in favor of Defendants CRAWFORD, SLANSKY and 2 7 BAYER a release of all of their damage claims accrued as of September 12, 2000 arising out 2 8 of the Defendants' censorship of PRISON LEGAL NEWS.

1

6. For each NDOP prisoner whose subscription to Prison Legal News was

2 interrupted as a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs PRISON LEGAL NEWS and
3
ROLLIN WRIGHT will provide a one year set of back issues of Prison Legal News, and will 4
extend the prisoner's subscription to Prison Legal News by one year.

7. Within 45 days from this date, the Plaintiffs shall file with the Court their

7 application for attorneys' fees and costs with supporting documents. The Defendants shall 8 have 30 days thereafter to respond, and the Plaintiffs 15 days thereafter to reply to

Defendants' Response. 10
8. The parties stipulate, and the Court based upon the entire record finds, that
11
the relief granted by this order is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to

13 correct the violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and is the least intrusive means 1 4 necessary to correct the violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

9. In order to allow the relief granted by this order to be fully implemented, the

16

parties agree not to seek to modify or terminate or otherwise challenge this order for a period

17

of five (5) years.

18

19

10. The Court shall have the power to enforce this order upon appropriate

20 motion.

J

21

DATED this a 3-'-day of <$-?&<+£+_

22

, 2000.

23

24

HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 27 28

V.
defendants.

C^eNo.:00-C-42l-(
443-

pauperis on their claim that they did not have access to Muslim programming in violation of the First Amendment is DENIED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for their failure to exhaust their administrative remedies.
3. The request of plaintiff Dennis Jones'el for leave to proceed m forma pauperis on his access to the courts claims against defendants Sharpe, Muraski, Hautamaki and McCaughtry and his Eighth Amendment claim of inadequate shoes, socks and underwear is DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for his failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

4. The request of plaintiff Dennis Jones'el for leave to proceed |n forma pauperis on his claims of conditions of confinement at Waupun Correctional Institution, inadequate medical treatment at Waupun and Supermax; denial of privacy at Supermax; denial of visitors claim at Waupun; loss of privileges while in segregation at Waupun; and any remaining claims against defendants Laura Harding, David Hautamaki, Gary McCaughtry and Bruce Muraski is DENIED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

5. The attached settlement agreement (Exhibit A) is approved by the court with the court's definition of serious mental illness (Exhibit B) and the court-ordered procedures for implementing the definition (Exhibit C) on the finding that the prospective relief approved in the parties' settlement agreement and fleshed out in the order entered herein on April 15,2002 and in the order of June 21,2002, is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the federal rights at stake and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the federal rights.

Approved as to form this

day of June, 2002

BARBARA B. CRABB U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Judgment is hereby entered.
of Court

JUN 2 4 2002
Date

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

DENNIS JONES'EL, MICHA'EL JOHNSON, DE'ONDRE CONQUEST, LUIS NIEVES, SCOTT SEAL, ALEX FIGUEROA, ROBERT SALLIE, CHAD GOETSCH, EDWARD PISCITELLO, QUINTIN L'MINGGIO, LORENZO BALLI, DONALD BROWN, CHRISTOPHER SCARVER, BENJAMIN BIESE, LASHAWN LOGAN, JASON PAGLIARINI, and ANDREW COLLETTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

DOCKET
.J**8* we»r WSTWWSCONSIW
JAN 2 4 2002
FiiBD/RECEtvsD ^0WHW.8KUPNieWR.CLaw NUNftla

Plaintiffs,

CaseNo.00-C-421-C v.

JON LITSCHER, in his official capacity; GERALD BERGE, in his official and individual capacities; and DOES 1-100, in their official and individual capacities,

Defendants.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
INTRODUCTION:
Counsel for the Class of Plaintiffs in the Boscobel prison known as Supermax, were appointed by Federal Judge Barbara Crabb on October 10, 2000. The Department of Justice represented the Department of Corrections. Hundreds of pages of briefs and documents have been filed, expert opinions have come forward and discovery is underway. On October 11, 2001, the Court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the
Exhibit A

housing of seriously mentally ill prisoners at SMCI. Negotiations began in October to
determine if the Parties could reach an amicable settlement. After more than 8 sessions,
the Parties have reached this Settlement Agreement ("Agreement"), subject to the
approval of the Court. Portions of the Agreement have already been implemented.
ARTICLEl: DEFINITIONS
1.1 "the Court" means the United States District Court to which this case is assigned.
1.2 "Defendants" means WDOC Secretary Jon Litscher, SMCI Warden Gerald Berge, their successors in office, subordinates, agents, contractors, and attorneys.
1.3 "Electronic control device" means any device that delivers an electric shock, including but not limited to the Ultron II stun gun, stun shield, and Air taser.
1.4 "Ultron II stun gun" is a hand held electronic control device which is applied directly to the inmate's body while held by the approved officer.
1.5 "Stun Shield" is an electronic control device consisting of a plastic shield equipped with an electrical device.
1.6 "Air Taser" is an electronic control device which employs attached projectiles which deliver the electronic charge to the inmate from a distance.
1.7 "SMCI" means the prison currently known as the Supermax Correctional Institution, located in Boscobel, Wisconsin.
1.8 "Serious Mental Illness" shall be defined by the Court.
1.9 "DOC" means the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, its subdivisions,
agents, employees, contractors, and attorneys.
1.10 "Warden" means the Warden of SMCI or his/her designee.
ARTICLE II: POPULATION
2.1 All inmates transferred to SMCI will come in a specified segregation
status. Implicit in such status is that each inmate who comes to the institution will have
had the required due process to lawfully place him in that status.

ARTICLE III: MONITOR 3.1 This Agreement became a reality when the Parties agreed to have a Court
approved Monitor who understands the needs of the DOC as well as the rights of inmates. The Parties have agreed to appoint a monitor who will be the intermediary between DOC and counsel for Plaintiffs, review complaints from inmates, visit the prison and have access to records at SMCI, staff and inmates when he/she deems it appropriate.
3.2 The Monitor may provide information deemed appropriate and necessary for the enforcement of this Agreement and Court approved settlement to Plaintiffs' counsel.
3.3 Plaintiffs' counsel shall retain the lawyer-client relationship as set forth in Judge Crabb's order and will retain the right to meet with inmates and review their files.
3.4 The Monitor shall report to the Court on the implementation of the Court's order and the Settlement Agreement on an annual basis or whenever he/she feels it is imperative to do so. The Monitor's initial appointment shall be for two years with the possibility of extending the appointment for up to two additional years at the discretion of the Court.
3.5 The Parties have agreed that Attorney Steve Hurley will serve as the Monitor. In the event that it shall become necessary to select a replacement for Attorney Hurley, Walter Dickey and Ken Morgan shall select from a pool of candidates acceptable to both parties.
3.6 Counsel for the Parties have agreed that the settlement documents should be brief, flexible and consistent with the spirit of the goal of managing a prison within constitutional limits. The Monitor, order approving this Agreement, and continuing

jurisdiction of the Court are the substitute for excruciating detail otherwise necessary in a Court Order and Agreement.
3.7 Counsel for Plaintiffs shall have a continuing responsibility regarding the implementation of this Agreement. Reasonable attorney fees, expert fees, and costs at market rates shall be provided for such purpose. The Monitor shall determine any dispute over fees. Counsel shall have access to the prison, records, inmates and staff, through the Monitor, during the term of this Agreement. The Monitor's decisions are final unless appealed to the Court.
3.8 The Monitor's role shall extend no further than is necessary to enforce the terms of this Agreement. ARTICLE IV: NAME & SPECIFICATIONS
4.1 The Building Commission shall determine the name of the prison. One possible name is Sand Prairie Correctional Institute (SPCI) but there is agreement that the institution shall not be known in any future literature of the DOC as a so-called "Supermax" prison.
4.2 The goal is to utilize programming and a reward system to prepare inmates to progress to level five in order to transition to another less restrictive institution or to society. SMCI shall not be identified by DOC as housing the "worst of the worst."
4.3 All inmates, whether or not in the level program, shall have at least the same rights and privileges that prisoners in other maximum-security prisons in Wisconsin have in Program or Administrative segregation
4.4 Prisoners assigned to SMCI shall be on Program Segregation status, i.e., a maximum of 365 days of segregation, or Administrative Confinement. No prisoners will

be assigned to SMCI for Adjustment segregation. 4.5 If a prisoner is required to serve Adjustment Segregation while at the
Institution, he shall be given a due process hearing and shall not be in that status for more than eight (8) days.
4.6 No seriously mentally ill prisoners will be sent to SMCI nor will seriously mentally ill prisoners at the facility be permitted to remain there. The Court will be asked to define serious mental illness.
4.7 No prisoners in protective custody status will be assigned to SMCI. ARTICLE V: ENTRY LEVEL
5.1 Under current DOC rules, every prisoner who enters SMCI is automatically assigned to Level 1. While that will be the norm, an entering inmate could move directly to a different level based on the decision of the Warden under existing DOC rules.
5.2 Those placed in Level 1 will stay no longer than seven days with the following exceptions:
5.2.1 The Warden, for cause, may permit an extension of the stay in which case the inmate may be housed in Level 1 for no longer than an additional 7 days.
5.2.2 The Monitor will be notified of any instance in which the warden deems it necessary to extend an inmate's stay in Level 1 beyond a total of 14 days. No inmate will be held in Level 1 for longer than 14 days unless he has received and been found guilty of a major conduct report or multiple minor conduct reports while in Level 1.

5.3 Prisoners, following observation, may be assigned to Level 2 or Level 3. The normal stay at Level 2 shall be 60 days.
5.4 It is the goal of the Parties that the vast majority of inmates shall be on Levels 3, 4, or 5. ARTICLE VI: LEVEL PROGRAM
6.1 The policy handbook for SMCI shall be approved by the Monitor insofar as current policies are altered by this Agreement.
6.2 The Monitor shall be asked to review the policy handbook and make certain that the rules for progressing through the level system are consistent with the Agreement, the Court's order, and the constitutional rights of the inmates. The rules shall be explained to the inmates. ARTICLE VII: EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL
7.1 Additional reading material will be provided for those on Level 1 and they will have video programs.
7.2 All prisoners above Level 1 shall have television and additional program material.
7.3 Out of cell educational programming shall be expanded for Levels 4 and 5. ARTICLE VIII: OUT OF CELL ACTIVITY
8.1 Level 1. Inmates shall receive not less than 5 hours out of cell per week which may be used for exercise. Visits shall not count against that time.
8.2 Level 2. Inmates shall receive not less than 5 hours out of cell per week which may be used for exercise. Visits shall not count against that time.

8.3 Level 3: Inmates shall receive not less than 5 hours out of cell per week which may be used for exercise. Visits shall not count against that time.
8.4 Level 4 & 5: Inmates shall receive not less than 10 hours out of cell per week, at least five of which may be used for exercise. Congregate activity will be encouraged. Educational activities, jobs, and day room activities may be allowed at the discretion of the Warden in addition to the allotted 10 hours.
8.5 Outdoor Exercise Area: By April 1, 2002, or as soon thereafter as possible, there will be an outdoor recreation area available to all inmates on Levels 3, 4 and 5. The prisoner's preference for indoor or outdoor exercise shall be considered.
8.6 The indoor recreation areas shall be heated. The goal is 68 degrees. Proper ventilation or fans will be utilized in summer. ARTICLE IX: LIGHTS
9.1 Night-lights shall be reduced by at least 60% with the replacement of current bulbs with 5-watt bulbs or less.
9.2 Inmates shall be permitted to cover their eyes so long as some facial skin is exposed for inspection purposes. ARTICLE X: CANTEEN PRIVILEGES
10.1 It is recognized that there are minor variances throughout the system in Wisconsin but it is agreed that canteen privileges in SMCI shall be approximately the same as in other maximum-security prisons. ARTICLE XI: VISITS
11.1 Prisoners at Levels 4 & 5 shall have the right to face-to-face non-contact visits. DOC will determine if this privilege can be extended to Level 3.

11.2 Visits by video shall be made available at least from Milwaukee and Racine as soon as practicable. ARTICLE XII: RESTRAINTS
12.1 Prisoners on Level 4 shall move toward no restraints. It is understood that those entering Level 4 may require a transition from Level 3 to Level 4 before having restraints removed.
12.2 Those on Level 5 will not normally have restraints and those on Level 4 will not normally have restraints following the transition period.
12.3 No prisoner may be held in the so-called 5-point restraint absent specific permission from medical staff and the Warden.
12.4 The air taser shall not be used in cell. 12.5 Electronic control devices shall not be used on prisoners who are taking anti-psychotic medications or anti-depressant medications. ARTICLE XIII: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES Dental and health issues: 13.1 The defendants shall develop and implement a written policy to provide for dental emergencies which may arise when the institution dentist is not present or available to report to the institution. 13.2 The defendants shall make every effort to ensure that the contracted providers maintain the dental staff at the levels set forth in the current contract with the dental provider and shall make every effort to fill any vacancies as quickly as is reasonably possible.

13.3 The defendants shall develop and implement a system of making medical entries and maintaining inmate medical records.
13.4 Inmates entering SMCI shall receive an initial health screening which shall include a complete review of essential medications.
13.5 Medical staff members shall only undertake tasks which are consistent with their level of credentials and training.
13.6 Consistent with security policy, inmates shall be permitted to request that any discussions involving confidential medical information be conducted in a private setting.
13.7 The defendants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the contracted providers are providing medical care that is consistent with standards set forth in the contract with the contracted provider.
13.8 Confidential medical records shall only be reviewed by persons with the appropriate status or position.
Religious Articles. 13.9 In accordance with the DOC IMP covering religious articles, inmates shall normally be permitted to possess the following items:
13.9.1 Protestant inmates-Bible on all levels-other books/literature depending on level
13.9.2 Muslim inmates-black kufi - 24 x ^ 0 prayer rugQur'an on all levels — other books/literature depending on level
13.9.3 Jewish inmates-Torah (Bible)-Talith (pocket size) on all levelsother books/literature depending on level
13.9.4 Catholic inmates- Bible — plastic, black rosary on all levels - other books/literature depending on level

13.9.5 Native American inmates-one braid of sweet grass (app. 2 inches long) -religious text on all levels - other books/literature depending on level
13.9.6 Wiccan inmates-religious text on all levels- other books/literature depending on level
13.9.7 Buddhist inmates - religious text on all levels - other books/literature depending on level
13.10 Food shall not be used as punishment. 13.11 Cell temperatures: The goal shall range between 68 and 72 degrees during the winter, spring and fall. Inmates requesting additional warmth will be given extra blankets and a long-sleeve underwear top. 13.12 The goal for cell temperatures in summer shall be 80-84 degrees. DOC will investigate and implement as practical a means of cooling the cells during summer heat waves. 13.13 No additional video cameras will be installed. 13.14 Showers: Prisoners shall be allowed no fewer than three showers per week 13.15 Shutters to the cell vestibule will be open in Alpha unit. Shutters in Alpha unit shall open to the hallway. 13.16 Calendar clocks shall be, installed in all cells and kept on time and in good working order by DOC. 13.17 Phone privileges for inmates shall be available at all levels arid will be comparable to other maximum-security facilities. The number of minutes per level shall be at least:
Level 1: one 10 - minute call per month Level 2: two 10- minute calls per month
10

Level 3: three 10 - minute calls per month Level 4: four 15 - minute calls per month Level 5: five 15 - minute calls per month ARTICLE XIV: FEES & COSTS 14.1 Counsel for Plaintiffs and their expert witnesses shall be paid reasonable attorneys and expert fees and costs at market rates for time and expenses in connection with this suit including work leading up to the Agreement and securing its final approval from the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). 14.2 Defendants shall be responsible for the fees and reasonable costs of the Monitor and his agents, and for future reasonable attorney and expert fees and costs at market rates for counsel for plaintiffs to oversee the Court approved Settlement. It is understood that Judge Crabb shall retain jurisdiction. ARTICLE XV: PLRA COMPLIANCE AND COURT JURISDICTION 15.1 It is understood and agreed by the parties that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Agreement. 15.2 The parties stipulate, based on the entire record, that the relief granted by this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the alleged violations of plaintiffs' federal rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the alleged violations of plaintiffs' federal rights. 15.3 In order to allow for proper implementation of this Agreement, the parties agree not to seek to modify or terminate or otherwise challenge this Agreement, or any order approving or implementing this agreement, for a period of five years from the date the Court finally approves this Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
11

15.4 The settlement of this matter" does not constitute, and should not be construed as an admission or indication of liability on the part of the defendants and shall not be relied upon as precedent in any future claims.
15.5 The Parties agree that the relief granted by this Agreement is consistent with all requirements of Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). ARTICLE XVI: DAMAGES
16.1 The Defendants agree to pay $3,500 each to the original Plaintiffs, Dennis Jones'el and Micha'el Johnson. It is understood by the attorneys for the parties that this provision is subject to approval by Plaintiffs Jones cel and Johnson.
Dated:

Stan Davis, for and on behalf of The Department of Corrections

Ed Garvey, for and on bel/alf of Plaintiffs

12

Dated: 3 ~
Dennis Jones'el as an individual Plaintiff Dated:
idia'el Johnson as an individual Plaintiff
13

EXHIBIT B DEFINITION OF SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS
IT IS ORDERED that 1. In assessing the mental health of any inmate identified for screening in this court's order of October 10,2001, any inmate proposed for transfer or return to Supermax and any inmate confined at Supermax whose mental health is in question, defendants are to apply the following definition in determining whether an inmate suffers from a serious mental illness: a. Inmates found to have current symptoms or who are currently receiving treatment for the following types of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM-IV) Axis I diagnosis:
(1) Schizophrenia (all sub-types) (2) Delusional Disorder (3) Schizophreniform Disorder (4) Schizoaffective Disorder (5) Brief Psychotic Disorder (6) Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder (excluding intoxication and
withdrawal) (7) Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified

(8) Major Depressive Disorders (9) Bipolar Disorder I and II; b. Inmates diagnosed with a mental disorder that includes being actively suicidal; c. Inmates diagnosed with a serious mental illness that is frequently characterized either by breaks with reality or by perceptions of reality that lead the individual to significant functional impairment; d. Inmates diagnosed with an organic brain syndrome that results in a significant functional impairment if not treated; e. Inmates diagnosed with a severe personality disorder that is manifested by frequent episodes of psychosis or depression and results in significant functional impairment; or f. Inmates diagnosed with any other serious mental illness or disorder that is worsened by confinement at Supermax.

EXHIBIT C COURT-ORDERED PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND ORDER OF APRIL 15, 2002
IT IS ORDERED that defendants are not to return to Supermax any inmate that has been removed from Supermax because he was diagnosed as seriously mental ill but who defendants believe is sufficiently recovered to be able to withstand incarceration at Supermax unless they proceed as follows:
1. If defendants intend to return to Supermax an inmate that has been diagnosed as seriously mentally ill in the past, they must give plaintiffs' counsel notice not less than ten (10) days before the planned transfer and, if the transfer is disputed, must stay the transfer until the dispute has been resolved.
2. If plaintiffs' counsel believe that returning the inmate to Supermax would be a violation of the consent decree, they may ask the monitor to hire an independent expert to evaluate the inmate.
3. If the independent expert disagrees with defendants' evaluation of the inmate's ability to return to Supermax and if defendants do not rescind their decision to transfer the inmate, the parties will convene a special panel of three persons to hear and decide the matter. Each side will choose one member of the panel; the two

named members will choose a third.
FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED that in order to insure that retaining a seriously mentally ill inmate at Supermax or transferring him there remains an extraordinary event, defendants will be required to observe the following requirements:
1. No seriously mentally ill inmate (as defined in the April 15, 2002 order) shall be incarcerated at Supermax or transferred there without notice to plaintiffs' counsel.
(a) If defendants wish to transfer a seriously mentally ill inmate to Supermax, they must provide plaintiffs' counsel at least ten (10) days' advance notice and must stay any transfer pending resolution of any objections plaintiffs' counsel raise to the proposed transfer.
(b) If defendants wish to retain a seriously mentally ill inmate at Supermax, they must advise plaintiffs' counsel of their intention promptly.
2. No seriously mentally ill inmate is to be transferred to Supermax unless defendants can
(a) Document his dangerousness;

(b) List all of the potential alternative placements, both in Wisconsin and outside the state, that defendants have considered and explain why none of them is feasible; and
(c) Identify the additional services that will be provided to the inmate to help him with his serious mental illness and to ameliorate the effect the conditions at Supermax have on that illness.
3. If plaintiffs' counsel finds the report insufficient to justify retention or transfer of the inmate to Supermax, they may ask the monitor to retain an independent expert to conduct his or her own evaluation of the need to place the inmate at Supermax.
4. If, after the independent expert has made his or her own evaluation of the justification for incarceration of the inmate, the parties are unable to agree on the proper placement, they may convene a panel of three to resolve the matter. As described above, each party shall select one member of the panel; those two will select the third member.

J
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

DENNIS JONES'EL, MICHA'EL JOHNSON, DE'ONDRE CONQUEST, LUIS NIEVES, SCOTT SEAL, ALEX FIGUERO, ROBERT SALLIE, CHAD GOETSCH, EDWARD PISCITELLO, QUINTIN L'MINGGIO, LORENZO BALLI, DONALD BROWN, CHRISTOPHER SCARVER, BENJAMIN BIESE, LASHAWN LOGAN, JASON PAGLIARINE, and ANDREW COLLETTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GERALD BERGE and JON LITSCHER,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
00-C-0421-C

In an order entered in this case on April 15, 2002,1 set out the definition of serious mental illness that will govern the placement and retention of inmates at Wisconsin's Supermax prison. In the same order, I stated that weight must be given to the possibility that from time to time there might be a seriously mentally ill inmate who is such a danger

A copy of this document has been mailed to the following:
d • of June, 2002 by
J.M. Dye, Secretary to Judge Crabb

to others that incarceration at Supermax is the only responsible form of confinement. I asked defendants' counsel to propose a procedure that would govern such incarceration, gave plaintiffs' counsel an opportunity to review the proposal and respond to it and scheduled a hearing on the matter for June 19, 2002.
Defendants did not propose a mechanism but simply identified those circumstances in which a seriously mentally ill inmate could be transferred to Supermax. In addition, defendants moved for clarification of the court's definition of serious mental illness, as set out in the April 15 order. The June 19 hearing addressed both matters. Plaintiffs appeared by Ed Garvey, David Fathi, Micabil Diaz and Pamela McGillivray. Defendants appeared by James McCambridge, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Wisconsin.
A Motion for Clarification Defendants' motion for clarification of the definition of serious mental illness has two parts: clarification of the "catch-all" provision of the definition and clarification of the circumstances in which an inmate that has been diagnosed with mental illness may be returned to Supermax. I found it unnecessary to add any language to the catch-all provision, (U l(f)) ("Inmates diagnosed with any other serious mental illness or disorder that is worsened by confinement in Supermax"). As plaintiffs argued, it is implicit in the definition that clinicians must use their discretion to determine the inmates to which this category

would apply. Defendants did not suggest any reason why a clinician would be unable to make such a determination.
As to the circumstances in which a recovered inmate may be returned to Supermax, plaintiffs are understandably concerned that defendants will return inmates to Supermax once their serious mental illnesses have been treated and they appear to be mentally stable, only to have their mental illnesses flare up or return under the harsh conditions of Supermax. I share plaintiffs' concern that temporary improvements in mental condition could lead to an inmate's return to Supermax, only to have a serious relapse or exacerbation of his symptoms. Defendants maintain, however, that there are situations in which an inmate would be truly cured of whatever disorder or illness he was suffering and could be returned to Supermax without facing a risk of relapse into serious mental illness.
To accommodate the possibility that some inmates may be returned safely to Supermax and to obviate plaintiffs' concern that such decisions would be made without adequate justification, defendants will be required to give plaintiffs' counsel at least ten days' advance notice of their intention to return to Supermax any inmate that has been diagnosed as seriously mentally ill but who defendants believe is sufficiently recovered to be able to withstand incarceration at Supermax. If plaintiffs' counsel believe that returning the inmate to Supermax would be a violation of the consent decree, they may ask the monitor to hire an independent expert to evaluate the inmate. If the independent expert disagrees with

defendants' evaluation of the inmate's ability to return to Supermax and if defendants do not rescind their decision to transfer the inmate, the parties will convene a special panel of three persons to hear and decide the matter. Each side will choose one member of the panel; the two named members will choose a third.
B. Dangerousness Exception Plaintiffs argue that the court should not make any exception to the requirement that defendants remove all seriously mentally ill inmates from Supermax, even one that is based on extraordinary dangerousness. They oppose the exception on its merits and characterize any such exception as a modification of the settlement agreement entered into by the parties, in which the parties stipulated that "[n]o seriously mentally ill prisoners will be sent to SMCI nor will seriously mentally ill prisoners at the facility be permitted to remain there." I do not view the question of a dangerousness exception as a modification to the consent decree. As part of that agreement, the parties agreed explicitly that the court would determine the definition of serious mental illness. In doing so, it is necessary to consider whether there are any inmates for whom an exception to the definition would have to be made, for any reason. In the April 15 order, I asked defendants to propose a procedure for determining the exceptional circumstances in which a seriously mentally ill inmate could be incarcerated at

Supermax because of the inmate's dangerousness to others and the lack of any alternatives
for incarceration. Their failure to do anything more than identify persons who would be
subject to transfer makes it necessary for the court to determine the procedure to be
followed.
The starting point is the extraordinary nature of retaining a seriously mentally ill
inmate at Supermax or transferring him there. I do not anticipate that more than one
inmate would need this kind of incarceration at any time. To insure that it remains a unique
occurrence, defendants will be required to observe the following requirements:
1. No seriously mentally ill inmate (as defined in the April 15, 2002 order) shall be incarcerated at Supermax or transferred there without notice to plaintiffs' counsel.
(a) If defendants wish to transfer a seriously mentally ill inmate to Supermax, they must provide plaintiffs' counsel at least ten (10) days' advance notice and must stay any transfer pending resolution of any objections plaintiffs' counsel raise to the proposed transfer.
(b) If defendants wish to retain a seriously mentally ill inmate at Supermax, they must advise plaintiffs' counsel of their intention promptly.
2. No seriously mentally ill inmate is to be retained at Supermax or transferred there unless defendants can
(a) Document the inmate's dangerousness;
(b) List all of the potential alternative placements, both in Wisconsin and outside the state, that defendants have considered and explain why none of them is feasible; and
(c) Identify the additional services that will be provided to the inmate to

help him with his serious mental illness and to ameliorate the effect the conditions at Supermax have on that illness.
3. If plaintiffs' counsel find the report insufficient to justify retention or transfer of the inmate to Supermax, they may ask the monitor to retain an independent expert to conduct his or her own evaluation of the need to place the inmate at Supermax.
4. If, after the independent expert has made his or her own evaluation of the justification for incarceration of the inmate, the parties are unable to agree on the proper placement, they may convene a panel of three to resolve the matter. As described above, each party shall select one member of the panel; those two will select the third member.
This order disposes of the last remaining issue left unresolved by the settlement
agreement. It is the proper time to make the findings required by the Prisoner Litigation
Reform Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3626. I find that the prospective relief approved in the parties'
settlement agreement and fleshed out in the order entered herein on April 15, 2002 and in
this order is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of
the federal rights at stake and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation
of the federal rights.
ORDER IT IS ORDERED that the motion for clarification of the definition of "serious mental illness" filed by defendants Jon Litscher and Gerald Berge is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The motion is DENIED as to clarification of 1f l(f), the catch-all

provision of the definition of serious mental illness. The motion is GRANTED as to
defendants' ability to return to Supermax inmates previously diagnosed as seriously
mentally ill. To clarify, IT IS ORDERED that defendants are not to return to Supermax
any inmate that has been removed from Supermax because he was diagnosed as seriously
mental ill but who defendants believe is sufficiently recovered to be able to withstand
incarceration at Supermax unless they proceed as follows:
1. If defendants intend to return to Supermax an inmate that has been diagnosed as seriously mentally ill in the past, they must give plaintiffs' counsel notice not less than ten (10) days before the planned transfer and, if the transfer is disputed, must stay the transfer until the dispute has been resolved.
2. If plaintiffs' counsel believe that returning the inmate to Supermax would be a violation of the consent decree, they may ask the monitor to hire an independent expert to evaluate the inmate.
3. If the independent expert disagrees with defendants' evaluation of the inmate's ability to return to Supermax and if defendants do not rescind their decision to transfer the inmate, the parties will convene a special panel of three persons to hear and decide the matter. Each side will choose one member of the panel; the two named members will choose a third.
FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED that in order to insure that retaining a seriously
mentally ill inmate at Supermax or transferring him there remains an extraordinary event,
defendants will be required to observe the following requirements:
1. No seriously mentally ill inmate (as defined in the April 15, 2002 order) shall be incarcerated at Supermax or transferred there without notice to plaintiffs' counsel.
(a) If defendants wish to transfer a seriously mentally ill inmate to Supermax,

they must provide plaintiffs' counsel at least ten (10) days' advance notice and must stay any transfer pending resolution of any objections plaintiffs' counsel raise to the proposed transfer.
(b) If defendants wish to retain a seriously mentally ill inmate at Supermax, they must advise plaintiffs' counsel of their intention promptly.
2. No seriously mentally ill inmate is to be transferred to Supermax unless defendants can
(a) Document his dangerousness;
(b) List all of the potential alternative placements, both in Wisconsin and outside the state, that defendants have considered and explain why none of them is feasible; and
(c) Identify the additional services that will be provided to the inmate to help him with his serious mental illness and to ameliorate the effect the conditions at Supermax have on that illness.
3. If plaintiffs' counsel finds the report insufficient to justify retention or transfer of the inmate to Supermax, they may ask the monitor to retain an independent expert to conduct his or her own evaluation of the need to place the inmate at Supermax.
4. If, after the independent expert has made his or her own evaluation of the justification for incarceration of the inmate, the parties are unable to agree on the proper placement, they may convene a panel of three to resolve the matter. As described above, each party shall select one member of the panel; those two will select the third member.
FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED that the prospective relief approved in the parties'
settlement agreement and fleshed out in the order entered herein on April 15,2002 and in
this order is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of
the federal rights at stake and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation

of the federal rights. Entered this P-l^

day of June, 2002. BY THE COURT:

BARBARA B. CRABB District Judge

 
 Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 12 Filed 08/01/00 Page 1 of 10

1 DONALD YORK EVANS, ESQ.
State Bar No. 1070 2 P.O. Box 864
Reno, NV 89504 3 (775) 348-7400

4 Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU ofNevada
5

David C. Fathi

( L•

6 National Prison Project of the ACLU foundation

1875 Connecticut Ave. NW #410 7 Washington, DC 20009

(202) 234-4830
8

9 Attorneys For Plaintiffs

10

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

13

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a Washington State Corporation, and ROLLIN WRIGHT,
Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. CV-N-00-0373-HDM-RAM

V.

JACKIE CRAWFORD in her official

capacity, JOHN SLANSKY, in his

official and individual capacities,

20

ROBERT BAYER, in his official and individual capacities,

~1

DOES I-XXV, Defendant RED AND WHITE CORPORATIONS

22

1-X, and BLACK AND BLUE STATE and/or MUNICIPAL ENTITIES I-X,

23 24

_______________D_e_fe_n_da_n_ts_.____;

25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

26

zr

Plaintiffs bring this action, pursuant to 42 USC §1983, to enjoin the Nevada

28 Department ofPrisons (NDOP) from censoring, in violation ofthe First Amendment, the

1

\~

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 12 Filed 08/01/00 Page 2 of 10

1 receipt of the journal PRISON LEGAL NEWS by NDOP prisoners in the State of

2 Nevada. Plaintiffs also bring this action to have NDOP's ban on "inmate publications"

3 as embodied in AD 41-95 declared unconstitutional on its face and as applied. Plaintiffs

4 also seek declaratory and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201(a)

5 prohibiting the Nevada Department of Prisons from engaging in further censorship of

6 Prison Legal News, as well as damages.

7

JURISDICTION

8

1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, as well as

9 the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is

10 founded on 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343 and the aforementioned statutory and

11 constitutional provisions. This Court has jurisdiction to grant the declaratory relief

12 requested pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201 and FRCP 57.

13

VENUE

14

2. Venue lies properly in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).

15

PARTIES

16

3. Plaintiff ROLLIN WRIGHT, is and at all times pertinent hereto was the

17 publisher ofthe publication known as the PRISON LEGAL NEWS.

18

4. Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS ("PLN"), is and at all times relevant

19 hereto was a 501 (c)(3) non-profit corporation with offices in Seattle, Washington. PLN

20 publishes PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a monthly journal ofcorrections, news and analysis.

21 PLN has over 3,500 subscribers in the United States and abroad, including prisoners,

22 attorneys, and judges.

23

5. Defendant JACKIE CRAWFORD is the director of the Nevada

24 Department of Prisons ("NDOP"), a State agency under the auspices ofthe Department

25 of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, (DMV/PS) which manages the correctional

26 facilities within the State ofNevada. She is ultimately responsible for the promulgation

27 and enforcement ofNDOP policies and procedures. Ms. CRAWFORD is sued in her

28 official capacity for prospective injunctive relief.

2

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 12 Filed 08/01/00 Page 3 of 10

1

6. Defendant JOHN SLANSKY is the Assistant Director ofNDOP and is the

2 person who first, it appears, ordered the censorship of the PRISON LEGAL NEWS. At

3 all times relevant hereto, Defendant SLANSKY was acting under the color of state

4 authority and within the course and scope of his employment with the State ofNevada,

5 NDOP, and DMV/PS. Mr. SLANSKY is sued in his official capacity for prospective

6 injunctive relief, as well as in his individual capacity.

7

7. Defendant ROBERT BAYER is the former Director of NDOP. Mr.

8 BAYER is sued in both his official and individual capacities.

9

8. The true identities of Defendant DOES I-XXV, Defendant RED AND

10 WHITE CORPORATIONS I-X, and BLACK AND BLUE STATE and/or MUNICIPAL

11 ENTITIES I-X, are currently unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said Defendants

12 by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs, based upon knowledge and information, reasonably

13 believe and therefore allege that each ofthe Defendants designated herein as DOES I-

14 XXV, RED AND WHITE CORPORATIONS I-X, and BLACK AND BLUE STATE

15 and/or MUNICIPAL ENTITIES I-X, may be responsible in some manner for events and 16 happenings herein referred to; that Plaintiffs will ask leave to amend this Complaint to 17 insert the true name(s) of said Defendant(s) when the same have been ascertained by

18 Plaintiffs together with appropriate allegations and to join such Defendant(s) as and

19 when it (they) become known in this action in their true capacities.

20

9. Plaintiffs have been forced to incur reasonable attorney's fees and costs

21 in pursuit ofthis action, including, but not necessarily limited to, those contemplated by

22 42 usc §1988.

23

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

24

10. Plaintiffs PLN and ROLLIN WRIGHT have no standing with the NDOP,

25 and therefore have no other adequate remedy at law other than the relief requested

26 herein.

27

II

28

3

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 12 Filed 08/01/00 Page 4 of 10

1

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

42 usc §1983

3

Violation Of Publisher's First And Fourteenth Amendment Rights

4

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all allegations contained m all

5 numbered paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully here.

8

11. Plaintiff, ROLLIN WRIGHT, is the Publisher of Plaintiff PRISON

7 LEGAL NEWS, a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, originally organized under the laws

8 ofthe State of Washington in 1991. The purpose of the organization as stated in PLN's

9 Articles oflncorporation, Article 3, Part 6 is: "to educate prisoners and the public about

10 the destructive nature of racism, sexism, and the economic and social costs of prison to

11 society."

12

12. Beginning in approximately September of 1999, Defendants, and each of

13 them, and DOES I-XXV, have refused to allow delivery of any mail from PLN,

14 including but not limited to, the journal PRISON LEGAL NEWS, to one or more ofthe

15 prisoners under the control of the NDOP, under the "inmate correspondence" and

18 "inmate publication" policies adopted at various prisons and institutions throughout the

17 State of Nevada, including but not necessarily limited to, the Southern Desert

18 Correctional Center (SDCC), Ely State Prison (ESP), and Northern Nevada Correctional

19 Center (NNCC). This censorship and refusal to allow delivery of publications is

20 occurring even though Defendants or persons who report to Defendants have previously

21 approved these subscriptions to PLN, which Defendants now refuse to deliver.

22

13. Issues of PLN that have been confiscated and/or discarded rather than

23 delivered to their prisoner subscribers, include political speech, which is entitled to the

24 highest protection under the Constitution of the United States.

25

14. Defendants' refusal to allow delivery of PRISON LEGAL NEWS

26 constitutes a violation of the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs PLN and ROLLIN

27 WRIGHT, as made applicable to the State of Nevada through the Fourteenth

28 Amendment to the United States Constitution.

4

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 12 Filed 08/01/00 Page 5 of 10

1

15. PRISON LEGAL NEWS is protected political speech and violates no

2 prison policies nor regulations other than the alleged " inmate publication" policies and

3 regulations at issue. Defendant SLANSKY has refused to deliver or allow delivery of

4 copies ofPRISON LEGAL NEWS to prisoners in NDOP correctional facilities who had

5 subscribed to this publication, solely on the grounds that these publications are "inmate

6 publications", pursuant to "AD 41-95". Defendants' refusal to deliver or allow delivery

7 of PRISON LEGAL NEWS to prisoners who have subscribed to these publications

8 constitutes a violation of the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs ROLLIN WRIGHT,

9 and PLN, as made applicable to the State ofNevada through the Fourteenth Amendment

10 to the United States Constitution. Defendants' blanket ban on "inmate publications" is

11 so vague and overbroad that it could prohibit NDOP prisoners from receiving Martin

12 Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter From the Birmingham Jail," the prison writings of world

13 leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Vaclav Havel, and the works of

14 numerous Nobel Prize winners. This vagueness and over breadth invites arbitrary and

15 discriminatory enforcement. In fact, defendants' ban on "inmate publications" is 16 enforced not according to any objective standards, but according to the personal 17 prejudices of individual NDOP officials. For these reasons, the ban is substantially

18 overbroad and impermissibly vague in violation of the First and Fourteenth

19 Amendments.

20

16. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that all regulations and/or

21 instructions, administrative directives, institutional procedures or policies on which

22 Defendants base their refusal to deliver or allow delivery of PRISON LEGAL NEWS

23 to prisoners who have a subscription, solely because Defendants characterize these

24 publications as "inmate publications", are unconstitutional as applied, in violation ofthe

25 First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, by and through 42 U.S.C. §1983.

26 Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that defendants' blanket ban on "inmate

27 publications" is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, because it is substantially

28 overbroad and impermissibly vague in violation of plaintiffs' rights under the First and

5

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 12 Filed 08/01/00 Page 6 of 10

1 Fourteenth Amendments.

2

17. Plaintiffs are entitled to an entry of an injunction prohibiting Defendants

3 from refusing to process and deliver, or allow delivery of, PRISON LEGAL NEWS to

4 prisoners who have a subscription solely on the grounds that these publications constitute

5 "inmate publications". Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction permanently enjoining

8 enforcement of defendants' blanket ban on "inmate publications."

7

18. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have

8 suffered damages in an amount to be more fully enumerated at trial.

9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray relief as is more fully enumerated below.

10 II

11

II

12 II

13 II

14

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15

42 USC §1983, Fourteenth Amendment

16

Procedural Due Process Violations

17

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all allegations contained m all

18 numbered paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully here.

19

19. Since approximately September of 1999, Defendants have denied Plaintiffs

20 their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

21 Constitution by failing to provide Plaintiffs notice and an opportunity to be heard when

22 mail they have sent to Nevada prisoners, including but not limited to, the journal

23 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, is censored.

24

20. Defendants' actions, as described above, also constitute a violation of

25 Plaintiffs' civil rights under 42 USC §1983.

26

21. The Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants have violated

27 the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 USC §1983 by

28 refusing to notify them when publications they have mailed to prisoners have been

6

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 12 Filed 08/01/00 Page 7 of 10

1 confiscated and/or discarded rather than delivered to the subscribing prisoners.

2

22. The Plaintiffs are also entitled to an injunction prohibiting Defendants

3 from enacting and enforcing policies, procedures, administrative directives, etc., to

4 confiscate and/or discard publications without notification to the publisher that such

5 publications have been confiscated and/or discarded rather than delivered.

8

23. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have

7 suffered damages in an amount to be more fully enumerated at trial.

8

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray relief as is more fully enumerated below.

9

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

10

Injunctive Relief

11

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all allegations contained m all

12 numbered paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully here.

13 II

14

24. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court issue a permanent injunction

'15 enjoining Defendants, and each of them, from interfering with or refusing the delivery

16 of PLN publications and other mail or subscription information from PLN within the

17 NDOP system, anywhere within the State of Nevada. Plaintiffs ask this Court to issue

18 a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from enforcing their blanket ban on "inmate

19 publications."

20

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray relief as is more fully enumerated below.

21

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22

Declaratory Relief

23

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all allegations contained m all

24 numbered paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully here.

25

25. Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment establishing that the policies and

26 procedures of censorship which result in Defendants not delivering or refusing to allow

27 delivery to prisoners of PRISON LEGAL NEWS and other mail from PLN are in

28 violation ofPlaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Constitution of

7

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 12 Filed 08/01/00 Page 8 of 10

1 the United States. Plaintiffs request a declaration that defendants' blanket ban on

2 "inmate publications" is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, because it is

3 substantially overbroad and impermissibly vague in violation of plaintiffs' rights under

4 the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

5

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray relief as is more fully enumerated below.

6

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

7

Punitive Damages

8

26. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all allegations contained in all

9 numbered paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully here.

10

27. Plaintiffs allege that the individual Defendants acted with deliberate

11 indifference or reckless disregard for Plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional rights,

12 and have violated Plaintiffs' clearly established constitutional rights, and these actions

13 taken by the individual Defendants were the direct and proximate cause of the damages

14 suffered by Plaintiffs, and therefore, punitive damages should be awarded to punish them

'15 for their misconduct, and to deter similar misconduct by similarly situated defendants in

16 the future. The amount of these punitive damage should be determined at trial.

17

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray relief as is more fully enumerated below.

18

II

19

PRAYER

20

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment against the Defendants, and each of

21 them, as follows:

22

1. For general damages in an amount to be more precisely determined at trial;

23

2. For special damages in an amount to be more precisely determined at trial;

24

3. For punitive damages in an amount to be more precisely determined at

25 trial;

26

4. For a preliminary and permanent injunction as described herein;

27

5. For declaratory relief as specifically requested herein;

28

6. For attorney's fees and costs of suit necessarily incurred herein;

8

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 12 Filed 08/01/00 Page 9 of 10

1

7. For leave to amend this Complaint should additional facts become known

2 to Plaintiffs; and

3

8. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and

4 appropriate in the premises$"?:

5

DATED: This /-day of August, 2000.

6

7

ONA D YORK EVANS, ESQ.

8

P. . X 864

Reno, NV 89504

9

(775) 348-7400

10

Attorney for the

of Nevada

11

12

//'

<.....

( ,J/. ID C. FA_T_H_I--;:>~

13

~onal Prison Project ofth

14

foundation

1875 Connecticut Ave. NW #410

15

Washington, DC 20009

(202) 234-4830

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 12 Filed 08/01/00 Page 10 of 10

1 2 3
4 5 6 7
.. 8
9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I am an employee ofDONALD YORK EVANS, ESQ., and that on
1this date I deposited for mailing, via U.S. mail ___ caused to be delivered, via Reno-Carson Messenger Service - - - delivered via facsimile machine _ _ _ personally delivered a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing document, addressed to: Craig Skau, Esq. Assistant Solicitor General
100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701-4717
g
DATED this / , day of----.f-1-----' 2000.
•

10

 
 Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 16 Filed 08/14/00 Page 1 of 3

./'"'~~~- -~·}).\}\';\

1 2 3 4 5 6

DStOatNe ABLarDNYo.O1R0K70EVA·.N_ S";B.$-0~-~~~~--'\~-~".\/\'~'\(~~:.:£,1·"_".\_10\C,•\-·(~"'"~:-'-{l:~'':·f-:~'<\·\~l>\i.'.ln'tvP-,0,.\·'·

P.O. Box 864 Reno, NV 89504
(775) 348-7400

6 '· -

~\).\:.> \
.- :.

~ '(.J\)\)
\~:;~R;c.;_\

... ,_ \~~
.._.o·--

,
~~· tilc!r.OFv· ,

--7 DAVID C. FATHI, ESQ.

NAamtieornicaalnPCriisvo~ln

Project of the Liberties Union

Fr:_o·,u,-~-n, d~ -ati-on~___/1:••___'--'"L'-EU !tA~U-G.....~ 4q 220af oo /

7 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, #410

· ··

couRr

Washington, DC 20009 8 (202) 234-4830

9
Attorneys For Plaintiffs
10

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-,.:i\

13 14

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

- ':-:]
\

\

15

16 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a Washington State Corporation,
17 and ROLLIN WRIGHT,

18
Plaintiffs,
19

20

v.

CASE NO. CV-N-00-0373-HDM-RAM

21 JACKIE CRAWFORD in her official
22 capacity, JOHN SLANSKY, in his official and individual capacities,
23 ROBERT BAYER, in his 24 official and individual capacities,
DOES I-XXV, Defendant RED 25 AND WHITE CORPORATIONS
1-X, and BLACK AND BLUE STATE 26 and/or MUNICIPAL ENTITIES I-X,
27
Defendants.
28 __________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

\\9

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 16 Filed 08/14/00 Page 2 of 3

1

Plaintiffs are the publishers of the journal Prison Legal News. Defendants are

2 officials of the Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP). In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs challenge
3 Defendants' blanket exclusion of Prison Legal News from NDOP institutions. Defendants
4
base this blanket exclusion upon their contention that Prison Legal News is an "inmate
5
8 publication" prohibited by Administrative Directive (A.D.) 41-95. On or about the 12th day
7 of July, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction (CR #2). Defendants have consented

8 to the entry of preliminary injunctive relief in their response to Plaintiffs' Motion for

9 Preliminary Injunctive Relief. Further, the Court makes a specific finding that the Plaintiffs
10
have demonstrated probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm if a
11
12 preliminary injunction is not granted.

13

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is

14 granted. Pending the final resolution of this action, Defendants Crawford and Slansky, their
15 officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all those in active concert or
18
participation with them, are enjoined:
17
(a) From maintaining a blanket exclusion of Prison Legal News and of
18
19 correspondence relating to Prison Legal News from NDOP institutions; and

20

(b) From excluding Prison Legal News, or correspondence relating to

21

Prison Legal News from NDOP institutions solely on the ground that Prison Legal News is

22
allegedly an "inmate publication" or "inmate newsletter" prohibited by A.D. 41-95.

23
Nothing within this order shall be construed to limit the Defendants' rights to
24

25

properly review and appropriately censor individual issues of Prison Legal News within the

26 guidelines set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 480 U.S.

27 401, 109 S.Ct. 1874 (1989).
28
II

2

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 16 Filed 08/14/00 Page 3 of 3

1

Security will be waived.

2

DATED: This It~ day of _ __L_/4~~~~'------' 2000.

3

4 5

Hiitf~~

8

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 
 Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 49-2659353 Filed 08/13/02 Page 1 of 1

F!!.ED
1

2

I) ('1 R· I'_, ''I'' -·~h.;.,

J \, l',_rl:(::,n)

LAHG~ S. HLSCN

3

CL [ .~);

4

6

y_~..:....~_t:\_· ....... u 'c) I!

··-

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

8 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a Washington State Corporation,
9 and ROLLIN WRIGHT,

CV-N-00-0373-HDM(RAM) ORDER

10

Plaintiff(s),

11

vs.

12 JACKIE CRAWFORD, et al.,

13 ________D__ef_e_n_d_an_t_(s_)_. ____!

14

15

A motion to enforce order (#48) has been filed by Ken Lake.

16 The record reflects that Lake is not a party to this action.

17 Therefore, Lake's motion (#48) is denied. The denial of the motion

18 shall not preclude Lake from pursuing such other legal relief as

19 may be proper.

20

It is so ORDERED.

21

4. Dated this ,,_"!day of

16 -l-, 2002.

22

23

24

25

U.s. DISTRiCl GC.>l.iRT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

26

ENTERED & SERVED

I AUG 14 20021

( / J CLERK, Ujl. Q19TRICT COURT

BY .

·-

DEPUTY

 
 Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 117 Filed 09/30/14 Page 1 of 15

1 LANCE WEBER, pro hac vice Florida Bar No. 104550
2 Human Rights Defense Center PO Box 1151
3 Lake Worth, FL 33460 (561) 360-2523
4 lweber@hrdc-law.org
5
6 ALLEN LICHTENSTEIN Nevada Bar No. 3992
7 STACI PRATT 8 Nevada Bar No. 12630
3315 Russell Road, No. 222 9 Las Vegas, NV 89120
(702) 433-2666 10 allaw@lvcoxmail.com 11 stacijpratt@gmail.com

12 ERNEST GALVAN, pro hac vice California Bar No. 196065
13 Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 14 315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104 15 (415) 433-6830
EGalvan@rbgg.com 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff
17

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the 20 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, a
21 Washington Nonprofit Corporation, Plaintiff,
22 v.

Case No.: 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

23
JAMES GREG COX (in his official capacity) 24 as Director of Nevada Department of
Corrections; E.K. MCDANIEL (in his official 25 capacity), as Deputy Director of Operations at 26 NDOC; and DOES I-XXV,
Defendants.

27

28

[863598-1]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 1

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 117 Filed 09/30/14 Page 2 of 15

1

Plaintiff brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to enjoin the Nevada

2 Department of Corrections (NDOC), formerly Nevada Department of Prisons, from censoring
3
Plaintiff’s written speech, including the journal PRISON LEGAL NEWS as well as books and
4
other correspondence mailed by Plaintiff to NDOC prisoners in the State of Nevada. NDOC’s
5
6 censorship of PLN’s speech violates: 1) the plain terms of a 2000 Consent Decree entered into

7 by the prison administration and Prison Legal News based on due process concerns; and 2) the
8
dictates of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff asks
9
that the Court declare the following policies and practices unconstitutional on their face and as
10
11 applied: 1) NDOC’s ban on “return address labels” as embodied in 750.03(3)(D); 2) NDOC’s

12 ban on publications not from “approved vendors or publishers” as embodied in AR 750.08(1), as

13 well as the December 17, 2013 iteration of AR 750.8(1) approving only “verified publishers and
14
vendors”; and 3) the requirement that all books be sent using First Class Mail as embodied in
15
Section 8 of AR 750.08. Pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and
16
17 permanent injunctive relief prohibiting NDOC from engaging in further unlawful censorship of

18 books, magazines and other correspondence from PRISON LEGAL NEWS, as well as damages.
19
JURISDICTION
20

21

1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, as well as the

22
First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United State Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded on
23
28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343 and the aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions.
24

25 The Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and FRCP 57.

26

VENUE

27

2. Venue lies properly in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

28

PARTIES

[863598-1]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 2

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 117 Filed 09/30/14 Page 3 of 15

1

3. Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS (“PLN”), is and at all times relevant hereto is a

2 wholly owned publishing project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, a 501(c)(3)
3
nonprofit corporation with offices in Lake Worth, Florida. PLN publishes PRISON LEGAL
4
NEWS, a monthly journal of corrections, news, and analysis. PLN has thousands of subscribers
5
6 in the United States and abroad, including prisoners, attorneys, and judges.

7

4. Defendant JAMES GREG COX is the Director of the Nevada Department of

8
Corrections (“NDOC”), a State agency that manages the correctional facilities within the State of
9
Nevada. He is ultimately responsible for the promulgation and enforcement of NDOC policies
10

11 and procedures. Mr. COX is sued in his official capacity for prospective injunctive relief.

12

5. Defendant E.K. MCDANIEL is the Deputy Director of Operations at NDOC.

13

6. The true identities of Defendant DOES I-XXV, are currently unknown to

14
Plaintiff, who therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff, based upon
15
knowledge and information, reasonably believe and therefore allege that each of the Defendants
16

17 designated herein as DOES I-XXV may be responsible in some manner for events and

18 happenings herein referred to; that Plaintiff will ask leave to amend this Complaint to insert the
19
true name(s) of said Defendant(s) when the same have been ascertained by Plaintiff together with
20
appropriate factual allegations and to join such Defendant(s) as and when they become known in
21
22 this action in their true capacities.

23

STATEMENT OF FACTS

24
7. Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC), a Washington nonprofit corporation, is a
25
26 Federally recognized 501(c)(3) that owns and operates Prison Legal News (PLN). The purpose
27 of the organization as stated in PLN’s Articles of Incorporation, Article 3, Part 6 is: “to educate

28 prisoners and the public about the destructive nature of racism, sexism, and the economic and

[863598-1]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 3

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 117 Filed 09/30/14 Page 4 of 15

1 social costs of prison to society.” PLN publishes and distributes books and a monthly journal to

2 prisoners throughout the country, as well as to other non-profits, attorneys, public defenders,
3
journalists, academics, investment bankers, university and law school libraries, prison law
4
libraries, prison rights activists, students, family members of prisoners and concerned private
5
6 individuals.. PLN covers issues such as court access, disciplinary hearings, prison conditions,

7 excessive force, mail censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free
8
speech, prison rape, abuse of women prisoners, retaliation, the Prison Legal Reform Act (PLRA),
9
medical treatment, AIDS, the death penalty, and control units. PLN publications include: the
10
11 monthly law journal Prison Legal News; Prison Legal News informational brochures (Info

12 Packs); subscription renewal letters; fundraising letters; letters from the editor, and

13 approximately fifty (50) book titles including Prisoners’ Self-Help Litigation Manual (PSHLM);
14
and Protecting Your Health and Safety (PYHS).
15
8. Beginning in approximately September of 1999, NDOC (known as the “Nevada
16
17 Department of Prisons” at that time) and associated facilities refused to allow the delivery of any

18 mail from Prison Legal News pursuant to a ban on “inmate publications” and “inmate
19
correspondence.” See NDOP policy AD 41-95. Given the core First Amendment issues raised
20
by this policy, Prison Legal News undertook suit to alter NDOC practices. Upon information
21
22 and belief, NDOC has continued this and similarly unconstitutional restrictions to this day.

23

9. In 2000, this Court ordered defendants to cease blanket censorship of inmate

24 publications and to implement and maintain the attached policy regarding prisoner access to
25
publications. See “Stipulation and Judgment/Order,” Prison Legal News v. Crawford et al., CV-
26
N-00-0373-HDM-RAM. (D. Nev. 9/27/00) (hereafter “NDOC Consent Decree” and attached as
27
28 Exhibit One.) Prison Legal News v. Crawford et al., Case #: 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-RAM. Thus,

[863598-1]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 4

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 117 Filed 09/30/14 Page 5 of 15

1 Prison Legal News successfully obtained a judgment and order enjoining NDOC from censoring

2 Prison Legal News publications
3
10. PLN v. Crawford grew out of NDOC’s unconstitutional policy of excluding
4
Prison Legal News, and associated correspondence, from NDOC institutions as prohibited
5
6 “inmate publications.” See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989). Pursuant to the NDOC

7 Consent Decree, NDOC adopted the following policy regarding prisoner access to publications:

8
Prisoners in the custody of the Nevada Department of Prisons (NDOP) shall be permitted

9

to subscribe to the publications of their choice, and shall receive all issues of those

publications without interference, except as provided below. Wardens may designate staff

10

to screen and, where appropriate, approve incoming publications, but only a Warden may

11

reject a publication. Wardens are authorized to reject a publication only if it is

determined, after reasonable consideration, to be detrimental to the safety, security, good

12

order, or discipline of the institution or if it might facilitate criminal activity.

13 NDOC Consent Decree at 3: 9-18. The Consent Decree binds the Director of the Nevada Prisons

14
Department, as well as his or her “officers, agents, servants, employees, and successors in office”
15
to “implement and maintain” this policy. Id. at 3: 4-7.
16

17

11. Per the decree, “only a Warden may reject a publication.” Id. at 3:14. The

18 Consent Decree also provides specific guidance to the Warden, as to the type of criteria that may
19
support rejection of a publication.
20
12. Finally, the Consent Decree mandates exact and detailed due process protections,
21
22 where a publication is rejected. Both the inmate-subscriber and the publisher must receive

23 written notice of the reasons for the rejection, as well as the opportunities for independent

24 review.

25
In the event a Warden rejects an issue of a publication, he or she must advise the

26

subscribing inmate promptly in writing of the reasons for the rejection and send a copy of

such rejection memorandum to the publisher. The rejection memorandum must refer to

27

the specific article(s) or materials(s) considered objectionable. The rejection

28

memorandum must also advise the publisher that he or she may obtain an independent

[863598-1]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 5

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 117 Filed 09/30/14 Page 6 of 15

1

review of the rejection by the Director of the Nevada Department of Prisons by

requesting it within 20 days (plus 3 for mailing) of the date the rejection memorandum is

2

mailed to the publisher. The subscribing inmate may grieve the rejection through the

3

prison’s administrative grievance process.

4 NDOC Consent Decree at 4: 15 – 25.

5

13. State institutions that sign onto Court enforced Consent Decrees are charged with

6
knowledge of those obligations. Naturally, administrative officials, such as Director Cox and
7

8 Deputy Director of Operations McDaniel at NDOC must track and pay deference to Court

9 Orders binding their behavior. Notably, Director Cox has a lengthy history with NDOC. As a

10 career correctionals officer, he joined NDOC as the Warden of Southern Desert Correctional
11
Center in 2003. He became Warden of High Desert State Prison on August 23, 2004. As the
12
current Director of NDOC, he has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the legal operation of
13
14 NDOC facilities. In fact, NRS § 209.131(9) specifically establishes his statutory duty to ensure

15 the legal requirements surrounding inmate correspondence are well-known. Similarly,
16 Defendant E.K. McDaniels acted as the Warden of Ely State Prison, at the time of the entry of
17
the NDOC consent decree. Wardens are charged with understanding and implementing the legal
18
mandates and policies associated with managing their correctional centers, including their
19
20 correspondence obligations. NRS § 209.161.

21

14. In addition, written correspondence sent by Prison Legal News to NDOC

22
Directors establish specific notification of NDOC’s failure to abide by the terms of the 2000
23
Consent Decree. Following the return and censorship of numerous PLN publications, Lance
24

25 Weber sent a letter to the Nevada Department of Corrections, and then Director Howard Skolnik,

26 concerning the emerging unlawful pattern of censorship. Declaration of Lance Weber at ¶ 7.

27 The letter, attached as Exhibit Two, was sent on June 15, 2011. NDOC never responded to this
28

[863598-1]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 6

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 117 Filed 09/30/14 Page 7 of 15

1 inquiry. Id. at ¶ ¶ 7-8. On May 14, 2013, Lance Weber reiterated a demand, in a letter addressed

2 to Director James Cox, that NDOC provide an immediate and satisfactory response to these
3
concerns. Cox provided no response to this letter either. Id. at ¶ ¶ 9-10. See also Exhibit Three.
4
Director Cox cannot claim he acted reasonably or in the belief that NDOC’s behavior was
5
6 lawful.

7

15. Reasonable discovery will show that Defendant Cox, both during his tenure as a

8
Deputy Director and during his tenure as Director, personally attended monthly “AR Meetings”
9
wherein the Director of NDOC and the Deputy Directors met to review and approve
10

11 modifications to the NDOC administrative regulations, including review and modification of AR

12 750, one of the regulations at issue in this case.

13

16. Despite the NDOC Consent Decree, Defendants continue to censor mail from

14
Prison Legal News using methods that are in violation of the decree and in violation of the
15
United States Constitution.
16

17

17. Plaintiff has been forced to incur reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in pursuit

18 of this action, including, but not necessarily limited to, those contemplated by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

19
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

42 U.S.C. § 1983

21

Violation Of Publisher’s First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights

22

Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all allegations contained in all numbered

23 paragraphs of this Compliant as if set forth fully here.
24
18. Beginning in 2010, Defendants, and each of them, and DOES I-XXV, have
25
26 refused to allow delivery of mail from PLN, including but not limited to, the publication
27 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, letters from PLN and books distributed by PLN to one or more of the

28 prisoners under the control of NDOC, under policies and practices banning “address labels” and

[863598-1]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 7

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 117 Filed 09/30/14 Page 8 of 15

1 “envelope tape,” requiring publication be sent from “approved vendors,” and/or requiring mail

2 be sent using first-class postage. Various prisons and institutions throughout the State of
3
Nevada, including but not necessarily limited to, the Southern Desert Correctional Center
4
(SDCC), Ely State Prison (ESP), and Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC) have
5
6 adopted these policies and practices.

7

19. Issues of PRISON LEGAL NEWS, letters from PLN, and books distributed by

8
PLN have all been confiscated and/or discarded rather than delivered to the prisoners who were
9
intended to receive them. The speech at issue is political speech, which is entitled to the highest
10

11 protection under the Constitution of the United States.

12

20. Defendants’ refusal to allow delivery of written speech through the mail from

13 PLN constitutes a violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, as made applicable to the State
14
of Nevada through the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
15
21. The contents of PRISON LEGAL NEWS, PLN’s letters and the books that PLN
16
17 distributes are protected political speech and violate no prison policies nor regulations other than

18 the alleged restrictions on “address labels” and “envelope tape,” “approved vendor”
19
requirements, and requirements that publications must be sent using first-class postage.
20
Defendants have refused to deliver or allow delivery of copies of PRISON LEGAL NEWS and
21
22 letters and books from PRISON LEGAL NEWS to prisoners at NDOC facilities who had

23 subscribed to this publication and/or who had ordered books from PLN, on the grounds that these

24 publications contain “foreign substances such as stickers” and “return address labels,” pursuant
25
AR 750.03(3)(7) and 750.03(3)(D), respectively. These “adulterated mail” provisions have been
26
used to prohibit delivery of mail from publishers such as PLN, who use printed return address
27
28 and address labels for correspondence with individual inmates. PLN also uses mailing labels for

[863598-1]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 8

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 117 Filed 09/30/14 Page 9 of 15

1 materials sent directly from its office. Defendants’ refusal to deliver or allow delivery of

2 publications from PLN to prisoners based on the presence of “address labels” or “envelope tape”
3
fails to meet the reasonableness requirement for prison regulations impinging upon an inmate’s
4
constitutional rights.
5

6

22. The blanket prohibition on “address labels” and “envelope tape” unreasonably

7 impinges on the rights of both PLN and those Nevada prisoners intended to receive its
8
publications. The “address labels” and “envelope tape” ban is not rationally related to a
9
legitimate and neutral government objective. Upon information and belief, Amazon.com orders
10
11 are permitted entry into NDOC facilities, and these ordered have address labels. This suggests

12 that NDOC is not acting consistently and neutrally. Since Amazon.com does not deliver

13 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, no viable alternatives are available for prisoners to receive PRISON
14
LEGAL NEWS when orders from PLN are prohibited. Accommodating the prisoners’ rights
15
would have little to no impact on the guards or other prisoners, given packages form
16
17 Amazon.com containing labels are permitted. An easy alternative exists – prison personnel may

18 remove the stickers of labels before delivery of the publications to inmates.
19
23. Additionally, NDOC’s requirement under AR 750.08(1), stating that all books
20
“must come directly from approved vendors or publishers,” without specifying which entities are
21
22 “approved,” violates the First Amendment rights of both the inmates and the publishers.

23 According to mailroom reports, only one vendor, Amazon.com, has enjoyed an “approved”

24 status. A single source designated as the “approved vendor” is unconstitutional, since no
25
alternative means of obtaining reading material from publishers such as PLN exist. Such a
26
practice places a significant burden on publishers’ and inmates’ constitutional rights. In
27
28 particular, in the absence of criteria defining how one qualifies as an “approved” vendor,

[863598-1]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 9

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 117 Filed 09/30/14 Page 10 of 15

1 publishers are left with no articulable standards to follow. This amounts to a violation of clearly

2 established due process principles. Under this rubric, decision-makers could arbitrarily exclude
3
publications, such as PLN books, based on mere whim.
4
24. NDOC modified Administrative Regulation 750 on December 17, 2013, to state
5
6 “All inmates are allowed to order and receive, publications directly from verified publishers and

7 vendors.” (Emphasis added). A.R. 750.08(1). This language also fails to prevent violations of

8
the First Amendment rights of Plaintiff and other speakers and falls afoul of due process
9
mandates, in that it fails to give standards articulating the criteria for becoming “verified.”
10

11

25. Furthermore, Section 8 of AR 750.08, which states, “All books must be sent First

12 Class Mail,” violates the First Amendment rights of both inmates and publishers. PLN conducts

13 its activity as a non-profit organization, and therefore qualifies for the use of Standard A “non-
14
profit organization rates” to circulate its periodical publication. These postage rates are
15
substantially lower cost than first class mail. PLN also mails books to prisoners using the United
16
17 States Postal Service’s Media Mail rates, a special rate available for books and educational

18 materials, that is substantially lower than the rates charged for First Class Mail. Rejecting core-

19
protected speech solely due to postal service rate classifications is unconstitutional and unrelated

20
to any legitimate penological interests.
21

22

26. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that all regulations and/or instructions,

23 administrative directives, institutional procedures, or policies on which Defendants base their

24 refusal to deliver or allow delivery of mail from PLN to prisoners, only because Defendants
25
characterize the publications or other mail as having “address labels” and/or “envelope tape,” the
26
publications are not delivered from the only “approved vendor,” and/or the publications are not
27
28 mailed using first-class postage, are unconstitutional. These policies and practices are

[863598-1]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 10

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 117 Filed 09/30/14 Page 11 of 15

1 unconstitutional as applied, in violation of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, by

2 and through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and on their face. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that these
3
policies and practices are unconstitutional.
4
27. Plaintiff is entitled to an entry of an injunction prohibiting Defendants from
5
6 refusing to process and deliver, or allow delivery of, mail from PRISON LEGAL NEWS to

7 prisoners on the grounds that these publications have affixed “address labels” and/or “envelope
8
tape,” are not delivered from a sole approved vendor, and/or are not delivered using first-class
9
postage. Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction permanently enjoining enforcement of these
10
11 practices and policies.

12

28. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered

13 damages in an amount to be more fully enumerated at trial.
14

15
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
16

17

42 U.S.C. § 1983, Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process Violations

18

Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all allegations contained in all numbered

19
paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully here.
20
29. Since approximately September 1999, and continuing despite the NDOC Consent
21
22 Decree issued in September 2000, Defendants have denied Plaintiff its right to due process under

23 the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by failing to provide Plaintiff

24 notice and an opportunity to be heard when mail sent to Nevada prisoners, including but not
25
limited to, the journal of PRISON LEGAL NEWS, is censored.
26
30. Defendants’ actions, as described above, also constitute a violation of Plaintiff’s
27
28 civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

[863598-1]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 11

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 117 Filed 09/30/14 Page 12 of 15

1

31. The Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendants have violated the

2 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by refusing to
3
notify PLN when books and publications it has mailed to prisoners have been confiscated and/or
4
discarded rather than delivered to the prisoners who were intended to receive them.
5

6

32. The Plaintiff is also entitled to an injunction prohibiting Defendants from enacting

7 and enforcing policies, procedures, administrative directives, etc., to confiscate and/or discard

8
publications without notification to the publisher that such publications have been confiscated
9
and/or discarded rather than delivered.
10

11

33. As a proximate and direct result of the Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered

12 damages in an amount to be more fully enumerated at trial.

13

REMEDIES REQUESTED

14
Declaratory Relief
15
Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all allegations contained in all
16

17 numbered paragraphs of this Complaint as is set forth fully here.

18

34. Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment establishing that the policies and

19
procedures of censorship which result in Defendants not delivering or refusing to allow delivery
20
to prisoners of PRISON LEGAL NEWS and other mail from PLN are in violation of Plaintiff’s
21
22 First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff

23 requests a declaration that Defendants’ ban on “address labels” and “envelope tape,” publications

24 not from an “approved vendor,” “verified publishers and vendors” and publications not sent

25
using first-class postage are unconstitutional on their face and as applied, all in violation of
26
Plaintiff’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
27

28

Injunctive Relief

[863598-1]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 12

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 117 Filed 09/30/14 Page 13 of 15

1

Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all allegations contained in all numbered

2 paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth fully here.
3
35. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue a permanent injunction
4
enjoining Defendants, and each of them, from interfering with or refusing the delivery of PLN
5
6 publications and other mail or subscription information from PLN within the NDOC system,

7 anywhere within the State of Nevada, absent a legitimate penological interest supporting such
8
censorship. Plaintiff asks this Court to issue a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from
9
enforcing the “no labels,” “no tape” and “no sticker” requirements, the “approved vendor”
10
11 requirement, the “verified publishers and vendors” requirement, and the requirement that

12 publications be mailed using first-class postage.

13

Punitive Damages

14
36. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all allegations contained in all
15
numbered paragraphs of this Compliant as if set forth fully here.
16

17

37. Plaintiff alleges that the individual Defendants acted with deliberate indifference

18 to or reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights, and have violated
19
Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights, and these actions taken by the individual
20
Defendants were the direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by Plaintiff, and
21
22 therefore, punitive damages should be awarded to punish Defendants for their misconduct, and to

23 deter similar misconduct by similarly situated defendants in the future. The amount of these

24 punitive damages should be determined at trial.
25
PRAYER
26
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a trial by jury on all issues so triable, and for judgment
27
28 against the Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

[863598-1]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 13

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 117 Filed 09/30/14 Page 14 of 15

1

1. For general damages in an amount to be more precisely determined at trial;

2

2. For special damages in an amount to be more precisely determined at trial;

3
3. For punitive damages in an amount to be more precisely determined at trial;
4

4. For a preliminary and permanent injunction as described herein;
5

6

5. For declaratory relief as specifically requested herein;

7

6. For attorney’s fees and costs of suit necessarily incurred herein;

8
7. For leave to amend this Complaint should additional facts become known to
9
Plaintiff; and
10

11

8. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate in

12 the premises.

13

DATED: This 30th day of September 2014.

14
Respectfully submitted by:

15

/s/ Allen Lichtenstein 16 Allen Lichtenstein

/s/ Lance Weber Lance Weber

17 Nevada Bar No. 3992 STACI PRATT
18 Nevada Bar No. 12630

Florida Bar No. 104550 lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Human Rights Defense Center

STACI PRATT
19
Nevada Bar No. 12630

PO Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460

20 3315 Russell Road, No. 222
Las Vegas, NV 89120 21 (702) 433-2666

ERNEST GALVAN, pro hac vice California Bar No. 196065

22 allaw@lvcoxmail.com stacijpratt@gmail.com

Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor

23

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 433-6830

24

EGalvan@rbgg.com

25

Attorneys for Plaintiff

26

27

28

[863598-1]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 14

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 117 Filed 09/30/14 Page 15 of 15

1

CERTIFICATE OF CERVICE

2

I hereby certify that I served all parties via the Court’s electronic filing and service

3
system on this 30th day of September 2014.
4

/s/ Allen Lichtenstein
5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[863598-1]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 15

 
 Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 138 Filed 01/14/16 Page 1 of 3

1 ADAM PAUL LAXALT Nevada Attorney General
2 ANDREA R. BARRACLOUGH
Chief Deputy Attorney General 3 Nevada Bar No. 9158
CHARLES W. LEHMAN 4 Deputy Attorney General
Nevada Bar No. 12994 5 Bureau of Litigation
Public Safety Division 6 100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701-4717 7 Tel: (775) 684-1261
E-mail: clehman@ag.nv.gov 8
Attorneys for Defendants James 9 Greg Cox and E.K. McDaniel

10

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

13

14

15

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, a

) Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC )

16

Washington Nonprofit Corporation

)

PAUL WRIGHT (current publisher of Prison )

(CONSOLIDATED)

17 Legal News),

Plaintiffs,

)

)

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF

18

vs.

) DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, WITH ) STIPULATION TO HOLD DISMISSAL IN

19 JACKIE CRAWFORD in her official capacity )

ABEYANCE

as the former director of NDOC, JOHN

)

20 SLANSKY(deceased), in his official and

)

individual capacities as former assistant

)

21 director of NDOC, ROBERT BAYER, in his )

official and individual capacities as the former )

22 Director of NDOC, DOES I-XXV, Defendant )

RED ANDWHITE CORPORATIONS I-X, and )

23 BLACK AND BLUE STATE and/or

)

MUNICIPAL ENTITIES I-X,PRISON LEGAL )

24 NEWS, et al,

)

Defendants.

)

25

26

27

28 Office of the

Attorney General

100 N. Carson St.

Carson City, NV

1

89701-4717

[0979-17 2822388-1]

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 138 Filed 01/14/16 Page 2 of 3

1 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the )

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, a )

2 Washington Nonprofit Corporation,

)

3

)

Plaintiffs,

)

4

vs.

) )

5

JAMES GREG COX (in his official capacity) )

as Director of Nevada Department of

)

6

Corrections; E.K. McDaniel (in his official ) capacity) as Deputy Director of Operations at )

7 NDOC; and DOES I - XXV,

)

)

8

Defendants

)

)

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Office of the
Attorney General 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, NV
89701-4717 [0979-17 2822388-1]

Plaintiff Prison Legal News, by and through counsel Allen Lichtenstein and Staci Pratt, with pro hac vice counsel Lance Weber, Ernest Galvan and Lisa Ells, and Defendants James Greg Cox and E.K. McDaniel, by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney General, and Andrea R. Barraclough, Chief Deputy Attorney General, as a result of a Settlement Agreement reached, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this action with prejudice, in accordance with the terms below.
First, per the Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit A, the parties agree that the dismissal of the claims, though ordered, will be held in abeyance in any manner the Court deems best to suit recordkeeping and docketing needs. The reason for the abeyance is so that this Court may maintain jurisdiction for the purposes of entertaining any enforcement and monitoring actions brought by Plaintiffs. Per the Settlement Agreement, the period of time for abeyance will be no less than ten (10) years, at which time, the Defendants may move to end the abeyance and have the court fully and finally dismiss the case with prejudice (with the underlying 2000 Consent decree discussed in the Settlement Agreement surviving outside of any dismissed dockets), thereby terminating the instant case number and its consolidated docket number 3:13-cv-00346-HDM-WGC.
Second, per the Settlement Agreement, damages and attorney fees and costs were combined into one-lump sum figure. Accordingly, for purposes of this motion so the Court need not involve itself in a costs and fees analysis, the parties stipulate to the dismissal of this action
2

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 138 Filed 01/14/16 Page 3 of 3

1 with prejudice, with each party to bear their own costs and fees up to and including the date of

2 the Court’s entry of this Order. This agreement on costs and fees, however, does not include

3 any fees or costs accumulated henceforth as outlined in the Settlement Agreement for

4 enforcement or monitoring.

5

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 14th day of January, 2016.

6

7

ADAM PAUL LAXALT Attorney General

8

Human Rights Defense Center

9 By: /s/ Andrea Barraclough

10

ANDREA R. BARRACLOUGH Chief Deputy Attorney General

11

Nevada Bar No. 9158

Attorneys for Defendants

12

By: _/s/ Lance Weber___________________ LANCE WEBER pro hac vice General Counsel Attorneys for Plaintiff

13

14

15 APPROVED AND SO ORDERED: 16

17

HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 DATED: ____________________________

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Office of the

Attorney General

100 N. Carson St.

Carson City, NV

3

89701-4717

[0979-17 2822388-1]

 
 Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 1 of 24

1 ADAM PAl,JL LAXALT Nevada Attorney General
2 ANDREA R. BARRACLOUGH Chief Deputy Attorney General
3 Nevada Bar No. 9158 CHARLES W. LEHMAN
4 Deputy Attorney General Nevada Bar No. 12994
5 Bureau of Litigation
Public Safety Division 6 100 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701-4717 7 Tel: (775) 684-1261
E-mail: clehman@ag.nv.gov 8
Attorneys for Defendants James 9 Greg Cox and E.K. McDaniel

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11

12

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

13

I
PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the

) Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC

14

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, a Washingtofl Nonprofit Corporation

) )

(CONSOLIDATED)

15

PAUL WRI'GHT (current publisher of Prison )

Legal News),

)

16

Plaintiffs, vs.

)

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF

) DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

17

)

JACKIE CRAWFORD in her official capacity )

18 as the former director of NDOC, JOHN

)

SLANSKY(deceased), in his official and

)

19 individual capacities as former assistant

)

director of NDOC, ROBERT BAYER, in his )

20 official and individual capacities as the former)

Director of NDOC, DOES I-XXV, Defendant )

21 RED ANDWHITE CORPORATIONS 1-X, and )

BLACK AND BLUE STATE and/or

)

22 MUNICIPAL ENTITIES 1-X,PRISON LEGAL )

NEWS, eta/,

)

23

Defendants.

)

)

24

)

25

26

27

8 Office of the2

Attorney General

100 N. Carson St.

Carson City, NV

1

89701·4717

[0979-17
?R??1RR-11

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 2 of 24

1 ______________________________ ))

2

) )

3

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, a

) )

4 Washingto,n Nonprofit Corporation,

) )

5

Plaintiffs, vs.

) )

6

)

JAMES GREG COX (in his official capacity) )

7 as Director of Nevada Department of

)

Corrections; E.K. McDaniel (in his official )

8 capacity) as Deputy Director of Operations at )

NDOC; and DOES I -XXV,

)

9

)

Defendants

)

10 _____________________________))

11

12

Plaintiff Prison Legal News, by and through counsel Allen Lichtenstein and Staci Pratt,

13 with pro hac vice counsel Lance Weber, Ernest Galvan and Lisa Ells, and Defendants James

14 Greg Cox ~nd E.K. McDaniel, by and through counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney
I
15 General, ~nd Andrea R. Barraclough, Chief Deputy Attorney General, and Charles W.

16 Lehman, Deputy Attorney General, as a result of a Settlement Agreement reached, hereby

17 stipulate to the dismissal of this action without prejudice, in accordance with the terms below.

18

First', per the Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit A, and the Addendum, attached

19 as Exhibit B, the parties agree to the dismissal of the claims outlined therein; on the condition

20 that the Court will maintain jurisdiction for the purposes of entertaining any enforcement and

21 monitoring actions brought by Plaintiffs. Per the Settlement Agreement, the period of time for

22 this will be no less than ten (1 0) years, at which time, the Defendants may move to have the 23 court fully and finally dismiss the case with prejudice, thereby terminating the instant case

24 number and its consolidated docket number 3: 13-cv-00346-HDM-WGC. Additionally, the

25 parties agree for this Court to administratively close this action, upon the Court's execution of

26 this stipulation and order, subject to a motion to reopen at any time by either party.

i

27

Sec~nd, per the Settlement Agreement, damages and attorney fees and costs were

Office ofthe28 Attorney General 1C00arNso. nCaCristyo,nNSVt.
89701·4717
[0979-17
?A??~AIL 11

combined into one-lump sum figure. Accordingly, for purposes of this motion so the Court need 2

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 3 of 24

1 not involve itself in a costs and fees analysis, the parties stipulate to the dismissal of this action,

2 with each party to bear their own costs and fees up to and including the date of the Court's entry

3 of this Order. This agreement on costs and fees, however, does not include any fees or costs

4 accumulated henceforth as outlined in the Settlement Agreement for enforcement or

5 monitoring.

6

Finally, the Court, through its inherent authority, has decided that the new Settlement

7 Agreeme,nt (Exhibit A, and Addendum at Exhibit B) will supersede the 2000 consent decree,

8 as it is a more clear and definite statement of obligations by both parties. Therefore, the Court

9 hereby dismisses the 2000 case and consent decree, but does so without prejudice. In the

10 event the 2000 consent decree does contain terms not contemplated by the new Settlement

11 Agreement (Exhibit A, and Addendum at Exhibit B) and in the event the parties wish to

12 address the 2000 consent decree or seek enforcement of any term therein, either party may

13 make a motion seeking appropriate relief.

14

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 26th day of February, 2016.

15

16

ADAM P , UL LAXALT Attorney General

17

18

19

20

21

Human Rights Defense Center

~

By

-:-lf.~~==::::--~-----
NCE WEBER

pro hao vice

General Counsel

Attorneys for Plaintiff

22

23 APPROVED AND SO ORDERED:
24

25

26

HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27

Offlceotlhe28
Attomoy Genoral 100 N. C81l011 St. Car&on City, NV
89701-4717
[0979-17
?A?'l'l!Ut11

DATED:~~--------------------3

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 4 of 24
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 5 of 24

In the Matter of:

Prison legal News v. Cox, et al.

Case

No. 3:00wcv·00373·HDM·WGC (U.S. District Court, District of

(Consolidated) Nevada)

SETTLEMENT AGREEM§NT AND FULL AND FINAL RELEASE THIS SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND FULL AND FINAL RELEASE (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") is made and entered Into as of the date this Agreement is signed, by and among the NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ("NDOC"), on behalf of itself and all of its officers, directors, employees, formeremployees, agents, predecessors, divisions, correctional facilities, successors, administrators, and assigns, including, but not limited to Jackie Crawford, John Slansky, James Cox, E.K. McDaniel, and any other persons named in the original Complaint at the above case number or the new Complaint at 3:13-cv-00346-HDM-WGC who are or were NDOC employees (collectively referred to as "the NDOC"), and PRISON LEGAL NEWS ("PLN"), on behalf of itself and all of Its officers, directors, employees, formeremployees, agents, predecessors, divisions, correctional facilities, successors, administrators, and assigns.
I. RECITALS
A. At all times relevant hereto, Jackie Crawford, John Slansky, James Cox,
E.K. McDaniel are or were NDOC employees;
B. At all times relevant hereto, PLN is a wholly owned publishing project of the Human Rights Defense Center, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation with offices in Lake Worth, Florida. PLN publishes Prison Legal News, a monthly journal of corrections, news and analysis. PLN has thousands of subscribers in the United States and abroad, including prisoners, attorneys and judges.
C. This Agreement addresses and resolves certain disputes arising from and relating to allegations that the NDOC violated PLN's First and Fourteenth Amendment

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 6 of 24
Settlement: Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et at.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 2 of1.5
rights as It relates to the handling and delivery of its publications to NDOC Incarcerated Inmates and the alleged lack of due process associated with the NDOCs failure to provide RLN notice and opportunity to be heard regarding refused or censored publications:
D. In reviewing the claims of the Complaint, the NDOC and all individually~ named Defendants deny that the NDOC and Its employees engaged In any culpable conduct. The NDOC's legal position was at all times, and remains, that PLN's rights were not violated; and
E. Without making any admission of liability on either part, the NDOC and PLN have reached a settlement ("Settlement") of their disputes and this litigation. This written Agreement memorializes the Settlement terms reached by and between the NDOC and PLN. II. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
A. : On September 18, 2000, the NDOC and PLN entered into a Stipulation
and Judgment/Order under Case No. 3;00-cv-00373-HDM-WCG ("2000 Agreement"). Same acted as a consent decree and contained no language establishing an end date; thus, that consent decree exists in perpetuity as b~tween the NDOC and PLN absent a court order terminating that consent decree.
B. Both parties agree that the terms of the 2000 Agreement reached In Prison Legal News v. Crawford, 3;00-cv-00373-HDM-WCG, will remain in force and effect in addition to the instant Settlement Agreement, except that: 1) the proper party is no longer the Nevada Department of Prisons but the Nevada Department of Corrections; 2) all references on pages three to five of the consent decree placing the
obligation 6f rejection and review into the Warden's hands are superseded to the extent
those same powers of review and rejection now lie with the Publications Review
(1BG5295-3J

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 7 of 24
Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, at a/.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 3 of 15
Committee; and 3) the appropriate appellate body for a relevant due process appeal submitted by either a sender or inmate is no longer the Director of the Department, but Is now an independent and unbiased party who did not sit on the Publication Review Committee (this will most likely be the Deputy Director or a designee).
C. While this Settlement Agreement will act as the catalyst for dismissal of all claims for relief asserted in Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 117) and any pending enforcement claims related to the 2000 Agreement, the parties anticipate an abeyance of the dismissal so that the Court may maintain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the settlement, per the terms below. Though this dismissal will close out the above case number, In abeyance for the next ten (1 0) years and permanently thereafter upon motion, as described below, the parties agree that said dismissal will not tenninate the 2000 Agreement, which remains operative In perpetuity, with the exceptions as outlined In Section II(B) below. Ill. INJUNCTIVE TERMS
Bo~h parties agree to the following injunctive tenns: APPROVED VENDORS
Since the Inception of this lawsuit, Defendants have amended NDOC regulations to exclude any policy whereby publishers and other vendors or distributors of publications such as books, magazines, pamphlets and other printed literature were placed on :an approved list, and prisoners were only allowed to receive publications from vendors that were on the approved list(s).
a As mechanism of injunctive relief to ensure that Defendants do not revert back
to this type of policy and practice, Defendants agree that all Incoming publications will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for a determination of suitability within the parameters of institutional safety and security regardless of the identity of the publisher,
(2665295-3}

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 8 of 24
Settlement. Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, eta/.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373·HDM·WGC Page4of15
vendor or other distributor. Defendants agree not to censor or withhold books based solely on the presence or absence of a sender's name on a list of approved publishers, vendors or distributors. If NDOC maintains any such list or lists of approved publishers it shall be for purposes of reference only and shall not be used as the sole basis for censorship of any publication absent an independent Inquiry Into the legitimacy of the publisher. Defendants will agree that a copy of the list, if any exists, will be provided to a publisher, vendor or prisoner upon request. To this end, the Parties acknowledge that, in the event that there is any question as to the legitimacy of any particular publisher, vendor or other distributor of printed literature, the NDOC shall perfonn all appropriate research to detennine whether any person or entity mailing publications to prisoners l.s an actual publisher, vendor or other distributor of printed publications. In the event that any publication is withheld from any prisoner on the grounds that the publisher or distributor is not an actual publisher, vendor, or distributor of printed publications, both the sender and the intended recipient of the publication shall get notice and.an opportunity to be heard as more fully described below.
POSTAL RATES Since the inception of this lawsuit, Defendants have amended NDOC regulations to exclude the requirement that all books be mailed to prisoners via First Class mail. As a mechanism of Injunctive relief to ensure NDOC does not revert back to this policy or practice, Defendants agree that all incoming publications will be reviewed on a case by case basis 1for a detenninatlon of suitability within the parameters of institutional safety and security regardless of the postal rate used by the sender. Defendants agree that postal classification shall not be a basis for rejection of any mail sent to NDOC prisoners.

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 9 of 24
Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et sl.i Case No. 3:00-cv-00373·HOM-WGC Page 5 of 15
ADDRESS LABELS AND STICKERS Since the Inception of this lawsuit, Defendants have amended NDOC regulations to exclude a practice whereby Incoming mall was censored because of the presence of an address label and/or a sticker on the outside of the envelope or packaging. As a mechanism of Injunctive relief to ensure NDOC does not revert back to this policy, the Defendants agree that all Incoming mall to a prisoner, regardless of the presence of address labels or stickers on the outside cover or other packaging, will be reviewed on a case by case basis for a determination of suitability within the parameters of Institutional safety and security. The Parties acknowledge that alternatives exist in which envelopes and packaging may be discarded or address labels may be removed prior to the distribution of the mall to prisoners in order to avoid security risks. The Parties also acknowledge that there may come a time in the future when address labels, stickers, or the presence thereof may warrant exclusion, confiscation or investigation depending on whether new forms of contraband smuggling make use of address labels or adhesives. In that future event (with the acknowledgment that no mass need to scrutinize and remove address labels or stickers currently exists as of the date of this Agreement), the Defendants may instruct NDOC staff to examine each sticker or address label on a case by case basis to determine the presence of an adulterated or contraband label or sticker, and the presence of an adulterated or contraband label may warrant refusal to deliver the mall pending an investigation. Defendants agree that the mere presence of address labels or stickers alone shall not be a basis for censorship of incoming mail Intended for NDOC prisoners.
PRIOR APPROVAL OF BOOK ORDERS Since the inception of this lawsuit, Defendants have amended NDOC regulations, policies and practices to exclude a policy and practice whereby prisoners had to:
(28$529S-31

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 10 of 24
Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM·WGC Page 6of15
a) seek and obtain pennlsslon from NDOC staff persons as a condition precedent to receiving any books In the mall, and, b) ensure that the book was delivered by the publisher to the Institution within sixty (60) days of the date of approval. As a mechanism of Injunctive relief to ensure NDOC does not revert back to this policy and practice, Defendants agree that prisoners will not have to request advance pennisslon In order to have an incoming book and/or publication reviewed by mallroom staff and/or the Publication Review Committee for delivery to the prisoner. Defendants further agree that prisoners will not have to ensure that books and/or publications are delivered according to any particular type of time schedule In order to have an incoming book and/or publication reviewed by mallroom staff and/or the Publication Review Committee for delivery to the prisoner. This settlement tenn does not affect NDOC's ability to withhold and forward concerning materials to the Publication Review Committee nor does It affect the Publication Review Committee's ability to reject books and/or publications that present a safety and security concern or that violate other tenns of NDOC Administrative Regulations (ARs).
In the event that any incoming book and/or publication is withheld from delivery to a prisoner and forwarded to the Publication Review Committee, the mallroom staff person who makes the Initial censorship decision will provide to both the sender and the prisoner a written notice of the initial censorship decision and infonnation about the opportunity to appeal the decision of either the mallroom staff person or the Publication Review Committee as more thoroughly described below.
DYE PRO~ESS Since the inception of this lawsuit, Defendants have amended NDOC Administrative Regulation 750.06 regarding the provision of notice and appeal (due process) to those affected by the censorship of their U.S. Mail.

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 11 of 24
Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legs/ News v. CoK, eta/.; Case No. 3:00..Cv-00373·HDM·WGC
Page 7 of15
To· ensure that AR 750.06 Is complied with across all institutions, NDOC will Instruct the Warden of each Institution to review the Institution's Individual mailroom policies a.s they regard due process to senders of rejected publications, and the
Wardens :will ensure that each Institution's Operational Procedures (OPs) adhere to
both AR 750.06 and principles of due process. To that end, Defendants agree to Implement Institutional OPs to clarify that both
senders and recipients of mall are entitled to receive timely, written notice and an opportunity to appeal censorship decisions whenever a piece of mail Is withheld from the regular course of delivery to a prisoner. The NDOC agrees that any new or revised OPs regarding incoming mall will include: 1) a mechanism by which rejected, withheld or censored mall will be retained by the NDOC until all appeals of the initial censorship decision have been resolved or until after the deadline to file an appeal has expired if no appeal has been filed; 2) a process whereby notice of the censorship Is given to both the sender and Intended recipient of censored mall (this notice should make clear the reasons for the rejection; note the specific section or part of mail alleged to violate security, policy or rule; and should provide the name and address of the NDOC staff member to whom an appeal should be lodged); and 3) a means of ensuring that the appeal of censorship or refusal to deliver is unbiased, conducted by someone who did not participate in the initial censorship decision, and is based on a personal secondary inspection of the censored or rejected material.
Further, the Warden of each institution will: 1) draft into the institution's OP a mechanism for an audit of the institution's mail room that will be conducted two times per year with the goal of ensuring compliance with AR 750.06 and the corresponding OP; and 2) draft into the Institution's OP a provision that, should any Warden, Associate Warden or caseworker In their capacities as grievance responders become aware of a

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 12 of 24
Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prl$on Legal News v. Cox, eta/.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM·WGC Page 8 of 15
grievance alleging that a sender of mall was not provided notice of rejection or notice of right to appeal, the Warden or Associate Warden will investigate mall room compliance with the applicable Administrative Regulation and Operational Procedure outside of the biannual audit.
I
When the revised OP of each Institution Is submitted to the Deputy Director for approval, the Wardens will Include a notice to the Deputy Director that changes to the OP were made in conjunction with this Agreement for tracking purposes. NDOC agrees to notify PLN when each institution's OP has been amended to conform to this Agreement. Both parties acknowledge the amendment of the OPs will be performed after the date that the Court orders a dismissal of PLN's pending claims.
Defendants also agree to implement a training program for mailroom staff regarding the handling and dissemination of inmate mail. To that end, a training manual will be created by the NDOC. Defendants agree that, before the training manual Is put into use, it will provide a draft copy of the training manual to PLN for the purpose of soliciting input from PLN. Though the parties agree that Defendants need not accept all PLN suggestions for training manual language, the Defendants agree to evaluate PLN's suggestions in good faith, to obtain advice of their counsel regarding the propriety of PLN's proposed language and to implement PLN proposed terms to the extent they do not conflict with or impinge on institutional safety and security, or do not significantly strain the NDOC's legislatively approved fiscal budgets.
Both parties acknowledge that when the vendor and/or publisher receives a publication back noted as "returned to sender," and the prisoner is no longer incarcerated by NDOC, the above due process requirements will not apply.
Finally, the NDOC also agrees to further amend and clarify AR 750.06 at Its first available opportunity to more clearly outline the due process required when publications

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 13 of 24
Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et at.; Case No. 3:0G-cv..00373-HDM·WGC Page 9 of 15
are censored or withheld from a prisoner. PLN acknowledges that the process of Implementation of an AR requires approval of the Board of Prison Commissioners (the Board), which only meets quarterty, and that it could take up to six months to get a revised AR on the agenda depending on the volume of ARs up for approval. Accordingly, both parties acknowledge this part of the Agreement will not be carried out until after dismissal of the claims. However, the NDOC agrees to provide PLN notification of when a revised AR 750 Is adopted by the Board.
NDOC STAFF TRAINING NDOC agrees to implement a certified training program for the post of mailroom Corrections Officer, which will Include topics on: 1) the correct handling of notices to prisoners and to senders when Incoming mail is withheld per the amended AR 750.06; 2) the requirements of sending notice of rejection and notice of right to appeal to the sender of rejected mail per AR 750.06; 3) the requirement of saving and maintaining a repository for all notices sent to senders of rejected publications per AR 750.06; 4) the process for preserving censored or rejected mall for secondary review by NDOC staff not involved with the Initial censorship decision; and 5) the history of litigation with Prison Legal News, Including the 2000 consent decree and the terms of this Agreement. The training will culminate with the assigned officer needing to take and pass a quiz before he or she qualifies to be assigned to the mailroom. IV. MISCELLANOEUS PROVISIONS
FORCE MAJEURE The parties acknowledge that terms of this Agreement may be rendered Inapplicable by future enactment of state statutes or decisions of state or federal courts (though such laws or decisions are not known to exist at this time). Further, the parties understand that provisions of this Agreement may be rendered temporarily

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 14 of 24
Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, eta/.; Case No. 3:00-cv~0373-HDM·WGC Page 10 of 15
Impracticable or unavailable due to riots, strikes by either prisoners or employees, extreme weather conditions, or acts of nature or Acts of God, whatever those may be (though no such conditions are known to exist at this time). Nonetheless, NDOC anticipates being able to perform under the terms of this Agreement in a manner that protects the constitutional rights of both recipients and senders of prisoner mail at NDOC Institutions.
JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE NDOC acknowledges that PLN will request that the federal District Judge or Magistrate Judge overseeing this case maintain jurisdiction over this case beyond its dismissal to hear any enforcement actions. NDOC will not oppose that request to the extent that, if the judge agrees, future jurisdiction for enforcement will be limited to (1 0) ten years. Should the Court agree to retain jurisdiction for ten (1 0) years following the dismissal of the claims, and in the event PLN believes enforcement of the Agreement is needed, PLN may move the Court to enforce the Agreement. PLN may also seek attorneys' fees and costs related to said motions and the monitoring required to prepare for said motions, as more fully outlined below. There will also be affirmative action needed by the NDOC to terminate this action, as outlined below. If the Court grants NDOC's Motion to Terminate as referenced below and ten (10) years have passed, PLN will have to seek relief under a new case number. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed but with the dismissal held in abeyance, if the Court agrees. To effectuate this, both parties will execute a stipulation and order to dismiss with the provision of jurisdiction described herein identified. To terminate this action, NDOC must make a motion seeking that relief. NDOC agrees that it may only make a Motion for Termination In this matter on or after the tenth Ill

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 15 of 24
Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, eta/.; Case No, 3:00-cv.00373--HDM·WGC Page 11 of15
anniversary of the execution of the Agreement seeking to formally dismiss the case and remove the abeyance in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, but will do so no earlier than the tenth anniversary of the Agreement.
MONITORINg AND FEES NDOC agrees that, to monitor compliance with this Agreement during the specified ten (10) year period, PLN may undertake the following monitoring activities:
'
a. PLN may perform a case by case analysis of individual complaints; b. PLN may send out surveys to its subscribers two times per year; and c. PLN may do quarterly reviews of DOC Forms 3022 (or any form with a
different title whose purpose is the same}, and the mail monitoring logs (or their equivalent), specific to any PLN publications. These forms will be sent to PLN by the Warden of each of the 7 main NDOC Institutions. NDOC will provide these forms to PLN on a quarterly basis, same to be redacted to exclude non-PLN entities. Each of these monitoring activities may be conducted prior to seeking Informal resolution. However, should any of these above monitoring activities reveal Issues, PLN agrees to first contact the Attorney General's Office to resolve the matters informally. Should PLN feel it needs to perform monitoring activities in excess of those described :above, it will first try to gain informal permission to do so via the Attorney General's Office, but may seek Court approval for excess monitoring activities if informal p~rmission is denied. PLN agrees that any money sought in monitoring fees and costs will be limited to PLN's monitoring of its own publications and access to Its own materials. PLN agrees that it will provide a report to the Attorney General's Office biannually on June 30th, starting on June 30, 2017, which will Itemize all the monitoring charges

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 16 of 24

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al.; Case No. 3:00·cv-00373-HDM·WGC Page 12 of15

accumulated for that period. Both parties agree that NDOC may challenge with the Court any amount of fees charged and billed.

TIME FOR IMPLEMENTATION PLN agrees to give NDOC a 60-day period of time from the execution of this Agreement to implement the policies and terms of this Agreement before it seeks to begin enforcement, with the acknowledgement that It will take NDOC some time to make the necessary changes.

NOTICE TO INMATES OF THIS AGREEMENT
PLN will send a one {1) page summary of the terms of this Agreement to NDOC
and NDOC agrees to post the summary document In the NDOC housing units for a
period of sixty (60) days. NDOC also agrees to maintain the full terms of this
I
Agreement In its law libraries, available upon request to individual prisoners, for the
duration of the Agreement.

V.

MONETARY AGREEMENT AND DISMISSAL

In exchange for PLN's release and dismissal of all pending legal claims against

the NDOC and all named Defendants, held In abeyance per the terms above, the

NDOC and PLN hereby agree to finally settle all claims, disputes, and controversies,

arising from and relating to all disputes and litigation, pursuant to the following terms:

1. The NDOC agrees to pay PLN a total of $475,000 (four-hundred,

seventy-five thousand dollars). This total sum combines damages and attorney fees

and costs. PLN may determine the allocation of this money between damages and

attorney fees and costs at its own discretion. The NDOC (via the State Tort Fund) will

direct payment to PLN's local counsel, Allen Lichtenstein. PLN must satisfy any retainer

agreements or payment arrangements with HRDC, hired counsel and local counsel, and

NDOC will not be responsible if attorney fees arrangements are not satisfied between

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 17 of 24
Settlement Agreement In the Matter of . Prison t..ega/ NeW$ v. CoK, eta/.; Case No. 3:00·ov..00373·HDM·WGC Page 13 of 15
PLN and its attorneys. PLN acknowledges that payment of this monetary sum Is contingent on the approval of the State of Nevada Board of Examiners.
2. In consideration of the above terms agreed to by NDOC, PLN agrees to dismiss the instant case, though as described above, the 2000 Agreement reached originally in the instant case will survive In perpetuity. Said dismissal will be with prejudice in the United State District Court, though said dismissal may be held in abeyance for ten (10) years at the discretion of the Court for the purpose of entertaining enforcement actions per the terms described above. To that end, PLN agrees to execute the contemporaneously submitted Stipulation and Order to Dismiss and return same to NDOC for filing. Once filed, the NDOC will Instruct all payments to be made in accordance with the Agreement and will Implement all terms of Injunctive relief as outlined herein. Though the case will be dismissed In abeyance, the parties agree that, should the District Court or Magistrate Judge elect to retain jurisdiction for enforcement actions for a period of ten (1 0) years as outlined above, PLN may seek enforcement of the Agreement via the procedural mechanism required by the presiding Judge, and further agree that the 2000 Agreement reached In the Instant case will survive the dismissal and may be used as a basis for future enforcement actions.
I
VI. CONTINGENCIES The above agreement is structured to give the Court proper deference In
deciding whether to retain jurisdiction. However, PLN reserves the right, In the event the Court declines to retain jurisdiction for ten (10) years for the purpose of deciding enforcement actions, to withdraw from this Agreement without penalty. To verify that the Court will retain jurisdiction prior to the filing of the Stipulation to Dismiss, Defendants agree to place on calendar a Request for Hearing. During this hearing, the

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 18 of 24
Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. CoK, eta/.; Case No. 3:00-cv..()0373·HDM·WGC Page14 of 15
parties will ascertain the intentions of the Court regarding its Intent to accept or decline continued jurisdiction per the terms of this Agreement.
This Agreement is also contingent upon the NDOC receiving from PLN summaries of attorney billing records to justify its attomeys' fees within two (2) weeks of the execution of this Agreement.
As noted above, the Agreement is also contingent on the approval of the Board of Examiners. VII. COMPROMISE AND NO LIABILITY
The parties agree that this Agreement is a complete compromise of matters Involving disputed Issues of law and fact relating to all the above-described disputes and the litigation, and they assume the risk that the facts or law may be otherwise than they believe. The parties understand and agree that this Settlement is a compromise of all disputed claims to date. The parties understand and agree that the consideration given by the NDOC in exchange for the release of all claims asserted by PLN, as set forth herein, is not to be construed and shall never at any time for any purpose be considered an admission of liability on the part of any party, by whom liability Is expressly denied. VIII. BINDING EFFECT UPON SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST
This Agreement shall be binding upon and Inure to the benefit of the NDOC and PLN, and their respective successors and assigns. IX. COMPLETENESS OF DOCUMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the matters set forth herein, and there are no representations, warranties, agreements, arrangements, or undertakings, oral or written, between or among the

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 19 of 24

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Pr/ton Legal New5 v. CoN, et al.; case No. 3:01kv-G0373·HDM·WGC Page 15 of 16
parties hereto relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which are not fully expressed herein.
THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

DATED: _,__L.\~'/-1-lJ$~/"---1.-t>_(_S_-_

• CD
Interim Director
DATED: 1/-J$-/ ~

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT
'r-:x1-. All6R0W-,A,. R&f-D~rli~~~9....
chlet De~uty Attorney General Attorney for Defendants

DATED: __.;,1.;.1.;/-,-w=.;:/:&;...Qf.JoIAS.=...:....o~---

::;;eJ~t~ FORM AND CONTENT DATED:
General Counsel, Human Rights Defense Center Attorney for Plaintiff

!/·It· 'J0/ 5

.. - ... I t:CWWA. . . fb 4 !4&•wz:; 4Wh ::;;;:...

4£¢;. I

4 Jl;t•*· ·-·

_,.F¥4 - ... ,.,,.,..

4 ; ,, ...,I;

l

I •

. • .....,... ..._ iJ lUi ......... ii¥1"!YJI'f.......i¥\k-.-;:wwo

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 20 of 24
EXHIBIT 8
EXHIBIT 8

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 21 of 24
In the Matter of: Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al. Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC (Consolidated) (U.S. District Court, District of Nevada)
ADDENDUM TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FULL AND FINAL RELEASE Between November 18, 2015, and November 23, 2015, a SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND FULL AND FINAL RELEASE (hereinafter referred to as the "original Agreement") was fully executed in the above case number. This document acts as an addendum to that original Agreement, and will thus be incorporated as if fully expressed in the original Agreement. As with the original Agreement, this addendum is made and entered into as of the date signed, by and among the NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ("NDOC"), on behalf of itself and all of its officers, directors, employees, former-employees, agents, predecessors, divisions, correctional facilities, successors, administrators, and assigns, including, but not limited to Jackie Crawford, John Slansky, James Cox, E.K. McDaniel, and any other persons named in the original Complaint at the above case number or the new Complaint at 3:13-cv-00346-HDMWGC who are or were NDOC employees (collectively referred to as "the NDOC"), and PRISON LEGAL NEWS ("PLN"), on behalf of itself and all of its officers, directors, employees, former-employees, agents, predecessors, divisions, correctional facilities, successors, administrators, and assigns. I. TERMS OF THE ADDENDUM
A. Section II, Subsection B, of the original Agreement, is replaced in its entirety by the following language (new language in bold):
"Both ~arties agree that the terms of the instant Agreement supersede the terms of the 2000 Agreement reached in Prison Legal News v. Crawford, 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WCG, except as to any material term contained in the 2000 agreement that is not substantially covered by the instant Agreement,
[2865295-3]

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 22 of 24
Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, eta/.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 2 of 4 '
in which case any such material term will be considered to be incorporated by reference in the instant Agreement. The 2000 Agreement is attached as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. Both parties agree that, while the 2000 consent decree will be superseded, PLN may still make a motion seeking to enforce a term of the 2000 consent decree not covered by the instant Agreement if it believes there has been a breach of that term." B. Section II, Subsection C, of the original Agreement, will have the following replacement language added (new language in bold): "While: this Settlement Agreement will act as the catalyst for dismissal of all claims for relief asserted in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 117) and an,y pending enforcement claims related to the 2000 Agreement, the parties anticipate an abeyance of the dismissal so that the Court may maintain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the settlement, per the terms below. Though this dismissal will close out the above case number, in abeyance for the next ten (1 0) years and permanently thereafter upon motion, as described below, the parties agree that said dismissal will not prohibit PLN from moving to enforce any term of the instant Agreement or the 2000 Agreement that is not substantially covered by a term of the 2000 consent decree, with the exceptions as outlined in Section 11(8) below."
'
C. Section V, Subsection 2, of the original Agreement, will have the following
I
replacement language added (new language in bold): "In consideration of the above terms agreed to by NDOC, PLN agrees to dismiss the instant case, though as described above, enforcement motions regarding any terms of the instant Agreement and/or terms of the 2000 Agreement not
[2865295-3]

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 23 of 24
Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, eta/.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 3 of 4
subst~ntially covered by the instant Agreement may be filed by PLN. Said dismissal will be without prejudice in the United State District Court, though said dismissal may be held in abeyance for ten (1 0) years at the discretion of the Court 'tor the purpose of entertaining enforcement actions per the terms described above. To that end, PLN agrees to execute the subsequently submitted Stipulation and Order to Dismiss and return same to NDOC for filing. Once filed, the NDOC will instruct all payments to be made in accordance with the Agreement and will implement all terms of injunctive relief as outlined herein. Though the case will be dismissed in abeyance, the parties agree that, should the District Court or Magistrate Judge elect to retain jurisdiction for enforcement actions for a period of ten (1 0) years as outlined above, PLN may seek enforcement of the Agreement via the procedural mechanism required by the
i
presiding Judge and further agree that the terms of the 2000 Agreement not substantially similar to the terms of the instant Agreement may be used as a basis for future enforcement actions. II. BINDING EFFECT UPON SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST This addendum to the Agreement shall likewise be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the NDOC and PLN, and their respective successors and assigns. Ill. COMPLETENESS OF AGREEMENT The parties agree that the three (3) changed subsections described above are the only changes being made to the original Agreement, and that all other terms therein remain in full force and effect, unchanged. IV. ACKNOWEDGEMENT OF NO MONETARY CHANGES Both parties agree that this addendum in no way impacts the financial terms of settlement that by the time of this execution has been approved by the Nevada Board of
(2865295-3]

Case 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Document 140 Filed 02/26/16 Page 24 of 24

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, eta/.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page4of4
Ill Examiners. Accordingly, as no monetary changes have been offered, sought or made, this addendum need not be subject to Board of Examiners approval.

tive Director of HRDC
DATED: __'1..-+-'-~-b+-/~_o_(-~_

THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

By:

~~n /i?Ltf';/d)u;;EJ.

E.. M DAN

I

Interim Director

DATED: ;._J#IJ.c,J6 7 7

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT
~"/C 1 L ' .O AO ':~ Chief DeJ?Uty Attorney General Attorney for Defendants

DATED:

?/~ /.::a,lo

DATED:

C

R

General Counsel, Human Rights Defense Center

Attorney for Plaintiff

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

10 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, et al.,

)

)

11

Plaintiffs,

)

)

12

)

vs.

)

13

)

JACKIE CRAWFORD in her official )

14 capacity as the former director )

of NDOC, et al.,

)

15

)

Defendants.

)

16 _________________________________ )

3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC ORDER

17

The court approves and adopts the stipulation and addendum to the

18 stipulation for dismissal of this action without prejudice.

19 Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice in accordance

20 with the terms and conditions of the stipulation and addendum to the

21 stipulation filed on February 26, 2016 (#140). The court retains

22 jurisdiction over this action to consider any motion to reopen this

23 case to compel compliance with the terms of the stipulated settlement.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

DATED: This 3rd day of March, 2016.

26

27

____________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

1

 
 Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 1 of 18
United States District Court District of Nevada (Reno)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:00−cv−00373−HDM−WGC

CLOSED

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, ET AL. V. JACKIE CRAWFORD, ET AL. Assigned to: Judge Howard D. McKibben Referred to: Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/11/2000 Date Terminated: 03/03/2016 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Prison Legal News

represented by David Fathi ACLU (NY) 125 Broad Street 17th Floor New York, NY 10004− (212) 549−2608 TERMINATED: 07/17/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Donald Y Evans Donald York Evans 216 East Liberty Street PO Box 864 Reno, NV 89504 Email: dyeltd@gbis.com TERMINATED: 07/17/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ernest Galvan Rosen Bien Galvan &Grunfeld 315 Montgomery St., 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: egalvan@rbgg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Krista M. Stone−Manista Rosen Bien Galvan &Grunfeld 315 Montgomery Street 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415 433 6830 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lance Weber Human Rights Defense Center General Counsel &Litigation Director PO Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−360−2523 Fax: 866−228−1681 Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa A. Ells

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 2 of 18

Rosen Bien Galvan &Grunfeld 315 Montgomery St., 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: lells@rbgg.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sabarish P Neelakanta Human Rights Defense Center PO Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−360−2523 Fax: 866−228−1681 Email: sneelakanta@humanrightsdefensecenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Staci J. Pratt Allen Lichtenstein, Ltd 3315 Russel Road Ste 222 Las Vegas, NV 89120 702−433 2666 Fax: 702 433 9591 Email: stacijpratt@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allen Lichtenstein Allen Lichtenstein, Ltd 3315 Russell Rd Suite 222 Las Vegas, NV 89120−0000 702−433−2666 Fax: 702 433 9591 Email: alichtensteinlaw@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Erle Jack Human Rights Defense Center PO Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−360−2523 Fax: 866−735−7136 Email: rjack@humanrightsdefensecenter.org TERMINATED: 08/11/2014

Plaintiff
Rollin Wright See Order (#54) TERMINATED: 07/08/2013

represented by Donald Y Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Staci J. Pratt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allen Lichtenstein (See above for address)

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 3 of 18

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Paul Wright Current Publisher of Prison Legal News − See (#54) &(#60) TERMINATED: 07/17/2013

represented by Allen Lichtenstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Donald Y Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY

Staci J. Pratt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

V. Defendant Robert Bayer [54] TERMINATED: 07/08/2013
Defendant Jackie Crawford [54] TERMINATED: 07/08/2013
Defendant John Slansky [54] TERMINATED: 07/08/2013
Defendant James Gregory Cox [54]

represented by Stephen D. Quinn Office of the Attorney General 5420 Kietzke Lane, Suite 202 Reno, NV 89511 775−850−4115 Fax: 775−688−1822 Email: squinn@ag.nv.gov TERMINATED: 06/26/2014
represented by Joseph L. Ward , Jr Carson City District Attorney's Office Civil Division 885 East Musser Street, Suite 2030 Carson City, NV 89701 775−887−2070 Fax: 775−887−2129 Email: jward@carson.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen D. Quinn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2014
represented by Joseph L. Ward , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen D. Quinn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2014
represented by Andrea Barraclough Nevada Attorney General's Office 100 N Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701 775−684−1260 Fax: 775−684−1275

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 4 of 18

Email: abarraclough@ag.nv.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles W. Lehman Nevada Attorney General's Office 5420 Kietzke Lane, Suite 202 Reno, NV 89511 775−687−2129 Fax: 775−688−1822 Email: clehman@ag.nv.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Micheline N. Fairbank State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 100 N. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701−4717 775−684−1196 Email: mfairbank@ag.nv.gov TERMINATED: 09/04/2015

Stephen D. Quinn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2014

Defendant
E.K. McDaniel [54]

represented by Andrea Barraclough (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles W. Lehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Micheline N. Fairbank (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/04/2015

Stephen D. Quinn (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2014

Date Filed 07/11/2000
07/11/2000 07/11/2000 07/11/2000 07/12/2000 07/12/2000

# Docket Text
2 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief obo P. [Placed in separate folder due to size] #3−Affidavit of Fred Markham in Support of Ps Mtn/Prelim/Injunct; #11 response obo Ds Crawford &Slansky; (#11 oppo) (#14 reply) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
1 COMPLAINT Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages obo P. (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
SUMMONS ISSUED to counsel for P. (Entered: 02/10/2003)
3 AFFIDAVIT of Fred Markham in Support of Ps Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief obo P. (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
4 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES obo P; (m) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
5 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED SRVD as to JACKIE CRAWFORD by srvng Jackie Nancy on 7/12/00 (p) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 5 of 18

07/12/2000 07/13/2000
07/13/2000
07/20/2000
07/26/2000 07/31/2000 08/01/2000 08/03/2000 08/04/2000 08/04/2000 08/14/2000
08/15/2000 08/15/2000 08/16/2000 08/22/2000 08/30/2000
08/31/2000 08/31/2000
09/01/2000 09/12/2000

6 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED SRVD as to JOHN SLANSKY by srvng Beverly Allen on 7/12/00 (p) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
8 DESIGNATION OF LOCAL COUNSEL APPRVD as to Donald York Evans as loc cnsl for out−of−state cnsl David Fathi, cnsl for P, Prison Legal News. (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
9 VERIFIED PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO PRACTICE PRO HAC VICE APPRVD as to David Fathi as out−of−state cnsl for P, Prison Legal News. (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
7 AFFIDAVIT of personal service of cmplnt, affidavit of Fred Markham &mnt for prelim inj addressed to Jackie Crawford &John Slansky by James Miller on 7/12/00. (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
10 NOTICE (OTHER) of appearance of David C. Fathi as co−cnsl for Ps (m) (see VP #9) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
11 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION obo Ds, Crawford &Slansky. (m) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
12 AMENDED COMPLAINT obo P. (m) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE as to document (#12) obo P; (m) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
14 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION to mtn for prelim inj (#2) obo Ps; (m) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
15 MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT Proposed order (attachment) granting prelim inj obo Ps (no srv sho) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
16 ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORD Ps mtn for prelim inj is GRANTED. Pending the final resolution of this action, Ds Crawford &Slansky, their officers agents servants employees &attys &all those in active concert or participation with them (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
17 MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF for settlement conference &stay of proceedings obo Ds, Crawfor &Slansky (m) #20 oppo; (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
19 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT to 1st amended cmplnt (#12) obo Ds Crawford &Slansky (m) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
18 NOTICE (OTHER) of entry of order as to granting of preliminary inj (#16) obo P (m) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
20 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION to req for stay of prcdngs/settlmnt conf (#17) obo Ps; (m) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
22 ORDER ORD Ds request for stay is denied. The req for settlmnt conf is granted. Actn referred to Mag/Jdg for settlmnt conf. (EOD: 8/30/00) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
23 ORDER ORD the return of summons showing srvc on Robert Bayer (#21) is sealed. (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
24 ORDER ORD settlmnt conf sched for 9/12/00 @ 1:30 pm. The depo of Jackie Crawford sh be taken on 9/13/00 @ 9:00 am unless ptys arrive at a settlmnt agreement on 9/12/00. The depo of Mr. Slansky &Mr. Bayer sh be re−scheduled. An order scheduling settlmtn c (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
25 ORDER ORD settlmnt conf sched for 9/12/00 @ 1:30 pm. Settlmnt conf statements due in chambers by 4:00 pm on 9/8/00. (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
26 MISCELLANEOUS HEARING SETTLEMENT/CONFERENCE dtd 9/12/00: ORD the tape of this prcdng is sealed (settlemnt has been reached). FUR ORD cnsl for P sh w/in 45−dys file a mtn for atty fees; D sh hv 30−dys to file oppo &P sh hv 15−dys to reply. (Tape: 00−155) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 6 of 18

09/18/2000 09/26/2000
10/27/2000 11/13/2000 11/27/2000 12/12/2000 12/18/2000
02/22/2001
02/27/2001 03/02/2001
03/02/2001 03/07/2001 03/08/2001 03/09/2001 03/26/2001 04/09/2001 04/12/2001 04/26/2001
05/01/2001

MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT stip/jdgmnt. (Entered: 02/10/2003)
27 JUDGMENT (stipulation) ORD Ds Crawford &Slansky and their officers agents servants &employees &successors in office sh implement &maintain the following policy re prisoner subscription to publications: Prisoners in the custody of NDOP sh be permitted (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
28 MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF for atty fees &costs obo Ps (m) (fld sep due to size) (#29−affdvts in sprt) (#30−oppo) (#31 reply) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
29 AFFIDAVIT in suprt of fee application #28 obo Ps. (no srv shn) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
30 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION to P's mtn for reasonable attorney's fees/costs #28 obo Ds. (m) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
31 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION in support of mtn for atty fees/costs (#28) obo P (m) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
32 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS obo Ps to David C. Fathi, National Prison Project of the ACLU Foundation, 733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 620, Washington, DC 20005, phone (202) 393−4930 and fax (202) 393−4931, effectv 1/2/01. (m) (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
33 ORDER ORD Ps are entitled to recover their fees as adjusted by this ord together w/their costs of suit as taxed by clk of crt. Ps sh submit a ord to this crt consistent w/the adjustments herein ordered w/in 10−dys. (EOD: 2/23/01) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT prpsd order for payment of attorneys' fees and costs. (Entered: 02/10/2003)
34 ORDER based upon ths crt's ord of 2/22/01 whch was entered on 2/23/01, it is hereby ordered tht the Ds are to pay to cnsl for Ps the following fees/costs consistent w/ths crt's previous order #33 as follows; to the National Prison Projct of the American C (Entered: 02/10/2003)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT proposed amend/ord for paymnt of attorneys' fees and costs obo P. (no srv shn) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
35 NOTICE (OTHER) of entry of order as to Order #34 obo Ps (m) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
36 AFFIDAVIT of service as to document #28 obo P (Entered: 02/10/2003)
37 MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF for reasonable attorney's fees/costs incurred in establishing Ps' entitlement to attorneys fees obo Ps. (no srv shn) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
38 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION to Ps' mtn for fees on fees #37 obo Ds. (m) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
39 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION memo in suprt of Ps' mtn for reasonable attorney's fees/costs incurred in establishing Ps' entitlement to attorney fees #37 obo Ps. (m) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
40 ORDER P's mtn for reasonable attorney fees/costs incurred in establishing Ps' entitlemnt to attorney's fees #37 is sched for tele/hrng on 4/26/01 @ 9am; cnsl hv bn tele notified. (Entered: 02/10/2003)
41 MISCELLANEOUS HEARING TELEPHONIC/HEARING dtd 4/26/01: ORD Ps mtn for reasonable atty fees (#37) granted to the extent the P is awarded .00 as a total amount of fees for both attys and a total amount of .00 for costs. (EOD: 4/26/01) (C/R: Kat hryn (JC). (Entered: 02/10/2003)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT prpsd order for payment of atty fees/costs (purs to order #41) obo Ps; (orig to chambers) (Entered: 02/10/2003)

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 7 of 18

05/02/2001 05/09/2001 06/13/2001 06/25/2001 07/09/2001 07/10/2001 07/11/2002 08/13/2002
06/28/2013 06/28/2013 07/03/2013 07/03/2013 07/08/2013
07/09/2013
07/10/2013
07/11/2013

42 ORDER for payment of atty fees/costs: ORD Ds are to pay cnsl for Ps fees/costs consistent with this court's previous order (#41) (see order for specific fee breakdown) (EOD: 5/3/01) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE as to Order #42 obo Ps; (Entered: 02/10/2003)
44 MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF for publication as to ord #16 and stip/judgmnt/ord #27 obo Ps. (m) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
45 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION to mtn for publication #44 obo Ds Crawford and Slansky. (m) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
46 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION memo in spt of mtn for publication (#44) obo P. (m) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
47 ORDER ORD Ps mtn for publication (#44) is denied. The orders P seeks to hv published were entered purs to stipulation and are therefore not the type of orders tht this crt submits for publication. (Entered: 02/10/2003)
48 MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF to enforce order obo Ken Lake (m) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
49 ORDER a mtn to enforce order #48 has bn filed by Ken Lake; the record reflects tht Lake is not a party to ths actn; therefore, Lake's mtn #48 is denied; the denial of the mtn shl not preclude Lake frm pursuing such other legal relief as may be proper. (Entered: 02/10/2003)
50 MOTION to Substitute Party by Plaintiffs Prison Legal News, Rollin Wright. Responses due by 7/15/2013. (Lichtenstein, Allen) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
51 MOTION for Order to Show Cause by Plaintiffs Prison Legal News, Rollin Wright. Motion ripe 6/28/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Lichtenstein, Allen) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
52 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Stephen D. Quinn on behalf of Defendants Robert Bayer, Jackie Crawford, John Slansky. Substitution of Attorney (Quinn, Stephen) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
53 STIPULATION TO SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANTS by Defendants Robert Bayer, Jackie Crawford, John Slansky. (Quinn, Stephen) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
54 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 53 Stipulation. James Gregory Cox and E.K. McDaniel substituted in for John Slansky, Robert Bayer and Jackie Crawford. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 7/8/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − JC) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
55 ORDER − The defendants have until July 29, 2013 to respond to # 51 Motion; and the plaintiffs shall have 10 days thereafter to file a reply. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 7/9/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − DRM) (Entered: 07/09/2013)
56 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of The Honorable Judge Howard D. McKibben on 7/10/2013. By Deputy Clerk: Paris Rich. IT IS ORDERED, a Telephonic Status Conference is set for Thursday, 7/11/2013 at 10:45 AM in Reno Courtroom 4 before Judge Howard D. McKibben. Participants shall call ATTno later than 5 minutes prior to the hearing at 1 (877) 336−1839 and provide Access Code 3246567 and Security Code 0159. IT IS SO ORDERED. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
57 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Case Nos. 3:00−cv−00373−HDM−RAM and 3:13−cv−00346−HDM−WGC − Telephonic Status Conference held on 7/11/2013 before Judge Howard D. McKibben. Crtrm Administrator: Paris Rich; Plaintiffs' Counsel: Allen Lichtenstein and Lance Weber; Defendants' Counsel: Stephen Quinn; Court Reporter: Kathryn French; Time of Hearing: 10:48 AM to 11:04 AM; Courtroom: 4;

Counsel are present telephonically. The Court recites preliminary statements regarding the reasons for the setting of the Status Conference this date and the

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 8 of 18

07/16/2013 07/16/2013 07/17/2013 07/17/2013
07/17/2013

recent 7/9/2013 Order issued in Case Nos. 3:00−cv−00373−HDM−RAM and 3:13−cv−00346−HDM−WGC. The Court further offers suggestions regarding a format for proceeding in these matters. The Court and counsel confer.
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, IT IS ORDERED, Case No. 3:00−cv−00373−HDM−RAM and Case No. 3:13−cv−00346−HDM−WGC are hereby CONSOLIDATED for all purposes. Case No. 3:00−cv−00373−HDM−RAM shall be REOPENED and all future filings shall be solely in Case No. 3:00−cv−00373−HDM−RAM. Such consolidation shall not affect the Court's consideration of the additional prayers and claims set forth in the Amended Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, each party shall have through Tuesday, 7/16/2013, to file any objection to the aforementioned consolidation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, leave is granted through Tuesday, 7/16/2013, for the Defendants' counsel to advise the Court if he cannot accept service on behalf of the Defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Mr. Quinn addresses the recent briefing schedule as set forth in the Court's 7/9/2013 Order. Pursuant to the stipulation by counsel, IT IS ORDERED, the Defendants shall respond to the Plaintiffs' 6/28/2013 Motion no later than Friday, 8/23/2013. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs shall have 30 days to reply, and the matter shall stand submitted. IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court recites final statements and urges the parties to explore a resolution. In the event the parties are able to reach an agreement, they shall contact the Court. Mr. Lichtenstein requests clarification regarding whether an Answer will be required by the Defendants. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, IT IS ORDERED, the Defendants shall file their Answer to the Amended Complaint no later than 30 days from this date. IT IS SO ORDERED. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
58 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE by James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel. (Quinn, Stephen) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
59 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief Judge Robert C. Jones, on 7/16/2013. IT IS ORDERED that this case is reassigned to Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb for all further pretrial proceedings within his jurisdiction. Magistrate Judge Robert A McQuaid, Jr. no longer assigned to case. All further documents must bear the correct case number 3:00−cv−373−HDM−WGC. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − BLG) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
60 REMOVED FROM MEMBER CASE 3:13−cv−346−HDM−WGC filed on 6/28/13 (#5): AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel, filed by Prison Legal News. No changes to parties. Proof of service due by 11/14/2013. (BLG) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
61 NOTICE TO COUNSEL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE IA 10−2. Counsel LANCE WEBER to comply with completion and electronic filing of the Designation of Local Counsel and Verified Petition. For your convenience, click on the following link to obtain the form from the Court's website − www.nvd.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx. Counsel is also required to register for the Court's Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system and the electronic service of pleadings. Please visit the Court's website www.nvd.uscourts.gov to register Attorney(s) upon approval of the Verified Petition. Verified Petition due by 8/12/2013. (It will no longer be necessary to comply with this notice in the Member Case 3:13−cv−346−HDM−WGC) (no image attached) (BLG) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
62 NOTICE TO COUNSEL PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE IA 10−2. Counsel ERNEST GALVAN to comply with completion and electronic filing of the Designation of Local Counsel and Verified Petition. For your convenience, click on the following link to obtain the form from the Court's website − www.nvd.uscourts.gov/Forms.aspx. Counsel is also required to register for the Court's Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system and the electronic service of pleadings. Please visit the Court's website

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 9 of 18

07/18/2013 07/23/2013 08/01/2013 08/02/2013
08/09/2013 08/13/2013 08/13/2013 08/15/2013 09/16/2013 09/17/2013

www.nvd.uscourts.gov to register Attorney(s) upon approval of the Verified Petition. Verified Petition due by 8/12/2013. (It will no longer be necessary to comply with this notice in the Member Case 3:13−cv−346−HDM−WGC) (no image attached) (BLG) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
63 VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice by Ernest Galvan and DESIGNATION of Local Counsel Staci Pratt (Filing fee $ 200 receipt number 0978−2891749) by Plaintiffs Prison Legal News, Paul Wright, Rollin Wright. Motion ripe 7/18/2013. (Pratt, Staci) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
64 ORDER APPROVING 63 Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Ernest Galvan for Prison Legal News and approving Designation of Local Counsel Staci Pratt. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 7/22/2013. Any Attorney not yet registered with the Court's CM/ECF System shall submit a Registration Form on the Court's website www.nvd.uscourts.gov (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − DRM) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
65 ANSWER to 60 Amended Complaint, ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES filed by James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 8/11/2013. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 9/15/2013.(Quinn, Stephen) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
66 NOTICE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE IB 2−2: In accordance with 28 USC § 636(c) and FRCP 73, the parties in this action are provided with a link to the "AO 85 Notice of Availability, Consent, and Order of Reference − Exercise of Jurisdiction by a U.S. Magistrate Judge" form on the Court's website − www.nvd.uscourts.gov. Consent forms should NOT be electronically filed. Upon consent of all parties, counsel are advised to manually file the form with the Clerk's Office. A copy of form AO 85 has been mailed to parties not receiving electronic service. (no image attached) (KR) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
67 VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice by Lance Weber and DESIGNATION of Local Counsel Staci Pratt (Filing fee $ 200 receipt number 0978−2920646) filed by Plaintiffs Prison Legal News, Paul Wright, Rollin Wright . Motion ripe 8/9/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Pratt, Staci) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
68 ORDER APPROVING 67 Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice for Lance Weber and approving Designation of Local Counsel Staci Pratt. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 8/13/13. Any Attorney not yet registered with the Court's CM/ECF System shall submit a Registration Form on the Court's website www.nvd.uscourts.gov (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − JC) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
69 MOTION to Extend Time regarding discovery/nondispositive matter (First Request) MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Defendants James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel. Motion ripe 8/13/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Quinn, Stephen) (Entered: 08/13/2013)
70 ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 69 Motion to Extend Time re 51 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Responses due by 9/23/2013. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 08/15/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − KR) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
71 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (First Request) to Submit Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Pratt, Staci) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
72 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 71 Stipulation to Extend Deadline to Submit Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. (Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 11/15/2013.) Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 9/17/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − JC) (Entered: 09/17/2013)

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 10 of 18

09/17/2013
09/23/2013 09/23/2013 11/08/2013 11/12/2013 12/12/2013 12/23/2013
12/23/2013 01/07/2014

73 (1st Notice) PURSUANT TO SPECIAL ORDER 109: that Lance Weber is in violation of Special Order 109. Participation in the electronic filing system became mandatory for all attorneys effective January 1, 2006. You are required to register for the Court's Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) program and the electronic service of pleadings. Please visit the Court's website to register for CM/ECF. (no image attached) (LG) (Entered: 09/17/2013)
74 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Second Request) to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Show Cause by Defendants Robert Bayer, James Gregory Cox, Jackie Crawford, E.K. McDaniel, John Slansky. (Quinn, Stephen) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
75 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 74 Stipulation Regarding Time to Respond to 51 MOTION for Order to Show Cause. Responses due by 11/16/2013. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 9/23/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − JC) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
76 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Third Request) re 51 MOTION for Order to Show Cause ; by Defendants James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel. (Quinn, Stephen) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
77 ORDER ON 76 STIPULATION re 51 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Defendants' response due by 12/15/2013. Plaintiffs' reply due 11 days from service of Defendants' response. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 11/12/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − KR) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
78 RESPONSE to 51 MOTION for Order to Show Cause , filed by Defendants James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel. Replies due by 12/22/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration)(Quinn, Stephen) (Entered: 12/12/2013)
79 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Howard D. McKibben, on 12/23/2013. By Deputy Clerk: Paris Rich. IT IS ORDERED, a Telephonic Status Conference is set for Tuesday, 1/7/2014 at 10:00 AM before Judge Howard D. McKibben. Participants shall only appear telephonically and shall call ATTno later than 5 minutes prior to the hearing at 1 (877) 336−1839 and provide Access Code 3246567 and Security Code 0177. IT IS SO ORDERED. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
80 REPLY to Response to 51 MOTION for Order to Show Cause filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lance Weber, # 2 Declaration of Paul Wright)(Weber, Lance) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
81 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/7/2014 before Judge Howard D. McKibben. Crtrm Administrator: Paris Rich; Plaintiffs' Counsel: Lance Weber, Robert Jack, Allen Lichtenstein, and Staci Pratt; Defendants' Counsel: Stephen Quinn; Court Reporter: Kathryn French; Time of Hearing: 10:00 AM to 10:22 AM; Courtroom: 4;

01/07/2014

Counsel are present telephonically. The Court addresses the status of this matter. Mr. Weber and Mr. Quinn present statements on behalf of the parties and confirm the parties have been working together steadily, but progress has taken time. The Court and counsel further confer. As it appears the parties are willing to continue to resolve this matter, IT IS ORDERED, a further Telephonic Status Conference is set for Thursday, 3/6/2014 at 10:00 AM in Reno Courtroom 4 before Judge Howard D. McKibben. At the 3/6/2014 hearing, the Court requests the parties be prepared to either (1) stipulate to resolve the matter; (2) request a slight extension, if settlement is close; or (3) be prepared to go forward with a proposal for hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 01/07/2014)
82 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Howard D. McKibben, on 1/7/2014. By Deputy Clerk: Paris Rich. IT IS ORDERED, a Telephonic Status Conference remains set for Thursday, 3/6/2014 at 10:00 AM in Reno Courtroom 4 before Judge Howard D. McKibben. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, all parties shall only appear telephonically and shall call ATTno

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 11 of 18

03/06/2014
03/06/2014 04/04/2014 04/07/2014 04/08/2014

later than 5 minutes prior to the hearing at 1 (877) 336−1839 and provide Access Code 3246567 and Security Code 0178. IT IS SO ORDERED. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 01/07/2014)
83 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/6/2014 before Judge Howard D. McKibben. Crtrm Administrator: Paris Rich; Plaintiffs' Counsel: Allen Lichtenstein; Defendants' Counsel: Stephen Quinn; Court Reporter: Donna Davidson; Time of Hearing: 10:03 AM to 10:16 AM; Courtroom: 4;
At 10:03 AM, Counsel are present telephonically. The Court recites the recent chronology of this action and inquires as to the current status. Counsel agree the case should move forward. The Court recites further statements regarding pending 51 Motion for Order to Show Cause.
IT IS ORDERED, Jury Trial is set for Tuesday, 11/4/2014 at 9:00 AM in Reno Courtroom 4 before Judge Howard D. McKibben. Calendar Call is set for Wednesday, 10/29/2014 at 9:30 AM in Reno Courtroom 4 before Judge Howard D. McKibben. In the event a calendar conflict is discovered with respect to the Trial date, counsel shall notify the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, the parties' proposed discovery plan and scheduling order shall be filed no later than Friday, 4/4/2014.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, 51 Motion for Order to Show Cause is DENIED without prejudice. If an issue arises regarding matters contained in 51 Motion, the parties shall seek leave of Court for reinstatement of 51 Motion.
The Court indicates if the parties request a settlement conference, they should file a request. At 10:16 AM, the Court adjourns. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
84 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Howard D. McKibben, on 3/6/2014. By Deputy Clerk: Paris Rich. IT IS ORDERED, the Calendar Call currently set for Wednesday, 10/29/2014 at 9:30 AM is ADVANCED and RESET for Wednesday, 10/22/2014 at 9:30 AM in Reno Courtroom 4 before Judge Howard D. McKibben. IT IS SO ORDERED. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
85 PROPOSED Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News . (Weber, Lance) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
86 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 4/7/2014. By Deputy Clerk: Katie Lynn Ogden. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Discovery Status Conference is set for Tuesday, April 8, 2014, at 11:00 a.m., in Reno Courtroom 2 before Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. The court will address the parties' 85 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. Counsel wishing to appear telephonically shall dial 1−877−873−8017, enter the access code 3416460, and enter the security code 4814 approximately five (5) minutes prior to the hearing. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − KO) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
87 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Telephonic Discovery Status Conference held on 4/8/2014 before Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. Crtrm Administrator: Katie Lynn Ogden; Pla Counsel: Lance Weber, Ernest Galvan, Allen Lichtenstein (Telephonically); Def Counsel: Stephen Quinn (Telephonically); FTR #: 11:24:14 a.m. − 11:51:08 a.m.; Time of Hearing: 11:00 a.m.; Courtroom: 2. The court addresses the parties' 85 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. The court notes the dispositive motions deadline proposed in paragraph #5 would not allow sufficient time for any perspective dispositive motion(s) to be fully briefed prior to the jury trial scheduled for 11/4/2014. The court discusses alternatives to avoid the scheduling conflict including the likelihood of the parties filing dispositive motions, the possibility of scheduling a settlement conference or continuing the trial date. Counsel agree both plaintiff and defendants will like to preserve the ability to file dispositive motions. The court approves the proposed dispositive

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 12 of 18

04/16/2014 04/22/2014 04/23/2014
05/06/2014
06/17/2014

motions deadline for 10/8/2014. However, the current calendar call (10/22/14) and jury trial (11/4/14) are hereby VACATED and CONTINUED to: Calendar Call set for Wednesday, 1/21/15 at 8:30 a.m. and Jury Trial set for MondayTuesday, 2/3/15 at 9:00 a.m. The Pretrial Order deadline shall also be revised and should indicate that: in the event dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until thirty (30) days after decision of the dispositive motions or no later than 12/31/2014. The parties shall file a revised Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order no later than Wednesday, April 16, 2014. The parties are reminded that if they would like to schedule a settlement conference before the court, they shall file such a request. Mr. Weber addresses the court regarding his Pro Hac Vice status (Doc. # 68 ) and requests the court waive any requirement that he must file any additional Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice. The court advises Mr. Weber that it will discuss his request with District Judge McKibben and his courtroom administrator. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − KO) Modified on 4/8/2014 to correct date of trial. (KO) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
88 PROPOSED Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News . (Weber, Lance) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
89 VACATED per 108 Order SCHEDULING ORDER re 88 Proposed Order. Discovery due by 9/8/2014. Motions due by 10/8/2014. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/31/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 4/22/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − KR) Modified on 8/5/2014 (JC). (Entered: 04/22/2014)
90 NOTICE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE IB 2−2: In accordance with 28 USC § 636(c) and FRCP 73, the parties in this action are provided with a link to the "AO 85 Notice of Availability, Consent, and Order of Reference − Exercise of Jurisdiction by a U.S. Magistrate Judge" form on the Court's website − www.nvd.uscourts.gov. AO 85 Consent forms should NOT be electronically filed. Upon consent of all parties, counsel are advised to manually file the form with the Clerk's Office. (A copy of form AO 85 has been mailed to parties not receiving electronic service.)
NOTICE OF GENERAL ORDER 2013−1 AND OPPORTUNITY FOR EXPEDITED TRIAL SETTING: The parties in this action are provided with a link to General Order 2013−1 and the USDC Short Trial Rules on the Court's website − www.nvd.uscourts.gov. If the parties agree that this action can be ready for trial within 180 days and that a trial of this matter would take three (3) days or less, the parties should consider participation in the USDC Short Trial Program. If the parties wish to be considered for entry into the Court's Short Trial Program, they should execute and electronically file with USDC Short Trial Form 4(a)(1) or Form 4(a)(2).
(no image attached) (DRM) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
91 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Howard D. McKibben, on 5/6/2014. By Deputy Clerk: Paris Rich.
IT IS ORDERED, Jury Trial currently set for Tuesday, 2/3/2015 at 9:00 AM is ADVANCED and RESET for Tuesday, 1/27/2015 at 9:00 AM in Reno Courtroom 4 before Judge Howard D. McKibben.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, Calendar Call currently set for Wednesday, 1/21/2015 at 8:30 AM is ADVANCED and RESET for Thursday, 1/15/2015 at 9:30 AM in Reno Courtroom 4 before Judge Howard D. McKibben. IT IS SO ORDERED.
(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
92 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel. Responses due by 7/4/2014. (Quinn, Stephen) (Entered: 06/17/2014)

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 13 of 18

06/17/2014 06/18/2014

93 MOTION for Protective Order and Order Staying Discovery by Defendants James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel. Motion ripe 6/17/2014. (Quinn, Stephen) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
94 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Howard D. McKibben, on 6/18/2014. By Deputy Clerk: Paris Rich.

IT IS ORDERED, the Plaintiffs shall file any responsive pleading to 93 Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and Order Staying Discovery no later than Friday, 6/27/2014 at 4:00 PM.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, the Defendants shall file any reply to 93 Motion no later than Wednesday, 7/2/2014 at 4:00 PM. IT IS SO ORDERED.

06/20/2014 06/26/2014 06/27/2014 06/27/2014
07/07/2014 07/14/2014 07/16/2014 07/16/2014 07/24/2014 07/29/2014 07/30/2014
08/01/2014 08/05/2014

(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
95 VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice by Robert E. Jack and DESIGNATION of Local Counsel Staci Pratt (Filing fee $200 − paid; Receipt Number NVRNO 2366). Motion ripe 6/20/2014. (JC) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
96 NOTICE of Change of Attorney on behalf of Defendants James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel. (Fairbank, Micheline) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
97 RESPONSE to 93 MOTION for Protective Order and Order Staying Discovery, filed by Plaintiffs Prison Legal News, Paul Wright, Rollin Wright. Replies due by 7/7/2014. (Lichtenstein, Allen) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
98 ORDER approving 95 Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice by Robert E. Jack for Prison Legal News, and approving Designation of Local Counsel Staci Pratt. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 6/27/2014. Any Attorney not yet registered with the Court's CM/ECF System shall submit a Registration Form on the Court's website www.nvd.uscourts.gov (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − KR) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
99 RESPONSE to 92 MOTION to Dismiss , filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. Replies due by 7/17/2014. (Weber, Lance) (Entered: 07/07/2014)
100 REPLY to Response to 93 MOTION to Protective order filed by Defendants James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel. (Fairbank, Micheline) Modified on 7/17/2014 link to proper motion. (WJ). (Entered: 07/14/2014)
101 REPLY to Response to 92 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Defendants James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel. (Fairbank, Micheline) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
102 Joint MOTION to Vacate 89 Scheduling Order, by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. Motion ripe 7/16/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Vacate)(Jack, Robert) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
103 ORDER granting Defendants' 93 motion. Discovery is stayed pending further action of the court. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 7/24/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − KR) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
104 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Plaintiffs Prison Legal News, Paul Wright. Motion ripe 7/29/2014. (Lichtenstein, Allen) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
105 ORDER granting # 104 Motion for Substitution of Attorneys : Alleen Lichtenstein and Staci Pratt of Allen Lichtenstein, Attorney at Law, Ltd. in the place and stead of Allen Lichtenstein and Staci Pratt of the ACLU of Nevada. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 7/30/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − DRM) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
106 MOTION For Clarification of the Court's July 24, 2014 Order re 103 Order on Motion for Protective Order by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. Responses due by 8/18/2014. (Jack, Robert) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
107 Submission of PROPOSED ORDER on 106 MOTION For Clarification of the Court's July 24, 2014 Order re 103 Order on Motion for Protective Order ; filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News . (Jack, Robert) (Entered: 08/05/2014)

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 14 of 18

08/05/2014 08/05/2014

108 ORDER granting 102 Joint MOTION to Vacate 89 Scheduling Order. Please see attached for further details and deadlines. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 8/5/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − JC) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
109 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Howard D. McKibben, on 8/5/2014. By Deputy Clerk: Paris Rich.

IT IS ORDERED, a Telephonic Motion Hearing Re: 92 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is set for Wednesday, 9/3/2014 at 4:00 PM (PDT) before Judge Howard D. McKibben. All participants shall appear telephonically and call ATTno later than 5 minutes prior to the hearing at 1 (877) 336−1839 and provide Access Code 3246567 and Security Code 0200. IT IS SO ORDERED.

08/06/2014 08/06/2014

(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
110 UNOPPOSED MOTION To Continue Court Hearing re 109 Minute Order Setting Hearing on Motion,, by Defendants James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel. Motion ripe 8/6/2014. (Fairbank, Micheline) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
111 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Howard D. McKibben, on 8/6/2014. By Deputy Clerk: Paris Rich.

IT IS ORDERED, to the extent 106 Motion for Clarification is not addressed in 108 Order granting the joint motion to vacate the scheduling order, 106 Motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

08/08/2014 08/11/2014 08/11/2014

(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
112 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Robert Jack by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. Motion ripe 8/8/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jack, Robert) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
113 ORDER GRANTING # 112 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Robert Jack withdrawn from the case as attorney for Plaintiff Prison Legal News. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 8/11/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − DRM) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
114 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Howard D. McKibben, on 8/11/2014. By Deputy Clerk: Paris Rich.

IT IS ORDERED, the Defendants' 110 Unopposed Motion to Continue Telephonic Hearing is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, the Telephonic Motion Hearing Re: the Defendants' 92 Motion to Dismiss currently set for Wednesday, 9/3/2014 at 4:00 PM is CONTINUED and RESET for Wednesday, 9/10/2014 at 4:00 PM in Reno Courtroom 4 before Judge Howard D. McKibben. Participants shall call ATTno later than 5 minutes prior to the hearing at 1 (877) 336−1839 and provide Access Code 3246567 and Security Code 0200. IT IS SO ORDERED.

09/03/2014

(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 08/11/2014)
115 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Howard D. McKibben, on 9/3/2014. By Deputy Clerk: Paris Rich.

IT IS ORDERED, the Telephonic Motion Hearing Re: 92 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss currently set for Wednesday, 9/10/2014 at 4:00 PM is ADVANCED and RESET for Wednesday, 9/10/2014 at 10:30 AM before Judge Howard D. McKibben.

All participants shall appear telephonically by calling ATTno later than 5 minutes prior to the hearing at 1 (877) 336−1839 and provide Access Code 3246567 and Security Code 0200. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 15 of 18

09/10/2014
09/30/2014 10/10/2014 10/15/2014 10/16/2014

(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
116 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Telephonic Motion Hearing Re: 92 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss held on 9/10/2014 before Judge Howard D. McKibben. Crtrm Administrator: Paris Rich; Plaintiffs' Counsel: Lance Weber and Staci Pratt; Defendants' Counsel: Micheline Fairbank; Court Reporter: Kathryn French; Time of Hearing: 10:27 AM to 11:30 AM; Courtroom: 4;
At 10:27 AM, the Court convenes. All counsel are present telephonically. The Court addresses 92 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and inquires as to the current status of the issues. Mr. Weber presents statements and confirms the common thread between the consolidated cases is denial of due process. The Court and Mr. Weber further confer regarding the current posture of deliveries to the facilities, specifically relating to the delivery of books. Mr. Weber advises that prisoner interviews remain to be conducted for information regarding the specifics of delivery of publications (journals and newspapers) vs. books. The Court and counsel discuss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and the previous Stipulated Judgment by the parties in 2000.
At 10:38 AM, Ms. Fairbank presents argument as to 92 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Weber presents argument on behalf of the Defendants. At 11:12 AM, the Court recites findings. IT IS ORDERED, with respect to the qualified good faith immunity of Defendants James Greg Cox and E.K. McDaniel, 92 Motion is DENIED without prejudice to renew upon the completion of discovery. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, leave is GRANTED, within 20 days of this date, for the Plaintiffs to file any amendment to the complaint and more specifically set forth the personal involvement of the individual Defendants in connection with the issues surrounding damages. IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court and counsel confer regarding accomplished discovery to date. IT IS ORDERED, the Discovery Deadline is set for Monday, 3/9/2015, subject to modification by the U.S. Magistrate Judge or this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, consistent with the 3/9/2015 Discovery Deadline, the parties shall submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for consideration. IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court recites closing comments to counsel relating to compliance of the parties' 2000 Stipulated Judgment and any potential updating or modification, if necessary. At 11:30 AM, the Court adjourns.
(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
117 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Second with Jury Demand against James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel, filed by Prison Legal News. No changes to parties. Proof of service due by 1/28/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−3) (Lichtenstein, Allen) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
118 PROPOSED Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order filed by Defendants James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel, Plaintiff Prison Legal News . (Fairbank, Micheline) (Entered: 10/10/2014)
119 SCHEDULING ORDER re 118 Proposed Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order. Discovery due by 6/30/2015. Motions due by 7/8/2015. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 8/8/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 10/15/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − JC) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
120 NOTICE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE IB 2−2: In accordance with 28 USC § 636(c) and FRCP 73, the parties in this action are provided with a link to the "AO 85 Notice of Availability, Consent, and Order of Reference − Exercise of Jurisdiction by a U.S. Magistrate Judge" form on the Court's website − www.nvd.uscourts.gov. AO 85 Consent forms should NOT be electronically filed. Upon consent of all parties, counsel are advised to manually file the form with the Clerk's Office. (A copy of form AO 85 has been mailed to parties not receiving electronic service.)

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 16 of 18

10/21/2014 02/19/2015 02/20/2015
04/03/2015 04/07/2015 09/02/2015 09/02/2015 09/03/2015
09/03/2015
09/04/2015 09/11/2015

NOTICE OF GENERAL ORDER 2013−1 AND OPPORTUNITY FOR EXPEDITED TRIAL SETTING: The parties in this action are provided with a link to General Order 2013−1 and the USDC Short Trial Rules on the Court's website − www.nvd.uscourts.gov. If the parties agree that this action can be ready for trial within 180 days and that a trial of this matter would take three (3) days or less, the parties should consider participation in the USDC Short Trial Program. If the parties wish to be considered for entry into the Court's Short Trial Program, they should execute and electronically file with USDC Short Trial Form 4(a)(1) or Form 4(a)(2).
(no image attached) (DRM) (Entered: 10/16/2014)
121 ANSWER to 117 Amended Complaint, filed by James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel.(Fairbank, Micheline) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
122 VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice by Sabarish Neelakanta and DESIGNATION of Local Counsel Allen Lichtenstein (Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0978−3563841) by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Weber, Lance) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
123 ORDER approving 122 Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice for Sabarish Neelakanta and approving Designation of Local Counsel. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 2/20/15. Any Attorney not yet registered with the Court's CM/ECF System shall submit a Registration Form on the Court's website www.nvd.uscourts.gov (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − JC) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
124 Joint MOTION to Vacate Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Neelakanta, Sabarish) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
125 Amended SCHEDULING ORDER denying 124 Joint Motion. Discovery due by 10/30/2015. Motions due by 11/9/2015. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/18/2015. There shall be no further extensions. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 4/7/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − KR) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
126 VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice by Lisa Ells and DESIGNATION of Local Counsel Allen Lichtenstein (Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0978−3800983) filed by Plaintiffs Prison Legal News, Paul Wright, Rollin Wright . (Lichtenstein, Allen) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
127 VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice by Krista Stone−Manista and DESIGNATION of Local Counsel Allen Lichtenstein (Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0978−3801014) filed by Plaintiffs Prison Legal News, Paul Wright, Rollin Wright . (Lichtenstein, Allen) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
128 ORDER approving 127 Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice for Krista Stone−Manista and approving Designation of Local Counsel. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 9/3/15. Any Attorney not yet registered with the Court's CM/ECF System shall submit a Registration Form on the Court's website www.nvd.uscourts.gov (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − JC) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
129 ORDER approving 126 Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice for Lisa Ells and approving Designation of Local Counsel. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 9/3/15. Any Attorney not yet registered with the Court's CM/ECF System shall submit a Registration Form on the Court's website www.nvd.uscourts.gov (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − JC) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
130 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Charles W. Lehman on behalf of Defendants James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel. (Lehman, Charles) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
131 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Third Request) to Extend Discovery and other Deadlines by Defendants James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel, Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Lehman, Charles) (Entered: 09/11/2015)

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 17 of 18

09/14/2015
09/25/2015 10/20/2015 10/21/2015

132 SCHEDULING ORDER re 131 Stipulation. Discovery due by 1/29/2016. Motions due by 2/29/2016. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 3/28/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 9/14/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − JC) (Entered: 09/14/2015)
133 NOTICE of Change of Address by Krista M. Stone−Manista. for Rosen Bien Galvan &Grunfeld (Stone−Manista, Krista) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
134 UNOPPOSED MOTION Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Status Conference and Order Shortening Time by Defendants James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel. (Lehman, Charles) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
135 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Howard D. McKibben, on 10/21/2015. By Deputy Clerk: Paris Rich.

IT IS ORDERED, a Telephonic Status Conference is set for Thursday, 10/22/2015 at 9:30 AM in Reno Courtroom 4 before Judge Howard D. McKibben.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, all participants shall only appear telephonically by calling ATTno later than 5 minutes prior to the hearing at 1 (877) 336−1839 with Access Code 3246567 and Security Code 0234. IT IS SO ORDERED.

10/22/2015

(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
136 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/22/2015 before Judge Howard D. McKibben. Crtrm Administrator: Paris Rich; Plaintiff's Counsel: Lisa Ells, Lance Weber, and Sabarish Neelakanta; Defendants' Counsel: Andrea Barraclough; Court Reporter: Kathryn French; Time of Hearing: 9:30 AM to 9:40 AM; Courtroom: 4;

At 9:30 AM, the Court convenes. Counsel are present telephonically. The Court addresses 134 Unopposed Motion and the parties' request therein that the Court retain jurisdiction over the enforcement of the proposed settlement agreement for a period of ten (10) years. Ms. Ellis and Ms. Barraclough discuss the anticipated jurisdictional issues. The Court states that as soon as a written and enforceable agreement has been signed by each party, the parties shall provide such agreement to the Court for review and consideration. Thereafter, the Court would administratively close this action. The Court states that conceptually it is willing to accept jurisdiction. The Court and counsel further confer.

IT IS ORDERED, Discovery and all pending deadlines are STAYED pending resolution of this matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, a Telephonic Status Conference is set for Wednesday, 2/17/2016 at 10:00 AM in Reno Courtroom 4 before Judge Howard D. McKibben. IT IS SO ORDERED.

On behalf of the Plaintiff, Mr. Weber inquires whether the 2/29/2016 summary judgment deadline is also stayed. The Court confirms that Discovery and all current deadlines are stayed. At 9:40 AM, the Court adjourns.

10/27/2015

(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
137 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Howard D. McKibben, on 10/27/2015. By Deputy Clerk: Paris Rich.

IT IS ORDERED, a Telephonic Status Conference remains set for Wednesday, 2/17/2016 at 10:00 AM in Reno Courtroom 4 before Judge Howard D. McKibben.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, Participants shall only appear telephonically by calling ATTno later than 5 minutes prior to the hearing at 1 (877) 336−1839 with Access Code 3246567 and Security Code 0236. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case: 3:00-cv-373 As of: 06/30/2016 11:44 AM PDT 18 of 18

01/14/2016 02/17/2016
02/26/2016 03/03/2016 05/06/2016

(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 10/27/2015)
138 STIPULATION by Defendants James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel, Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Settlement Agreement)(Barraclough, Andrea) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
139 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/17/2016 before Judge Howard D. McKibben. Crtrm Administrator: Paris Rich; Plaintiff's Counsel: Lance Weber; Defendants' Counsel: Charles Lehman; Court Reporter: Margaret Griener; Time of Hearing: 10:05 AM to 10:21 AM; Courtroom: 4;
Counsel are present telephonically. The Court recites inquiries regarding the parties' 138 Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, with Stipulation to Hold Dismissal in Abeyance. Mr. Weber responds. The Court, Mr. Weber, and Mr. Lehman confer. The Court outlines a recommendation for a revised stipulation and order to be presented to the Court for signature. Further, counsel confirm they have no issue with an additional recommendation to administratively close this action, upon the Court's execution of the revised stipulation and order, subject to reopening at any time by either party,
IT IS ORDERED, counsel shall submit a revised stipulation and order consistent with the recommendation this date for the Court's consideration. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Mr. Weber confirms the parties will submit the revised stipulation and order within one week of this date. In closing, the Court recites complimentary comments and appreciation to counsel for their hard work to reach this agreement.
(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − PR) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
140 STIPULATION and Order of Dismissal without Prejudice by Defendants James Gregory Cox, E.K. McDaniel. (Barraclough, Andrea) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
141 ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice re 140 Stipulation. The court retains jurisdiction to consider any motion to reopen case to compel compliance with the terms of the settlement. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 3/3/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − KR) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
142 LETTER to Judge from NNCC inmate Beau Brown, #73698. (DRM) (Entered: 05/06/2016)

 
 In the Matter of: Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al. Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC (Consolidated) (U.S. District Court, District of Nevada) ________________________________________
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FULL AND FINAL RELEASE THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FULL AND FINAL RELEASE (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the date this Agreement is signed, by and among the NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (“NDOC”), on behalf of itself and all of its officers, directors, employees, formeremployees, agents, predecessors, divisions, correctional facilities, successors, administrators, and assigns, including, but not limited to Jackie Crawford, John Slansky, James Cox, E.K. McDaniel, and any other persons named in the original Complaint at the above case number or the new Complaint at 3:13-cv-00346-HDM-WGC who are or were NDOC employees (collectively referred to as “the NDOC”), and PRISON LEGAL NEWS (“PLN”), on behalf of itself and all of its officers, directors, employees, formeremployees, agents, predecessors, divisions, correctional facilities, successors, administrators, and assigns. I. RECITALS A. At all times relevant hereto, Jackie Crawford, John Slansky, James Cox, E.K. McDaniel are or were NDOC employees; B. At all times relevant hereto, PLN is a wholly owned publishing project of the Human Rights Defense Center, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation with offices in Lake Worth, Florida. PLN publishes Prison Legal News, a monthly journal of corrections, news and analysis. PLN has thousands of subscribers in the United States and abroad, including prisoners, attorneys and judges. C. This Agreement addresses and resolves certain disputes arising from and relating to allegations that the NDOC violated PLN’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as it relates to the handling and delivery of its publications to NDOC incarcerated
[2865295-3]

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 2 of 15 ____________________
inmates and the alleged lack of due process associated with the NDOCs failure to provide PLN notice and opportunity to be heard regarding refused or censored publications;
D. In reviewing the claims of the Complaint, the NDOC and all individuallynamed Defendants deny that the NDOC and its employees engaged in any culpable conduct. The NDOC’s legal position was at all times, and remains, that PLN’s rights were not violated; and
E. Without making any admission of liability on either part, the NDOC and PLN have reached a settlement (“Settlement”) of their disputes and this litigation. This written Agreement memorializes the Settlement terms reached by and between the NDOC and PLN. II. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
A. On September 18, 2000, the NDOC and PLN entered into a Stipulation and Judgment/Order under Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WCG (“2000 Agreement”). Same acted as a consent decree and contained no language establishing an end date; thus, that consent decree exists in perpetuity as between the NDOC and PLN absent a court order terminating that consent decree.
B. Both parties agree that the terms of the 2000 Agreement reached in Prison Legal News v. Crawford, 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WCG, will remain in force and effect in addition to the instant Settlement Agreement, except that: 1) the proper party is no longer the Nevada Department of Prisons but the Nevada Department of Corrections; 2) all references on pages three to five of the consent decree placing the obligation of rejection and review into the Warden’s hands are superseded to the extent those same powers of review and rejection now lie with the Publications Review Committee; and 3) the appropriate appellate body for a relevant due process appeal
[2865295-3]

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 3 of 15 ____________________
submitted by either a sender or inmate is no longer the Director of the Department, but is now an independent and unbiased party who did not sit on the Publication Review Committee (this will most likely be the Deputy Director or a designee).
C. While this Settlement Agreement will act as the catalyst for dismissal of all claims for relief asserted in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 117) and any pending enforcement claims related to the 2000 Agreement, the parties anticipate an abeyance of the dismissal so that the Court may maintain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the settlement, per the terms below. Though this dismissal will close out the above case number, in abeyance for the next ten (10) years and permanently thereafter upon motion, as described below, the parties agree that said dismissal will not terminate the 2000 Agreement, which remains operative in perpetuity, with the exceptions as outlined in Section II(B) below. III. INJUNCTIVE TERMS
Both parties agree to the following injunctive terms: APPROVED VENDORS
Since the inception of this lawsuit, Defendants have amended NDOC regulations to exclude any policy whereby publishers and other vendors or distributors of publications such as books, magazines, pamphlets and other printed literature were placed on an approved list, and prisoners were only allowed to receive publications from vendors that were on the approved list(s).
As a mechanism of injunctive relief to ensure that Defendants do not revert back to this type of policy and practice, Defendants agree that all incoming publications will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for a determination of suitability within the parameters of institutional safety and security regardless of the identity of the publisher, vendor or other distributor. Defendants agree not to censor or withhold books based
[2865295-3]

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 4 of 15 ____________________
solely on the presence or absence of a sender’s name on a list of approved publishers, vendors or distributors. If NDOC maintains any such list or lists of approved publishers it shall be for purposes of reference only and shall not be used as the sole basis for censorship of any publication absent an independent inquiry into the legitimacy of the publisher. Defendants will agree that a copy of the list, if any exists, will be provided to a publisher, vendor or prisoner upon request. To this end, the Parties acknowledge that, in the event that there is any question as to the legitimacy of any particular publisher, vendor or other distributor of printed literature, the NDOC shall perform all appropriate research to determine whether any person or entity mailing publications to prisoners is an actual publisher, vendor or other distributor of printed publications. In the event that any publication is withheld from any prisoner on the grounds that the publisher or distributor is not an actual publisher, vendor, or distributor of printed publications, both the sender and the intended recipient of the publication shall get notice and an opportunity to be heard as more fully described below.
POSTAL RATES Since the inception of this lawsuit, Defendants have amended NDOC regulations to exclude the requirement that all books be mailed to prisoners via First Class mail. As a mechanism of injunctive relief to ensure NDOC does not revert back to this policy or practice, Defendants agree that all incoming publications will be reviewed on a case by case basis for a determination of suitability within the parameters of institutional safety and security regardless of the postal rate used by the sender. Defendants agree that postal classification shall not be a basis for rejection of any mail sent to NDOC prisoners.
ADDRESS LABELS AND STICKERS
[2865295-3]

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 5 of 15 ____________________
Since the inception of this lawsuit, Defendants have amended NDOC regulations to exclude a practice whereby incoming mail was censored because of the presence of an address label and/or a sticker on the outside of the envelope or packaging. As a mechanism of injunctive relief to ensure NDOC does not revert back to this policy, the Defendants agree that all incoming mail to a prisoner, regardless of the presence of address labels or stickers on the outside cover or other packaging, will be reviewed on a case by case basis for a determination of suitability within the parameters of institutional safety and security. The Parties acknowledge that alternatives exist in which envelopes and packaging may be discarded or address labels may be removed prior to the distribution of the mail to prisoners in order to avoid security risks. The Parties also acknowledge that there may come a time in the future when address labels, stickers, or the presence thereof may warrant exclusion, confiscation or investigation depending on whether new forms of contraband smuggling make use of address labels or adhesives. In that future event (with the acknowledgment that no mass need to scrutinize and remove address labels or stickers currently exists as of the date of this Agreement), the Defendants may instruct NDOC staff to examine each sticker or address label on a case by case basis to determine the presence of an adulterated or contraband label or sticker, and the presence of an adulterated or contraband label may warrant refusal to deliver the mail pending an investigation. Defendants agree that the mere presence of address labels or stickers alone shall not be a basis for censorship of incoming mail intended for NDOC prisoners.
PRIOR APPROVAL OF BOOK ORDERS Since the inception of this lawsuit, Defendants have amended NDOC regulations, policies and practices to exclude a policy and practice whereby prisoners had to: a) seek and obtain permission from NDOC staff persons as a condition precedent to
[2865295-3]

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 6 of 15 ____________________
receiving any books in the mail, and, b) ensure that the book was delivered by the publisher to the institution within sixty (60) days of the date of approval. As a mechanism of injunctive relief to ensure NDOC does not revert back to this policy and practice, Defendants agree that prisoners will not have to request advance permission in order to have an incoming book and/or publication reviewed by mailroom staff and/or the Publication Review Committee for delivery to the prisoner. Defendants further agree that prisoners will not have to ensure that books and/or publications are delivered according to any particular type of time schedule in order to have an incoming book and/or publication reviewed by mailroom staff and/or the Publication Review Committee for delivery to the prisoner. This settlement term does not affect NDOC’s ability to withhold and forward concerning materials to the Publication Review Committee nor does it affect the Publication Review Committee’s ability to reject books and/or publications that present a safety and security concern or that violate other terms of NDOC Administrative Regulations (ARs).
In the event that any incoming book and/or publication is withheld from delivery to a prisoner and forwarded to the Publication Review Committee, the mailroom staff person who makes the initial censorship decision will provide to both the sender and the prisoner a written notice of the initial censorship decision and information about the opportunity to appeal the decision of either the mailroom staff person or the Publication Review Committee as more thoroughly described below.
DUE PROCESS Since the inception of this lawsuit, Defendants have amended NDOC Administrative Regulation 750.06 regarding the provision of notice and appeal (due process) to those affected by the censorship of their U.S. Mail. To ensure that AR 750.06 is complied with across all institutions, NDOC will
[2865295-3]

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 7 of 15 ____________________
instruct the Warden of each institution to review the institution’s individual mailroom policies as they regard due process to senders of rejected publications, and the Wardens will ensure that each institution’s Operational Procedures (OPs) adhere to both AR 750.06 and principles of due process.
To that end, Defendants agree to implement Institutional OPs to clarify that both senders and recipients of mail are entitled to receive timely, written notice and an opportunity to appeal censorship decisions whenever a piece of mail is withheld from the regular course of delivery to a prisoner. The NDOC agrees that any new or revised OPs regarding incoming mail will include: 1) a mechanism by which rejected, withheld or censored mail will be retained by the NDOC until all appeals of the initial censorship decision have been resolved or until after the deadline to file an appeal has expired if no appeal has been filed; 2) a process whereby notice of the censorship is given to both the sender and intended recipient of censored mail (this notice should make clear the reasons for the rejection; note the specific section or part of mail alleged to violate security, policy or rule; and should provide the name and address of the NDOC staff member to whom an appeal should be lodged); and 3) a means of ensuring that the appeal of censorship or refusal to deliver is unbiased, conducted by someone who did not participate in the initial censorship decision, and is based on a personal secondary inspection of the censored or rejected material.
Further, the Warden of each institution will: 1) draft into the institution’s OP a mechanism for an audit of the institution’s mail room that will be conducted two times per year with the goal of ensuring compliance with AR 750.06 and the corresponding OP; and 2) draft into the institution’s OP a provision that, should any Warden, Associate Warden or caseworker in their capacities as grievance responders become aware of a grievance alleging that a sender of mail was not provided notice of rejection or notice of
[2865295-3]

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 8 of 15 ____________________
right to appeal, the Warden or Associate Warden will investigate mail room compliance with the applicable Administrative Regulation and Operational Procedure outside of the biannual audit.
When the revised OP of each institution is submitted to the Deputy Director for approval, the Wardens will include a notice to the Deputy Director that changes to the OP were made in conjunction with this Agreement for tracking purposes. NDOC agrees to notify PLN when each institution’s OP has been amended to conform to this Agreement. Both parties acknowledge the amendment of the OPs will be performed after the date that the Court orders a dismissal of PLN’s pending claims.
Defendants also agree to implement a training program for mailroom staff regarding the handling and dissemination of inmate mail. To that end, a training manual will be created by the NDOC. Defendants agree that, before the training manual is put into use, it will provide a draft copy of the training manual to PLN for the purpose of soliciting input from PLN. Though the parties agree that Defendants need not accept all PLN suggestions for training manual language, the Defendants agree to evaluate PLN’s suggestions in good faith, to obtain advice of their counsel regarding the propriety of PLN’s proposed language and to implement PLN proposed terms to the extent they do not conflict with or impinge on institutional safety and security, or do not significantly strain the NDOC’s legislatively approved fiscal budgets.
Both parties acknowledge that when the vendor and/or publisher receives a publication back noted as “returned to sender,” and the prisoner is no longer incarcerated by NDOC, the above due process requirements will not apply.
Finally, the NDOC also agrees to further amend and clarify AR 750.06 at its first available opportunity to more clearly outline the due process required when publications are censored or withheld from a prisoner. PLN acknowledges that the process of
[2865295-3]

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 9 of 15 ____________________
implementation of an AR requires approval of the Board of Prison Commissioners (the Board), which only meets quarterly, and that it could take up to six months to get a revised AR on the agenda depending on the volume of ARs up for approval. Accordingly, both parties acknowledge this part of the Agreement will not be carried out until after dismissal of the claims. However, the NDOC agrees to provide PLN notification of when a revised AR 750 is adopted by the Board.
NDOC STAFF TRAINING NDOC agrees to implement a certified training program for the post of mailroom Corrections Officer, which will include topics on: 1) the correct handling of notices to prisoners and to senders when incoming mail is withheld per the amended AR 750.06; 2) the requirements of sending notice of rejection and notice of right to appeal to the sender of rejected mail per AR 750.06; 3) the requirement of saving and maintaining a repository for all notices sent to senders of rejected publications per AR 750.06; 4) the process for preserving censored or rejected mail for secondary review by NDOC staff not involved with the initial censorship decision; and 5) the history of litigation with Prison Legal News, including the 2000 consent decree and the terms of this Agreement. The training will culminate with the assigned officer needing to take and pass a quiz before he or she qualifies to be assigned to the mailroom. IV. MISCELLANOEUS PROVISIONS
FORCE MAJEURE The parties acknowledge that terms of this Agreement may be rendered inapplicable by future enactment of state statutes or decisions of state or federal courts (though such laws or decisions are not known to exist at this time). Further, the parties understand that provisions of this Agreement may be rendered temporarily impracticable or unavailable due to riots, strikes by either prisoners or employees,
[2865295-3]

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 10 of 15 ____________________
extreme weather conditions, or acts of nature or Acts of God, whatever those may be (though no such conditions are known to exist at this time). Nonetheless, NDOC anticipates being able to perform under the terms of this Agreement in a manner that protects the constitutional rights of both recipients and senders of prisoner mail at NDOC institutions. / / /
JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE NDOC acknowledges that PLN will request that the federal District Judge or Magistrate Judge overseeing this case maintain jurisdiction over this case beyond its dismissal to hear any enforcement actions. NDOC will not oppose that request to the extent that, if the judge agrees, future jurisdiction for enforcement will be limited to (10) ten years. Should the Court agree to retain jurisdiction for ten (10) years following the dismissal of the claims, and in the event PLN believes enforcement of the Agreement is needed, PLN may move the Court to enforce the Agreement. PLN may also seek attorneys’ fees and costs related to said motions and the monitoring required to prepare for said motions, as more fully outlined below. There will also be affirmative action needed by the NDOC to terminate this action, as outlined below. If the Court grants NDOC’s Motion to Terminate as referenced below and ten (10) years have passed, PLN will have to seek relief under a new case number. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed but with the dismissal held in abeyance, if the Court agrees. To effectuate this, both parties will execute a stipulation and order to dismiss with the provision of jurisdiction described herein identified. To terminate this action, NDOC must make a motion seeking that relief. NDOC agrees that it may only make a Motion for Termination in this matter on or after the tenth anniversary of the execution of the Agreement seeking to formally dismiss the case and
[2865295-3]

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 11 of 15 ____________________
remove the abeyance in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, but will do so no earlier than the tenth anniversary of the Agreement.
MONITORING AND FEES NDOC agrees that, to monitor compliance with this Agreement during the specified ten (10) year period, PLN may undertake the following monitoring activities:
a. PLN may perform a case by case analysis of individual complaints; b. PLN may send out surveys to its subscribers two times per year; and c. PLN may do quarterly reviews of DOC Forms 3022 (or any form with a
different title whose purpose is the same), and the mail monitoring logs (or their equivalent), specific to any PLN publications. These forms will be sent to PLN by the Warden of each of the 7 main NDOC institutions. NDOC will provide these forms to PLN on a quarterly basis, same to be redacted to exclude non-PLN entities. Each of these monitoring activities may be conducted prior to seeking informal resolution. However, should any of these above monitoring activities reveal issues, PLN agrees to first contact the Attorney General’s Office to resolve the matters informally. Should PLN feel it needs to perform monitoring activities in excess of those described above, it will first try to gain informal permission to do so via the Attorney General’s Office, but may seek Court approval for excess monitoring activities if informal permission is denied. PLN agrees that any money sought in monitoring fees and costs will be limited to PLN’s monitoring of its own publications and access to its own materials. PLN agrees that it will provide a report to the Attorney General’s Office biannually on June 30th, starting on June 30, 2017, which will itemize all the monitoring charges accumulated for that period. Both parties agree that NDOC may challenge with the
[2865295-3]

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 12 of 15 ____________________
Court any amount of fees charged and billed. TIME FOR IMPLEMENTATION
PLN agrees to give NDOC a 60-day period of time from the execution of this Agreement to implement the policies and terms of this Agreement before it seeks to begin enforcement, with the acknowledgement that it will take NDOC some time to make the necessary changes.
NOTICE TO INMATES OF THIS AGREEMENT PLN will send a one (1) page summary of the terms of this Agreement to NDOC and NDOC agrees to post the summary document in the NDOC housing units for a period of sixty (60) days. NDOC also agrees to maintain the full terms of this Agreement in its law libraries, available upon request to individual prisoners, for the duration of the Agreement. V. MONETARY AGREEMENT AND DISMISSAL In exchange for PLN’s release and dismissal of all pending legal claims against the NDOC and all named Defendants, held in abeyance per the terms above, the NDOC and PLN hereby agree to finally settle all claims, disputes, and controversies, arising from and relating to all disputes and litigation, pursuant to the following terms:
1. The NDOC agrees to pay PLN a total of $475,000 (four-hundred, seventy-five thousand dollars). This total sum combines damages and attorney fees and costs. PLN may determine the allocation of this money between damages and attorney fees and costs at its own discretion. The NDOC (via the State Tort Fund) will direct payment to PLN’s local counsel, Allen Lichtenstein. PLN must satisfy any retainer agreements or payment arrangements with HRDC, hired counsel and local counsel, and NDOC will not be responsible if attorney fees arrangements are not satisfied between PLN and its attorneys. PLN acknowledges that payment of this monetary sum is
[2865295-3]

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 13 of 15 ____________________
contingent on the approval of the State of Nevada Board of Examiners. 2. In consideration of the above terms agreed to by NDOC, PLN
agrees to dismiss the instant case, though as described above, the 2000 Agreement reached originally in the instant case will survive in perpetuity. Said dismissal will be with prejudice in the United State District Court, though said dismissal may be held in abeyance for ten (10) years at the discretion of the Court for the purpose of entertaining enforcement actions per the terms described above. To that end, PLN agrees to execute the contemporaneously submitted Stipulation and Order to Dismiss and return same to NDOC for filing. Once filed, the NDOC will instruct all payments to be made in accordance with the Agreement and will implement all terms of injunctive relief as outlined herein. Though the case will be dismissed in abeyance, the parties agree that, should the District Court or Magistrate Judge elect to retain jurisdiction for enforcement actions for a period of ten (10) years as outlined above, PLN may seek enforcement of the Agreement via the procedural mechanism required by the presiding Judge, and further agree that the 2000 Agreement reached in the instant case will survive the dismissal and may be used as a basis for future enforcement actions. VI. CONTINGENCIES
The above agreement is structured to give the Court proper deference in deciding whether to retain jurisdiction. However, PLN reserves the right, in the event the Court declines to retain jurisdiction for ten (10) years for the purpose of deciding enforcement actions, to withdraw from this Agreement without penalty. To verify that the Court will retain jurisdiction prior to the filing of the Stipulation to Dismiss, Defendants agree to place on calendar a Request for Hearing. During this hearing, the
parties will ascertain the intentions of the Court regarding its intent to accept or decline
[2865295-3]

Settlement Agreement In the Matter of Prison Legal News v. Cox, et al.; Case No. 3:00-cv-00373-HDM-WGC Page 14 of 15 ____________________
continued jurisdiction per the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement is also contingent upon the NDOC receiving from PLN
summaries of attorney billing records to justify its attorneys’ fees within two (2) weeks of the execution of this Agreement.
As noted above, the Agreement is also contingent on the approval of the Board of Examiners. VII. COMPROMISE AND NO LIABILITY
The parties agree that this Agreement is a complete compromise of matters involving disputed issues of law and fact relating to all the above-described disputes and the litigation, and they assume the risk that the facts or law may be otherwise than they believe. The parties understand and agree that this Settlement is a compromise of all disputed claims to date. The parties understand and agree that the consideration given by the NDOC in exchange for the release of all claims asserted by PLN, as set forth herein, is not to be construed and shall never at any time for any purpose be considered an admission of liability on the part of any party, by whom liability is expressly denied. VIII. BINDING EFFECT UPON SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST
This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the NDOC and PLN, and their respective successors and assigns. IX. COMPLETENESS OF DOCUMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the matters set forth herein, and there are no representations, warranties, agreements, arrangements, or undertakings, oral or written, between or among the
parties hereto relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which are not fully
[2865295-3]