Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 1 of 27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT TACOMA

10 PRISON LEGAL NEWS,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

CASE NO. 14-cv-05304 JRC ORDER

13 LEWIS COUNTY, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

16

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73

17 and Local Magistrate Judge Rule MJR 13. See also Joint Status Report, Dkt. 49 and Minute

18 Order, Dkt. 50.

19

Prison Legal News seeks an injunction that would prohibit Lewis County Jail from

20 restricting incoming and outgoing prisoner mail to postcards only. Dkt. 10. At various times,

21 Lewis County Jail has chosen to enforce a policy imposing such a restriction and at other times

22 has chosen not to enforce this restriction. Despite representing to the Court that it has changed

23 its policy and is now allowing news sources to distribute both publications and other forms of

24

ORDER - 1

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 2 of 27

1 correspondence to prisoners, there is substantial evidence to believe that this policy has not yet

2 been adopted.

3

First Amendment rights are too important to be subject to such arbitrariness. When it

4 comes to access to news and information, prisoners and those who correspond with them should

5 be afforded the opportunity to send and receive mail, and if mail is refused by the Jail, prisoners

6 and persons attempting to communicate with prisoners should receive notice and a fair and

7 timely process for appealing the Jail’s refusal to deliver the mail.

8

Therefore, this Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, as will be

9 further delineated below.

10

11

BACKGROUND

12

Plaintiff Prison Legal News (“PLN”) is published by the Human Rights Defense Center

13 (“HRDC”), a Washington Non-Profit Corporation. Dkt. 1 at ¶3.1. HRDC’s mission is public

14 education, prisoner education, advocacy, and outreach in support of the rights of prisoners and in

15 furtherance of basic human rights. Id. PLN publishes and distributes a monthly journal of

16 corrections news and analysis, as well as books about the criminal justice system and legal issues

17 affecting prisoners, to prisoners, lawyers, courts, libraries, and the public throughout the country.

18 Id.

19

From September 2013 through October 2013, PLN mailed to prisoners of Lewis County

20 Jail personally addressed envelopes containing informational brochures about subscribing to

21 PLN, copies of a catalog of books that PLN offers for sale, detailed book offers, and court

22 opinions. Dkt. 12 at ¶¶10-13, Exhibits A through SS (censored mail), Exhibits TT and UU

23 (exemplars). The Jail rejected and returned the mail, totaling forty-five pieces of mail. Dkt. 12 at

24

ORDER - 2

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 3 of 27

1 ¶¶12-13, Exhibits A through SS. On forty of the returned items, the Jail staff stamped “RETURN

2 TO SENDER This facility accepts postcards only.” Dkt. 12 at ¶¶ 12-13, Exhibits E through RR.

3 On three items Jail staff stamped “Returned to Sender REASON CHECKED BELOW” with

4 “Unauthorized Mail” checked or circled. Dkt. 12 at ¶¶ 12-13, Exhibits B through D. On two of

5 the items, Jail staff stamped both “RETURN TO SENDER This facility accepts postcards only”

6 and “Returned to Sender REASON CHECKED BELOW” with “Unauthorized Mail” circled;

7 and, on one of these double stamped items, Jail staff additionally stamped “RETURN TO

8 SENDER. UNDELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED.” Dkt. 12 at ¶¶ 12-13, Exhibits A and SS. The

9 Jail also has rejected materials printed from PLN’s website that were sent to a prisoner by a

10 family member, such as one rejected in May, 2014. Dkt. 33 at ¶ 5, Exhibit B. The Jail rejects

11 mail sent from family members and friends if not in postcard form. Dkt. 34, Exhibits 1-3.

12

Defendants indicate that the Jail adopted its official mail policy on February 3, 2010, and

13 has officially adopted revisions as late as September 4, 2012. Dkt. 24, Exhibit 2. This policy

14 restricts all ingoing and outgoing prisoner personal mail to postcards only. Id. at page 2. The

15 policy also contains a “Publications” section that allows for the delivery of incoming soft

16 covered magazines. Id. at page 3. The Jail has also presented a draft policy that it claims to have

17 put into practice on June 2, 2014. Dkt. 71 at ¶ 2. This draft policy contains a separate section

18 regarding publishers and publications providing that correspondence between publishers and

19 prisoners will not be censored under the postcard-only policy. Dkt. 44, Exhibit 2 at page 2.

20 Despite this assertion, defendants admit that this draft policy has not been widely disseminated

21 nor officially adopted by the Jail. Dkt. 71 at ¶ 2; Dkt. 61, Exhibit 15 at page 18. The official

22 policy of the Jail remains the policy discussed above that was adopted February 3, 2010 and

23 revised as late as September 4, 2012. Dkt. 61, Exhibit 15 at page 18. Although this official policy

24

ORDER - 3

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 4 of 27

1 contains a subsection under the section titled “Incoming Mail” that allows for the delivery of

2 incoming soft covered magazines, it does not specifically address general correspondence

3 between publishers and prisoners in any other form. Dkt. 24, Exhibit 2 at page 3. On its face, the

4 correspondence PLN claims was wrongfully censored by defendants does not qualify under the

5 publications subsection of the Jail’s official policy and is therefore subject to the postcard-only

6 restriction applied to all personal mail. Id. at page 2-3.

7

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

8

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on April 11, 2014, alleging that Lewis County Jail’s post-card

9 only rule violated PLN’s and prisoner-addressees’ protected free speech rights, as well as the

10 free speech rights of others who correspond with, or attempt to correspond with, prisoners. Dkt.

11 1 at ¶¶4.13, 4.14, 4.36-4.39, 5.2. Plaintiff also alleges that when defendants rejected mail based

12 on this post-card-only policy, Lewis County Jail failed to provide due process notice and

13 opportunity for appeal to PLN and other senders and receivers of the rejected prison mail. Dkt. 1

14 at ¶¶4.18-4.21, 4.40-4.41, 5.6.

15

Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction on April 21, 2014, requesting that this

16 Court enjoin the postcard-only rule and require notice and opportunity to be heard when mail is

17 rejected. Dkt. 10. That matter is currently before the Court.

18

DISCUSSION

19

Standing. As a preliminary matter, plaintiff seeks to assert the First Amendment free

20 speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights not only on its own behalf, but also

21 on behalf of prisoners and other persons who send and receive mail to and from prisoners in the

22 Jail. Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 4.13, 4.16, 4.18, 4.19, 4.36-4.41, 5.2, 5.6; Dkt. 10 at page 2.

23

24

ORDER - 4

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 5 of 27

1

To satisfy standing requirements, a plaintiff must show: (1) that it has suffered an “injury

2 in fact” that is “(a) concrete and particularized and (b) ‘actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or

3 ‘hypothetical;’’” (2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant;

4 and (3) that it is “‘likely’, as opposed to merely ‘speculative’, that the injury will be ‘redressed

5 by a favorable decision.’” See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–561 (1992)

6 (footnote and all citations omitted).

7

PLN has met each of these requirements. First, PLN has shown that the jail actually

8 rejected mail sent by plaintiff to prisoners, and has set forth concrete and particularized examples

9 of those rejections. Second, the action is fairly traceable to the Jail’s postcard-only policy as the

10 policy was in place at the time PLN’s mail was rejected and was used as the basis for rejecting

11 this mail. And, third, as will be discussed below, plaintiff has demonstrated that further injury

12 will be redressed by a favorable decision on the merits. Although defendants assert that its

13 postcard-only policy is no longer enforced, the policy remains in place and could be used again

14 to reject mail if it chose to enforce the policy. Therefore, this Court concludes that plaintiff has

15 standing to bring this motion for preliminary injunction on its own behalf. See id.

16

Further, plaintiff has standing to assert the rights of third parties who are not before the

17 Court. Under the overbreadth doctrine, a plaintiff “may challenge an overly broad statute or

18 regulation by showing that it may inhibit the First Amendment rights of individuals who are not

19 before the court.” 4805 Convoy, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 183 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 1999)

20 (citations omitted). The requirements to satisfy overbreadth standing are injury-in-fact and the

21 ability to frame the issues in the case satisfactorily. Id. (citing Secretary of Maryland v. Joseph

22 H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947, 958 (1984)).

23

24

ORDER - 5

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 6 of 27

1

First, the current official policy threatens the ability of those other than PLN to send

2 information packs and other non postcard materials to prisoners while also failing to provide

3 notice of the opportunity to appeal; and, such restriction has occurred, for instance, to a partner

4 of a prisoner who shares a child with the prisoner (see Dkt. 34 at Exhibits 1 and 3) as well as to a

5 mother of a prisoner (see Dkt. 34 at Exhibits 2 and 3). Thus, those other than PLN have been

6 injured-in-fact.

7

Second, PLN is certainly able to frame the issues on behalf of prisoners and other

8 correspondents. PLN has vigorously advocated on behalf of prisoners in previous litigation in

9 this Circuit. See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005); Prison Legal

10 News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001); Prison Legal News v. Columbia County, Dock.

11 No. 3:12-CV-00071-SI, 2012 WL 1936108, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74030 (D. Or. May 29,

12 2012) (unpublished opinion); see also Dkt. 34. Furthermore, PLN has offered multiple

13 declarations from prisoners and their correspondents demonstrating that PLN has invested

14 significant time in determining how the Jail’s policy has affected prisoners and their

15 correspondents. See Dkt. 30; see also Dkt. 34. Finally, PLN has framed its argument to address

16 the allegedly overbroad nature of the mail policy’s postcard-only restriction and lack of

17 procedural due process safeguards while presenting specific alleged effects of the policy on

18 prisoners and their correspondents in addition to the effect on PLN alone. PLN has demonstrated

19 advocacy on behalf of prisoners and their other correspondents; and has demonstrated that it is

20 able to represent adequately prisoners and their correspondents’ interests in this litigation.

21 Therefore, PLN has standing to assert the rights of the prisoners and other potential senders and

22 recipients of prison mail.

23

24

ORDER - 6

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 7 of 27

1

While case law indicates that a free speech claim like plaintiff’s is an appropriate setting

2 for the application of the overbreadth doctrine, the doctrine does not appear to have been used by

3 other courts to cover claims such as plaintiff’s due process claims. The Supreme Court has

4 “recognized the validity of facial attacks alleging overbreadth (though not necessarily using that

5 term) in relatively few settings, and, generally, on the strength of specific reasons weighty

6 enough to overcome our well-founded reticence.” Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 609-10

7 (2004) (citations omitted). Such settings include free speech, the right to travel, abortion, and

8 legislation under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S.

9 601 (1973); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S.

10 914, 938–46 (2000); City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 532–35 (1997)) (other citations

11 omitted). The overbreadth doctrine should not be extended beyond these settings without good

12 reason. Sabri, supra, 541 U.S. at 610. Nonetheless, the Court finds that the same evidence

13 supports PLN’s ability to properly frame both First and Fourteenth Amendment interests of

14 prisoners and other correspondents. Additionally, PLN has indicated injury-in-fact arising from

15 the violation of both its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Therefore, the Court concludes

16 that the equal existence of these factors in regards to both constitutional rights, coupled with the

17 already appropriate application of the overbreadth doctrine to plaintiff’s free speech claim,

18 constitutes good reason for extending the doctrine to plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due

19 process claims as well. Plaintiff may assert these claims on behalf of prisoners and other

20 correspondents whose mail is restricted by the Jail’s postcard-only policy.

21

Mootness. Also as a preliminary matter, defendants claim that the several instances cited

22 by plaintiff when its mail was rejected were isolated instances that were the result of one mail

23 handler’s misunderstanding and that these rejections will not likely happen again. Therefore,

24

ORDER - 7

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 8 of 27

1 according to defendants, this matter is moot and should not be the subject of a preliminary

2 injunction. “It is well settled that ‘a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice

3 does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice. . . . . If it

4 did, the courts would be compelled to leave ‘the defendant . . . . free to return to his old

5 ways.’’” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189

6 (2000) (quoting City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289, 289 n.10 (1982)

7 (citing United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953))) (internal citations omitted).

8

A defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable

9 burden of showing that it is “absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not

10 reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, supra, 528 U.S. at 189 (citing United

11 States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., Inc., 393 U.S. 199, 203 (1968)). Accordingly, a

12 mere change in policy ante litem is not sufficient to moot a case unless it clearly shows that the

13 alleged wrong will not reasonably recur.

14

Defendants have not met this heavy burden. For instance, defendants acknowledge that

15 at the time of the incident, the Jail’s policy had a postcard-only policy, but argue that it chose not

16 to enforce it against PLN. Since PLN’s mail was rejected on several instances, it is clear that the

17 Jail’s policy of not following its policy does not negate a potential impact on PLN in the future.

18

Defendants also argue that the draft policy will cure the problem. But, for unknown

19 reasons, it has not yet been adopted. This fact, as well, leads the Court to conclude that it is not

20 “absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.”

21 See Friends of the Earth, supra, 528 U.S. at 189 (citing Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn.,

22 Inc., supra, 393 U.S. at 203).

23

24

ORDER - 8

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 9 of 27

1

Furthermore, even the draft policy presented by the Jail is problematic. It includes a

2 “Publications/Other mail” section in addition to the categories of “Personal” and “Privileged”

3 mail. Dkt. 44, Exhibit 2. This newly drafted section suggests that “verifiable business, banks,

4 publishers, etc. shall not be subject to postcard rules,” but remains unclear about what

5 organizations actually qualify under this exception. Dkt. 45 at ¶ 5, Exhibit 2 at page 2. This is

6 particularly apparent where the next sentence of the same section offers a slightly expanded list

7 of correspondents who might qualify under the exception including publishers, “verifiable

8 business[es], government office[s], bank[s], book store[s], etc.” Id. (emphasis added). This draft

9 version of the new policy does far too little to alleviate concerns regarding the possibility that the

10 Jail will reject mail from PLN or other correspondents in the future, including correspondents

11 such as family and friends, whose rights are also being properly asserted by PLN, as noted

12 above. Furthermore, defendants’ assertion that the harm formerly done to PLN resulted from a

13 “misunderstanding” of the current policy only increases concerns that this vague new section

14 could be applied arbitrarily in the future.

15

Regarding PLN’s due process claims, the draft policy includes a statement that rejected

16 mail “will be returned to sender with a copy of the Notice of Withheld Material. The withheld

17 material notice shall include contact information and direction for due process,” and “[t]he

18 inmate . . . . will receive a copy of the Notice of Withheld Material.” Dkt. 45, Exhibit 2 at

19 page 3. PLN claims that these measures are still inadequate safeguards of its own due process

20 rights, the rights of prisoners, and the rights of other correspondents. The proposed policy does

21 not facially require notice of the reason for rejecting the mail by Jail staff. See id. And, it vaguely

22 addresses notice of an appeals process for those sending mail to prisoners, and neglects to

23 indicate if prisoners will be able to appeal the censorship of their mail by Jail staff. See id.

24

ORDER - 9

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 10 of 27

1 Furthermore, there is nothing in the policy that mentions notification or the right to appeal the

2 rejection of outgoing mail by Jail staff. See id.

3

Accordingly, several areas of dispute remain unresolved. Defendants have not satisfied

4 “the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior

5 could not reasonably be expected to recur.” See Friends of the Earth, supra, 528 U.S. at 189

6 (citing Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., Inc., 393 U.S. at 203). Therefore, this motion for

7 preliminary injunction is not moot.

8

Because plaintiff has standing to assert its rights and the rights of third parties, and

9 because this matter is not moot, the Court will now address the standards for granting a

10 preliminary injunction, as set forth in Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20

11 (2008). Because plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction regarding both the Jail’s post-card

12 only policy and the Jail’s notice and appeals procedure for rejected mail, and those policies

13 potentially impact separate constitutionally protected rights, the Court will deal with each policy

14 separately.

15

Standards for preliminary injunction. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction

16 must clearly establish: (1) that plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that plaintiff is

17 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of

18 equities tips in plaintiff’s favor, and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest. Winter v.

19 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a);

20 cf. M.R. v. Dreyfus, 663 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) (the Court may grant a preliminary

21 injunction “if there is a likelihood of irreparable injury to the plaintiff; there are serious questions

22 going to the merits; the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of the plaintiff; and the

23

24

ORDER - 10

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 11 of 27

1 injunction is in the public interest”); The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir.

2 2008), overturned by Winter, supra, 555 U.S. at 22.

3

1. The Jail’s postcard-only policy. The Jail’s policy regarding personal mail states,

4 in part, “Incoming and outgoing personal mail shall be postcard media only.” Dkt. 24, Exhibit 2

5 at page 2. PLN alleges that defendants violated its free speech rights and those of other

6 publishers and correspondents by limiting prisoner personal mail to postcards only and by

7 rejecting informational brochure packs and court opinions that PLN mailed to prisoners in

8 envelopes. Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 4.13-4.14, 4.26-4.27, 4.33. The Jail’s policy provides an exception for

9 “Publications” as follows: “Publications are allowed for inmates. Publications must come

10 directly from a publisher or approved book store and must be soft covered. Publications must be

11 individually addressed.” Dkt. 24, Exhibit 2 at page 3. The policy does not define a

12 “publication,” but it is clear that it was not interpreted by the Jail to include the informational

13 brochure packets that plaintiff sent to prisoners and were rejected.

14

Under the first factor of the test in Winter, plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that

15 it is likely to succeed on the merits. See Winter, supra, 555 U.S. at 20. Prisoners and their

16 correspondents have a First Amendment interest in sending each other mail. The Ninth Circuit

17 has “repeatedly recognized that publishers and inmates have a First Amendment interest in

18 communicating with each other.” Hrdlicka v. Reniff, 631 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing

19 Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 2005); Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490

20 U.S. 401, 408 (1989)). Also, prison and jail walls do not “bar free citizens from exercising their

21 own constitutional rights by reaching out to those on the ‘inside.’” Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490

22 U.S. 401, 407 (1989) (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94-99 (1987); Bell v. Wolfish, 441

23

24

ORDER - 11

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 12 of 27

1 U.S. 520 (1979); Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119 (1977);

2 Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974)) (internal citation omitted).

3

This First Amendment interest extends to receiving mail as well as sending it. “It is now

4 well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas. ‘This

5 freedom [of speech and press] . . . . necessarily protects the right to receive . . . . ’” Stanley

6 v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969) (citing Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143

7 (1943); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 482 (1965); Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381

8 U.S. 301, 307-08 (1965) (Brennan, J., concurring); cf. Pierce v. Society of the Sisters, 268 U.S.

9 510 (1925)). Accordingly, plaintiff has a First Amendment interest in both sending

10 correspondence to prisoners and receiving correspondence in return. Additionally, prisoners and

11 their other correspondents share the same constitutional interest.

12

Notwithstanding the implication of a First Amendment interest, “restrictions that are

13 asserted to inhibit First Amendment interests must be analyzed in terms of the legitimate policies

14 and goals of the corrections system . . . .” Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974). In

15 Turner v. Safley, the Supreme Court determined that when prison regulations impinge on

16 constitutional interests, the regulations are valid if “reasonably related to legitimate penological

17 interests.” 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987), superceded by statute, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2), with

18 respect to burdens on religious exercise, as stated in Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 994

19 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation and footnote omitted). The Court provided a four-factor test to evaluate

20 “the reasonableness of a prison or jail regulation impinging on a constitutional right.” Hrdlicka,

21 supra, 631 F.3d at 1049. This test considers:

22

(1) whether the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate and neutral

governmental objective, (2) whether there are alternative avenues that remain

23

open to the inmates to exercise the right, (3) the impact that accommodating the

asserted right will have on other guards and prisoners, and on the allocation of

24

ORDER - 12

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 13 of 27

1

prison resources; and (4) whether the existence of easy and obvious alternatives

indicates that the regulation is an exaggerated response by prison officials.

2 Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 272 F.Supp. 2d 1151, 1155 (W.D. Wash. 2003) (quoting Prison

3 Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Turner, supra, 482 U.S. at 89-

4 90)). Not only do these factors apply in evaluating regulations that govern prisoners’ right to

5 receive mail, but they also apply to regulations affecting correspondents’ “rights to send

6 materials to prisoners.” Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing

7 Thornburgh, supra, 490 U.S. at 413).

8 The first Turner factor requires this Court to determine if the postcard-only policy is

9 rationally related to a legitimate and neutral governmental objective. See Turner, supra, 482 U.S.

10 at 89-90 (citations omitted). Defendants assert that the postcard-only policy is aimed at

11 improving jail security by reducing the importation of contraband, the amount of resources spent

12 screening mail, and prisoner misuse of the mailing system. Dkt. 25 at ¶¶ 3, 4. Prison security is

13 undeniably a legitimate penological objective. See Thornburg, supra, 490 U.S. at 415. The

14 policy also is neutral because it draws a distinction between postcards and other forms of mail

15 “solely on the basis of their potential implications for prison security . . . .” Id. (footnote

16 omitted).

17 The burden of showing a rational relationship lies with defendants, and is initially

18 satisfied by presenting an “intuitive, common-sense connection” between the objective and the

19 regulation. Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 354, 356-57 (9th Cir. 1999). If PLN is able to

20 show sufficient evidence refuting the connection, defendants must additionally present enough

21 evidence “to show that the connection is not so ‘remote as to render the policy arbitrary or

22 irrational.’” Id. (quoting Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F 3.d 1054, 1060 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Turner,

23 supra, 428 U.S. at 89-90 and Amatel v. Reno, 156 F.3d 192, 200-01 (D.C. Cir. 1998))).

24

ORDER - 13

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 14 of 27

1

Here, defendants indicate that “[i]t is simply more effective to visually scan a postcard

2 for contraband and other issues than it is to scan a closed envelope, remove its contents, and

3 review the same for all of the issues of which our staff has to be aware . . . . ” Dkt. 25 at ¶ 10.

4 Such issues include concerns about materials like anthrax, weapons, secreted drugs, coded

5 messages, or even bodily fluids being sent through the mail. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 3. Additionally,

6 defendants indicate that the postcard-only policy reduces the time that staff spends screening

7 mail by half. Id. at ¶ 4. This showing sufficiently establishes a common-sense connection

8 between the postcard-only policy and the asserted objective. This factor weighs in favor of

9 defendants.

10

The second Turner factor considers whether or not “‘other avenues’ remain available for

11 the exercise of the asserted right.” Turner, supra, 482 U.S. at 90 (citations omitted). In

12 evaluating this factor, alternative means need not be ideal, but they must be reasonably available.

13 See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 135 (2003). Nonetheless, “‘the right’ in question must be

14 viewed sensibly and expansively.” Thornburgh, supra, 490 U.S. at 417 (citing Turner, supra,

15 482 U.S. 78; O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987)). Defendants contend that

16 alternate avenues exist to exercise free speech rights because other channels remain open for

17 contacting prisoners, like sending emails, making phone calls, or utilizing regular visitation. See

18 Dkt. 45 at ¶¶ 9, 11.

19

On this point, the facts indicate otherwise. The postcard-only policy, on its face, prevents

20 PLN from sending materials that are not easily transferable to a postcard, such as court opinions

21 and informational packets. PLN has shown that the information included in these mailings

22 cannot be formatted to fit onto a postcard. Dkt. 12 at ¶ 17, Exhibits TT, UU. For this reason and

23

24

ORDER - 14

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 15 of 27

1 due to PLN’s necessary reliance on such materials to secure new subscribers and its continued

2 vitality, the barriers implicated by the policy are not an insubstantial hardship. See id.

3

The policy also prevents family members from sending items like photographs, copies of

4 bills, and medical information. See, e.g., Dkt. 34. None of these things can be easily replaced by

5 telephone calls or regular visitation. It has been recognized that such communication with

6 family and friends “advances rather than retards the goal of rehabilitation . . . .” Procunier v.

7 Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 412-13 (1974) (quoting Policy Statement 7300.1A of the Federal Bureau

8 of Prisons (the policy “recognized that any need for restrictions arises primarily from

9 considerations of order and security rather than rehabilitation: ‘Constructive, wholesome contact

10 with the community is a valuable therapeutic tool in the overall corrections process’”); Policy

11 Guideline of the Association of State Correctional Administrators of August 23, 1972 (the policy

12 guideline “echoes the view that personal correspondence by prison inmates is a generally

13 wholesome activity: ‘Correspondence with members of an inmate’s family, close friends,

14 associates and organizations is beneficial to the morale of all confined persons and may form the

15 basis for good adjustment in the institution and the community’”)) (footnote omitted), overruled

16 on other grounds, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407, 413-16, 419 (1989) (noting the

17 “undoubtedly” legitimate claim to prison access by “families and friends of prisoners who seek

18 to sustain relationships with them”) (citations omitted).

19

The postcard-only policy drastically reduces prisoners’ and other correspondents’ ability

20 to communicate. It is more than a mere inconvenience and becomes a substantial barrier to First

21 Amendment rights. Incarceration does not “form a barrier separating prison inmates [or free

22 citizens] from the protections of the Constitution . . . . ” Thornburgh, supra, 490 U.S. at 407

23 (citing Turner, supra, 482 U.S. at 84, 94-99; Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979); Jones v. North

24

ORDER - 15

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 16 of 27

1 Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119 (1977); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817

2 (1974)). Accordingly, the second Turner factor favors PLN as “‘the right’ in question must be

3 viewed sensibly and expansively.” Id. at 417 (citing Turner, supra, 482 U.S. 78; O’Lone, supra,

4 482 U.S. 342).

5

The third Turner factor considers the impact that “accommodation of the asserted

6 constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison

7 resources generally.” Turner, supra, 482 U.S. at 90. Because of the high likelihood that even the

8 smallest changes will have some “ramification of the liberty of others or on the use of the

9 prison’s limited resources[,]” this third factor weighs most heavily when “accommodation of an

10 asserted right will have a significant ‘ripple effect’ on fellow inmates or on prison staff.” Id.

11 Also, “the policies followed at other well-run institutions [are] relevant to a determination of the

12 need for a particular type of restriction.” Martinez, supra, 416 U.S. at 414 n.14, overruled on

13 other grounds, Thornburgh, supra, 490 U.S. 401; see also Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 905

14 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Martinez, supra, 416 U.S. at 414 n.14, overruled on other grounds,

15 Thornburgh, supra, 490 U.S 401).

16

Defendants state that the postcard-only policy reduces by half the time that staff members

17 spend screening mail, but PLN aptly raises important questions concerning the actual amount of

18 time that is saved. Compare Dkt. 25 at ¶ 4 with Dkt. 34 at ¶¶ 11-12. PLN questions the methods

19 by which this figure was obtained. Dkt. 34 at ¶¶ 11-12. Also, PLN contends that the time

20 necessary to review the mailing, mark the reason for its rejection, and attach a notice regarding

21 an option to appeal the decision arguably would be no greater than the time necessary to open

22 and inspect the contents of the envelope for contraband and send it on to the intended recipient.

23 Defendants’ assertion regarding the impact on its budget is simply not well documented nor

24

ORDER - 16

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 17 of 27

1 supported by substantial quantitative and qualitative evidence. Instead, it seems to be based

2 entirely on conjecture, rather than analysis and evidence. Therefore, without more, this Court

3 cannot ascribe substantial weight to this assertion. Accordingly, the third Turner factor supports

4 PLN’s argument because defendants have failed to demonstrate that accommodating these First

5 Amendment rights will have a significant impact on other guards and prisoners or on the

6 allocation of prison resources.

7

In addition, PLN also has identified numerous prison and jail systems that do not enforce

8 a postcard-only policy, but instead perform mail inspections, as Lewis County Jail has done in

9 the past. Such systems include the Washington Department of Corrections (“WDOC”), the

10 Bureau of Prisons, King County Jail, Pierce County Jail, and Spokane County Jail. Dkt. 10 at

11 page 18. In contrast, defendants indirectly refer to two jail systems that likewise employ

12 postcard-only policies. See Dkt. 22 at pages 3, 10-11. However, the prevalence of the alternative

13 policies allowing for enveloped mail among “well-run institutions” suggests that postcard-only

14 policies do not increase efficiency enough to result in their widespread adoption.

15

The final Turner factor addresses if “the existence of easy and obvious alternatives

16 indicates that the regulation is an exaggerated response by prison officials.” Cook, supra, 238

17 F.3d at 1149 (citing Turner, supra, 482 U.S. at 89-90). This factor should not be mistaken for a

18 least restrictive alternative analysis; prisons need not always adopt the least restrictive

19 alternative. See Turner, supra, 482 U.S. at 90-91 (citations omitted). However, courts may

20 consider “an alternative that fully accommodates the [asserted] rights at de minimis cost to valid

21 penological interests” as evidence that the policy unreasonably infringes upon First Amendment

22 rights. Id. at 91.

23

24

ORDER - 17

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 18 of 27

1

As discussed above, PLN has indicated that simply opening and inspecting enveloped

2 mail is a ready alternative to Lewis County Jail’s postcard-only policy. This was the policy

3 employed previously by Lewis County Jail and the Jail has reported no incidents of misconduct

4 where the resulting danger would have increased had the jail allowed envelopes and letters. Also,

5 defendants have failed to show that inspecting enveloped letters instead of outright rejecting

6 them will be difficult or will result in an undue burden on administrative costs. The fact that

7 systems like the Bureau of Prisons, the WDOC, and large county jails in the immediate region all

8 accommodate enveloped mail without compromised security evidences that the postcard-only

9 policy is an exaggerated response to the potential dangers that accompany the postal service.

10 Dkt. 10 at 18; see Morrison, supra, 261 F.3d at 905 (finding that alternative “policies followed at

11 other well-run institutions” evidenced that easy and obvious alternatives existed to the

12 challenged regulation) (citations omitted). In light of these other institutions’, and Lewis County

13 Jail’s own successful past use of a letter inspecting policy, the fourth factor suggests that the

14 postcard-only policy is an exaggerated response by prison officials, thus weighing in favor of

15 PLN’s position.

16

In summary, although defendants succeed in stating a “rational” relationship between the

17 postcard-only policy and legitimate penological interests, the remaining Turner factors weigh

18 heavily in favor of PLN. This “rational” relationship is insufficient to justify such a substantial

19 barrier on First Amendment rights. Therefore, plaintiff has demonstrated that it likely will

20 succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claims, satisfying the first prong of the Winter test.

21 See Winter, supra, 555 U.S. at 20.

22

Under the second prong in Winter, plaintiff has the burden of proving that it is likely to

23 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Winter, supra, 555 U.S. at 20. To

24

ORDER - 18

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 19 of 27

1 meet this burden, it is well recognized that “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even

2 minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrods v. Burns, 427

3 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (citing New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (footnote

4 omitted)); see also Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2009).

5 However, the fact of past injury, while presumably affording a plaintiff standing to claim

6 damages, “does nothing to establish a real and immediate threat that he would again” suffer

7 similar injury in the future. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105 (1983).

8

As discussed above, see supra, Mootness section, the proposed change in the Jail’s policy

9 does too little to alleviate the Court’s concerns regarding the possibility that the Jail will reject

10 mail from PLN or other correspondents in the future. Due to the vagueness of the policy in

11 regards to who qualifies as a “publisher/other,” the policy on its face could be applied differently

12 to nearly identical organizations resulting in the arbitrary denial of plaintiff’s right to free speech.

13 Additionally, other personal mail remains restricted to postcards only, preventing

14 communications between prisoners and family or other correspondents. Therefore, this Court

15 concludes that the Jail’s postcard-only policy is likely to cause further irreparable injury in the

16 future.

17

The third Winter test, that the balance of equities tips in plaintiff’s favor, is very similar

18 in application to the weighing of interests that the Court already has conducted under Turner.

19 Compare Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., supra, 555 U.S. 20 with Turner v. Safley,

20 supra, 482 U.S. at 89-91. Therefore, the Court simply notes here that analysis of the postcard-

21 only policy under the Turner factors establishes that the balance of equities tips in favor of

22 plaintiff. Considering that the Jail previously has allowed enveloped mail, and due to a lack of

23 evidence showing that a return to this policy would cause inordinate harm or difficulty, the Court

24

ORDER - 19

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 20 of 27

1 concludes that the Jail’s postcard-only policy cannot justify the dramatic impact on plaintiff’s,

2 prisoners’, and other correspondents’ First Amendment rights.

3

The final test under Winter is whether or not the injunction is in the public interest.

4 Winter, supra, 555 U.S. at 20. “The public interest primarily addresses [the] impact on non-

5 parties rather than parties.” Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, in & for County of Carson

6 City, 303 F.3d 959, 974 (9th Cir. 2002), overruled on other grounds, Winter, supra, 555 U.S. at

7 22. Here, an injunction would not only benefit PLN, but it also would directly benefit other

8 publishers similarly situated as well as other members of the public who wish to communicate

9 with prisoners through written correspondence. Additionally, because communication with

10 family and friends “advances rather than retards the goal of rehabilitation,” such an injunction

11 would benefit the public generally. Martinez, supra, 416 U.S. at 412-13 (footnote and quotations

12 omitted), overruled on other grounds, Thornburgh, supra, 490 U.S. at 407 (noting the

13 “undoubtedly” legitimate claim to prison access by “families and friends of prisoners who seek

14 to sustain relationships with them”) (citations omitted).

15

In summary, plaintiff has satisfied each of the prongs set forth in Winter, and is therefore

16 entitled to an injunction regarding the postcard-only policy. The Court still needs to address the

17 form of such an injunction. Plaintiff proposes that this Court order a mandatory injunction. “‘A

18 mandatory injunction orders a responsible party to take action,’ while ‘[a] prohibitory injunction

19 prohibits a party from taking action and preserves the status quo pending a determination of the

20 action on the merits.’” Arizona Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 2014 U.S. App.

21 LEXIS 12746 at *13-*14 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma

22 GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 878–79 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and alteration

23 omitted), overruled on other grounds, Winter, supra, 555 U.S. at 22; see also Flexible Lifeline

24

ORDER - 20

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 21 of 27

1 Sys., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc., 654 F.3d 989, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2011)). In the context of an

2 injunction, “the ‘status quo’ refers to the legally relevant relationship between the parties before

3 the controversy arose.” Id. at *13 (citing McCormack v. Hiedeman, 694 F.3d 1004, 1020 (9th

4 Cir. 2012)). Policy changes in response to litigation are an affirmative change of the status quo.

5 See id. (“By revising their policy in response to DACA, Defendants affirmatively changed this

6 status quo. The district court erred in defining the status quo ante litem . . . . ”).

7

The Court has been provided several options by the parties. Rather than delineating all

8 aspects of a mail policy, the most straight forward approach is simply to prohibit that which is

9 unconstitutional. Therefore, the Court preliminarily enjoins defendants from restricting

10 incoming and outgoing prisoner mail to postcards only, and orders defendants not to refuse to

11 deliver or process prisoner personal mail on the ground that it is in a form other than a postcard.

12 Any policy or practice that does not conform with this restriction is enjoined during the

13 pendency of this action or until further order of this Court.

14

2. The Jail’s notice and appeals procedure for rejected mail.

15

Plaintiff further alleges that by rejecting mail without providing information regarding a

16 right to appeal, defendants violated plaintiff’s, prisoners’, and other correspondents’ Fourteenth

17 Amendment rights to due process. Dkt. 1 at ¶5.6. Plaintiff seeks to obtain an injunction

18 delineating the due process procedure to be followed by defendants during the pendency of these

19 proceedings. Dkt. 10 at pages 20 – 24.

20

In order to protect the Fourteenth Amendment rights of prisoners and their

21 correspondents, “the decision to censor or withhold delivery of a particular letter must be

22 accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards.” Martinez, supra, 416 U.S. at 417, overruled

23 on other grounds, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989). Inmates have “a Fourteenth

24

ORDER - 21

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 22 of 27

1 Amendment due process liberty interest in receiving notice that [their] incoming mail is being

2 withheld by prison authorities.” Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 353 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations

3 omitted).

4

A preliminary injunction regarding the Jail’s notice and appeals procedures will be

5 granted if plaintiff in the due process context satisfies the four part test set forth in Winter v.

6 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Therefore, the following discussion sets

7 forth this Court’s analysis of those factors as they relate to plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due

8 process claim.

9

Under the first prong of Winter, plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that plaintiff is

10 likely to succeed on the merits. See Winter, supra, 555 U.S. at 20. It is axiomatic that due

11 process is adversely impacted by vague policies or disparate enforcement of those policies. See,

12 e.g., Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402 (1966) (“the 1860 Act is invalid under the Due

13 Process Clause because of vagueness and the absence of any standards sufficient to enable

14 defendants to protect themselves against arbitrary and discriminatory impositions of costs . . . .

15 Certainly one of the basic purposes of the Due Process Clause has always been to protect a

16 person against having the Government impose burdens upon him except in accordance with the

17 valid laws of the land. Implicit in this constitutional safeguard is the premise that the law must be

18 one that carries an understandable meaning with legal standards that courts must enforce”). And,

19 it is problematic that the Jail’s notice and appeal procedure is unclear.

20

A policy is set forth in POL 05.07.050, which states in part:

21

The Administrative Lieutenant may authorize restrictions of incoming or outgoing

mail w hen t he correspondence i s d eemed to b e a th reat to th e le gitimate

22

penological interest of the facility. T he Administrative Lieutenant shall provide

written not ification t o bot h i nmate a nd s ender i dentifying t he reason f or t he

23

restriction, and advise both of their right to request a review. S taff shall accept a

24

ORDER - 22

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 23 of 27

1

written request for review within ten days of initial notice. The Jail Administrator

shall review the restriction and respond in a reasonable amount of time. . . .

2

Dkt. 12, Exhibit 2, Wright Declaration, Exhibit VV to Wright Declaration at page 3.

3 Plaintiff argues that defendants failed to comply with this policy, that the policy fails to

4 define “threat to the legitimate penological interest,” and that the policy is confusing and

5 provides no information regarding how to obtain the stated review. Dkt. 10 at pages 21-22.

6 Another mail policy indicates that prisoners and their correspondents must be notified of

7 the rejection by Jail staff of incoming mail, but that policy remains silent regarding outgoing

8 mail rejected by Jail staff. Dkt. 45, Exhibit 2 at page 3. It states that if incoming mail is rejected

9 for cause, it will be returned to the sender with a copy of the Notice of Withheld Material and

10 shall include contact information and directions for due process. See id. Copies of this notice

11 will be sent to the intended prisoner recipient. See id. The same procedure does not apply to

12 outgoing mail rejected by Jail staff and no appeals procedure for prisoners is set forth in the

13 policy. See id.

14 Defendants claim that the grievance policy contained in the Inmate Manual satisfies all of

15 plaintiff’s due process concerns. Dkt. 22 at page 11 (citing Dkt. 25, Exhibit 2). That Manual is

16 for prisoners only, and not for other non-prisoner correspondents. The Manual does not refer

17 specifically to the procedure that should be followed if mail is rejected, nor what notice is

18 required, although it indicates that prisoners will be provided a written explanation when

19 incoming mail (only) is rejected and instructs prisoners that they can appeal “to the

20 Administration Lieutenant through the kiosk (GT) system.” See Dkt. 25, Exhibit 2 at pp. 9-11.

21 Defendants have not clarified how this manual is applied to rejected mail and has not clarified

22 whether or not prisoners are given any notice of the Jail refusing to send their mail. See id.

23

24

ORDER - 23

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 24 of 27

1

Plaintiff argues that because of the disparate policies and procedures “the Jail’s mail staff

2 will be left to use unfettered discretion to apply the confusing and inconsistent policy according

3 to their own interpretations.” Dkt. 10 at p. 22. And, that appears to be exactly what occurred

4 here. The Jail applied different stamps, advising the senders of different objections to the same

5 types of mail. See Dkt. 12 at ¶¶ 12-13, Exhibits A through SS. None of the notices provided

6 information to plaintiff of the procedure for appealing the rejections. Id. And, plaintiff has

7 submitted evidence that prisoners were not given any notice that their mail had been rejected or

8 that mail from the outside was not getting in. See Dkt. 32, Exhibit 3 at page 4. This is simply

9 insufficient.

10

In Martinez, the Supreme Court affirmed an order by a district court that “required that an

11 inmate be notified of the rejection of a letter written by or addressed to him, that the author of

12 that letter be given a reasonable opportunity to protest that decision, and that complaints be

13 referred to a prison official other than the person who originally disapproved the

14 correspondence.” Martinez, supra, 416 U.S. at 418-19, overruled on other grounds, Thornburgh,

15 supra, 490 U.S. 401. Non-prisoner correspondents also have a constitutional interest in

16 communicating with prisoners. See id.; Thornburgh, supra, 490 U.S. at 407 (prison and jail walls

17 do not “bar free citizens from exercising their own constitutional rights by reaching out to those

18 on the ‘inside’”) (citations omitted). Therefore, plaintiff has satisfied this Court that the Jail’s

19 policies and practices of notifying senders and recipients of prison mail are unclear and

20 irregularly applied. As such, the Court finds that plaintiff is likely to prevail on this issue and

21 that the Jail’s policy as applied is unconstitutional.

22

As set forth previously, under the second prong in Winter, “an alleged constitutional

23 infringement will often alone constitute irreparable harm.” Monterey Mech. Co. v. Wilson, 125

24

ORDER - 24

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 25 of 27

1 F.3d 702, 715 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Associated General Contractors v. Coalition for

2 Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1412 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds, United Food

3 & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 551 (1996)

4 (quoting Goldie’s Bookstore v. Superior Ct., 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Wright &

5 Miller, 11 Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948 at 440 (1973))). Due process, as guaranteed by

6 the Fourteenth Amendment, cannot be protected by vague and irregularly applied policies and

7 procedures. The threat of this continuing harm sufficiently satisfies this element of the Winter

8 test. See Winter, supra, 555 U.S. at 20; see also Elrods, supra, 427 U.S. at 373 (citing New York

9 Times Co., supra, 403 U.S. 713 (footnote omitted)); Klein, supra, 584 F.3d at 1207-08.

10

Regarding the third prong in the Winter test, the Court concludes that the balance of

11 equities tips in plaintiff’s favor as to prisoners and those sending correspondences to prisoners.

12 Defendant has made no attempt to argue that it would be burdensome to provide sufficient notice

13 to prisoners. In fact, it argues that it is already doing so, despite plaintiff’s evidence to the

14 contrary. Nor have defendants argued that providing sufficient notice to persons whose mail is

15 rejected would be an unreasonable burden; instead arguing that they, too, receive this notice,

16 despite the evidence to the contrary.

17

However, defendants have articulated good reasons for not being required to notify

18 persons who do not receive rejected mail from prisoners. As to those persons, the Jail argues

19 persuasively that if a prisoner attempts to send a message that would violate a restraining order

20 or potentially lead to harmful actions taken by others, a requirement that the Jail notify the

21 intended recipient of the attempted contact would defeat the entire purpose of screening the

22 dangerous mail in the first place. See Dkt. 44 at ¶ 4.41. As to those persons, the Court agrees that

23 the balance of hardships does not tip in favor of plaintiff. Because it is difficult to determine

24

ORDER - 25

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 26 of 27

1 which potential non-prisoner recipients may benefit from notice, and because prisoners’ due

2 process rights can be adequately protected by providing them notice, the Court will not require

3 that the Jail inform the intended recipients that prisoners’ mail to them has been rejected.

4

Except as to those intended recipients of prisoners’ mail, under the forth Winter test, the

5 public interest is well served by requiring the Jail to provide notice and a clear appeals process to

6 prisoners of both rejected incoming and outgoing mail, as well as to non-prisoner correspondents

7 whose mail is rejected.

8

Rather than attempting to write jail policy, this Court will delineate the parameters of a

9 constitutionally acceptable policy. First, the Jail must notify a prisoner when it rejects

10 correspondence written by or addressed to the prisoner. This notification, at a minimum, will set

11 forth the reason the mail was rejected, and the procedure to follow if the prisoner wishes to

12 appeal the rejection. Second, the Jail must notify a non-prisoner correspondent if the non-

13 prisoner correspondent’s mail is rejected. Such notification, at a minimum, will set forth the

14 reason mail was rejected, and the procedure to follow if the non-prisoner correspondent wishes

15 to appeal the rejection. Third, any appeal of rejected mail will be referred to a jail official other

16 than the person who originally rejected the correspondence.

17

ACCORDINGLY, I T I S H EREBY O RDERED that f or t he dur ation of p laintiff’s

18 lawsuit, the Court:

19 1. PRELIMINARILY ENJOINS defendants from restricting incoming and
20 outgoing prisoner mail to postcards only, and orders defendants not to refuse to deliver or
21 process prisoner personal mail on the grounds that it is in a form other than a postcard.
22 2. PRELIMINARILY ENJOINS defendants from rejecting mail to or from
23 prisoners without providing notice to the prisoner. This notification, at a minimum, will set forth
24

ORDER - 26

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 76 Filed 09/10/14 Page 27 of 27

1 the reason the mail was rejected and the procedure to follow if the prisoner wishes to appeal the

2 rejection.

3

3. PRELIMINARILY ENJOINS defendants from rejecting mail from non-

4 prisoner correspondents without providing notice to the non-prisoner correspondent. This

5 notification, at a minimum, will set forth the reason the mail was rejected, and the procedure to

6 follow if the non-prisoner correspondent wishes to appeal the rejection.

7

4. PRELIMINARILY ENJOINS any appeal of rejected mail that is not referred to

8 a jail official other than the person who originally rejected the correspondence.

9

Dated this 10th day of September, 2014.

10 11

A

J. Richard Creatura

12

United States Magistrate Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER - 27

 
 Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 1 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT TACOMA

9 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the

No.

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

10

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

LEWIS COUNTY; LEWIS COUNTY

13 SHERIFF'S OFFICE; STEVE MANSFIELD,

individually and in his capacity as Lewis

14 County Sheriff; KEVIN HANSON, individually

and in his capacity as Lewis County Jail

15 Administrator; and JIM PEA, individually and

in his capacity as Lewis County Administrative

16 Lieutenant,

17

Defendants.

18

19

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

20

1.1 Plaintiff Prison Legal News brings this action to enjoin Defendants’ censorship of

21 mail sent to and from prisoners held in custody at the Lewis County Jail without notice and an

22 opportunity to appeal, in violation of the First Amendment and of the Fourteenth Amendment’s

23 Due Process Clause. Defendants have adopted and implemented written mail policies and

24 practices that unconstitutionally: restrict correspondence to and from prisoners to postcards only;

25 prohibit delivery of book catalogs to prisoners; and do not afford adequate due process. In this

26 action, PLN seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction, damages, and a declaration that

27 Defendants’ policies and conduct violate the Constitution.

COMPLAINT - 1
9870.14 hd106701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 1 Filed 04/11/14 Page 2 of 13

1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

2.1 This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

3 States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343,

4 2201, and 2202.

5

2.2 Venue is proper in the Western District of Washington under 28 U.S.C.

6 § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events complained of occurred in this District, and

7 because the Defendants reside in this District.

8

III. PARTIES

9

3.1 Plaintiff Prison Legal News (PLN) is a project of the Human Rights Defense

10 Center (HRDC), a Washington Non-Profit Corporation. The core of HRDC’s mission is public

11 education, prisoner education, advocacy, and outreach in support of the rights of prisoners and in

12 furtherance of basic human rights. PLN publishes and distributes a monthly journal of

13 corrections news and analysis as well as books about the criminal justice system and legal issues

14 affecting prisoners, to prisoners, lawyers, courts, libraries, and the public throughout the

15 Country. PLN also maintains a website (www.prisonlegalnews.org) and operates an email list.

16 Prisoners of all types, family and friends of prisoners, prisoner advocates, and other members of

17 the general public are among the intended beneficiaries of PLN’s activities.

18

3.2 Defendant Lewis County is a municipal corporation formed under the laws of the

19 State of Washington.

20

3.3 Defendant Lewis County Sheriff’s Office is a department of Lewis County and

21 operates the Lewis County Jail located in Chehalis, Washington. The Jail has the capacity to

22 house 356 prisoners. In 2012, it averaged 211 prisoners per day, 28% of whom were Contract

23 Bed Inmates, meaning that Lewis County confined them for another government entity. In 2012,

24 the Jail brought in close to $1.3 million in revenue collected from confining contract inmates. In

25 2008, 5,110 prisoners were processed through the Lewis County Jail.

26

3.4 Defendant Steve Mansfield is the Sheriff of Lewis County. Sheriff Mansfield is

27 employed by and is an agent of Lewis County and the Sheriff’s Office. He is responsible for the

COMPLAINT - 2
9870.14 hd106701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 1 Filed 04/11/14 Page 3 of 13

1 operations of the Sheriff’s Office and the Lewis County Jail, and the training and supervision of

2 the Jail staff who interprets and implements the Jail’s mail policy for prisoners. He is the

3 policymaker for the Jail policy governing mail for prisoners.

4

3.5 Defendant Kevin Hanson is a member of the Command Staff of the Lewis County

5 Sheriff’s Office, and is the Jail Administrator of the Lewis County Jail. He is employed by and

6 is an agent of Lewis County and the Sheriff’s Office. As Jail Administrator, he is responsible for

7 the operations of the jail, the training and supervision of Jail Staff, and implementing and

8 enforcing the Jail’s mail policies and practices.

9

3.6 Defendant Jim Pea is the Administrative Lieutenant of the Lewis County Jail. As

10 the Administrative Lieutenant, he is responsible for making the final decision regarding

11 censorship of incoming and outgoing mail.

12

3.7 Each of the acts and omissions of the persons alleged herein were taken under

13 color of state law and within the scope of their official duties as employees, officers, or agents of

14 Lewis County and the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office.

15

IV. FACT UAL ALLEGATIONS

16

4.1 Prison Legal News publishes and distributes a soft-cover monthly journal, book

17 catalogs, informational brochures, and book offers, and publishes and distributes paperback

18 books, about the criminal justice system and legal issues affecting prisoners. PLN also

19 distributes by mail legal opinions and other correspondence to prisoners incarcerated in various

20 correctional facilities across the country.

21

4.2 Prison Legal News has thousands of subscribers in the United States and abroad,

22 including prisoners in more than 2,000 federal, state, and local correctional facilities across the

23 United States, attorneys, journalists, public libraries, judges, and other members of the public.

24 PLN publications are distributed without incident to prisoners and law librarians in the vast

25 majority of correctional facilities across the United States, including the most secure facilities of

26 the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Washington Department of Corrections and many other

27 States, and other jails and detention facilities in Washington and across the nation.

COMPLAINT - 3
9870.14 hd106701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 1 Filed 04/11/14 Page 4 of 13

1

4.3 Prison Legal News engages in core protected speech and expressive conduct on

2 matters of public concern, such as operations of prison facilities, prison conditions, prisoner

3 health and safety, and prisoners’ rights.

4 A. CENSORSHIP AND LACK OF DUE PROCESS

5

Incoming Mail

6

4.4 Defendants have rejected Prison Legal News’s book catalogs, book offers,

7 informational brochures, subscription forms, and copies of court rulings mailed to prisoners held

8 in custody at the Lewis County Jail. The mail items rejected by Defendants include, but are not

9 limited to, the items identified below.

10

Informational Brochures, Subscription Order Forms, Book Catalogs

11

4.5 Prison Legal News sent informational brochures about PLN and subscription

12 order forms, book catalogs, and book offers to prisoners at the Lewis County Jail.

13

4.6 Prison Legal News Brochure and Subscription Order Form: Prison Legal

14 News sent certain prisoners at the Lewis County Jail an informational brochure about its

15 organization and publications. The double-sided single-page brochure includes: a description of

16 the topics covered in PLN’s monthly journal, subscription rates, special subscription offers, and

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

18 to Prison Legal News—Protecting Your Health & Safety, With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of

19 Imprisonment in America, and Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration;

20 and other information about PLN’s bookstore.

21

4.7 Book Catalog: Prison Legal News sent certain prisoners at the Lewis County Jail

22 its PLN Book List. The double-sided single-page book list includes a description of 33 books,

23 dictionaries, and resource materials available for purchase. The books available for purchase

24 include information about a variety of topics, including but not limited to: the basic rights of

25 prisoners regarding health and safety; the American criminal justice system; self-representation

26 in court; developing a successful re-entry plan upon release from prison; searching for a job;

27 crime and poverty; the mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails; preparation for the GED

COMPLAINT - 4
9870.14 hd106701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 1 Filed 04/11/14 Page 5 of 13

1 test; how to write letters to government agencies and officials; and how to support family

2 members facing criminal charges.

3

4.8 Book Offers: Prison Legal News sent certain prisoners at the Lewis County Jail a

4 double-sided single-page informational brochure about two books for sale: The Habeas

5 Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, a handbook containing case citations, pleadings, and

6 forms designed to help a prisoner seek habeas corpus relief; and Prisoners’ Guerrilla Handbook

7 to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada, a handbook on high school,

8 vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses available through correspondence

9 study.

10

4.9 Collectively, the PLN Brochure, Book List, and Book Offer described above in

11 Paragraphs 4.6 through 4.8 are referred to as “Informational Brochure Packs” below.

12

4.10 Prison Legal News sent all of the Informational Brochure Packs in white standard

13 #10 envelopes via first-class mail.

14

4.11 Prison Legal News mailed Informational Brochure Packs addressed to each of the

15 following prisoners at the Lewis County Jail on or about the following dates:

16

4.11.1

Prisoner Name Date Norman Jay Field

Mailed to Prisoner October 8, 2013

17

Yahdriel Euteast Jones Jennifer Christine Lantau

September 13, 2013 September 13, 2013

18

Steven Michael Ledoux Ashley Leanna Leonard

September 13, 2013 October 8, 2013

19

Harvey Clem Maddux Jonathon Manual Margart

October 8, 2013 September 13, 2013

20

Brandt Daniel McKenna Corey Ross Morgan

September 13, 2013 October 8, 2013

21

Johnathan Adam O’Connor Rodney Dee Oleachea

September 17, 2013 September 17, 2013

22

Kristy Ann Price-Alvarez Jerrell Scott Redmill

October 8, 2013 September 17, 2013

23

Howard Eugene Ross Curtis James Rudolph

September 17, 2013 October 11, 2013

24

Diaz Guadalupe Solis Michael Troy Taylor

September 17, 2013 October 11, 2013

25

Eric Dale Waller Joshua Ryan O’Neil Whittler

October 11, 2013 September 17, 2013

26

Clifton Roy Young

October 11, 2013

27

COMPLAINT - 5
9870.14 hd106701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 1 Filed 04/11/14 Page 6 of 13

1

4.11.2

Prisoner Name Date

Damon Keith Burgess

2

Roy Alan Dever

3

4.11.3 Prisoner Name Dominic Lee Combs

4

4.11.4 Prisoner Name

Bonny Ray Jr. Anderson

5

Zachery Bynum

Mailed to Prisoner October 4, 2013 October 4, 2013
Date Mailed to Prisoner October 4, 2013
Date Mailed to Prisoner October 4, 2013 October 4, 2013

6 The prisoners identified above were prisoners at the Lewis County Jail at the time that the Jail

7 received the Informational Brochure Packs addressed to each prisoner from PLN.

8

4.12 Defendants rejected each Informational Brochure Pack identified in paragraphs

9 4.11.1 to 4.11.4 and did not deliver them to the prisoner-addressees. Defendants returned each

10 item of mail to PLN unopened.

11

4.13 By rejecting the Informational Brochure Packs, Defendants interfered with PLN’s

12 protected free speech rights.

13

4.14 By rejecting the Informational Brochure Packs, Defendants interfered with the

14 prisoner-addressees’ protected free speech rights.

15

4.15 For the Informational Brochure Packs listed above in Paragraph 4.11.1, the Jail

16 stamped the mail “RETURN TO SENDER This facility accepts postcards only.” The Jail did

17 not provide PLN any information about a right to appeal the censorship decision.

18

4.16 For the Informational Brochure Packs listed above in Paragraph 4.11.2, the Jail

19 stamped the mail “Returned to Sender REASON CHECKED BELOW.” The reason

20 “Unauthorized Mail” was circled or checked by the Jail on both envelopes. The Jail did not

21 provide PLN any information about a right to appeal the censorship decision.

22

4.17 For the Informational Brochure Packs listed above in Paragraph 4.11.4, the Jail

23 stamped the mail “RETURN TO SENDER This facility accepts postcards only” and “Returned

24 to Sender REASON CHECKED BELOW.” (Emphasis added). No boxes were checked, but

25 “Unauthorized Mail” was circled by the Jail. The Jail did not provide PLN any information

26 about a right to appeal the censorship decision.

27

COMPLAINT - 6
9870.14 hd106701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 1 Filed 04/11/14 Page 7 of 13

1

4.18 Defendants failed to provide due process notice to PLN of the reason for rejecting

2 PLN’s Informational Brochure Pack by, among other inadequacies, failing to identify the

3 specific mail policy they relied on, and stating different reasons for censoring identical mail.

4 Defendants also failed to provide PLN with any notice of or opportunities to be heard to

5 challenge the censorship decisions.

6

4.19 Defendants failed to provide due process notice to PLN of the reason for rejecting

7 PLN’s Informational Brochure Pack by, among other inadequacies, failing to explain the basis

8 for their censorship decisions, failing to identify the specific mail policy they relied on, stating

9 different reasons for censoring identical items of mail, and otherwise failing to give meaningful

10 notice of the censorship. Defendants also failed to provide PLN with any notice of the procedure

11 by which senders of censored mail might challenge the censorship decisions.

12

4.20 On information and belief, Defendants fail to provide due process notice and an

13 opportunity to appeal to other senders of censored mail addressed to prisoners at the Lewis

14 County Jail.

15

4.21 On information and belief, Defendants fail to provide any notice to the prisoner-

16 addressees that the Jail censored PLN’s mail. Defendants also fail to provide the prisoner-

17 addressees with any notice of or opportunity to be heard to challenge the censorship decisions.

18

4.22 Prison Legal News intends to continue sending Informational Brochure Packs to

19 prisoners at the Lewis County Jail.

20

Court Opinions

21

4.23 On October 15, 2013, Prison Legal News mailed copies of the Ninth Circuit Court

22 of Appeals opinion in Clement v. California Dept. of Corr., 364 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004),

23 addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Lewis County Jail:

24

Prisoner Name

25

Brendon Laverne Amos Bonny Ray Jr. Anderson

26

Brian Leon Austen Terry Lee Bryan

27

Damon Keith Burgess Zachery Howard Bynum

COMPLAINT - 7
9870.14 hd106701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 1 Filed 04/11/14 Page 8 of 13

1

Roy Alan Dever

Norman Jay Field

2

Ronald Joe Gleason

Stephen Lavale Hardy

3

Yahdriel Euteast Jones

Jennifer Christine Lantau

4

Steven Michael Ledoux

Harvey Clem Maddux

5

Jonathan Manual Margart

Kristy Ann Price-Alvarez

6

Howard Eugene Ross

Jerrell Scott Redmill

7

Guadalupe Solis-Diaz

Joshua Ryan O’Neil Wittler

8

9

4.24 Prison Legal News sent each of the Ninth Circuit opinions in white standard # 10

10 envelopes via first-class mail. Defendants returned each item of mail to PLN unopened.

11

4.25 Defendants rejected each Court Opinion identified in paragraph 4.23 and did not

12 deliver them to the prisoner-addressees.

13

4.26 By rejecting the Court Opinions, Defendants interfered with PLN’s protected free

14 speech rights.

15

4.27 By rejecting the Court Opinions, Defendants interfered with the prisoner-

16 addressees’ protected free speech rights.

17

4.28 For the Court Opinions listed above in Paragraph 4.23, the Jail stamped the mail

18 “RETURN TO SENDER This facility accepts postcards only.” The Jail did not provide PLN

19 any information about its right to appeal the censorship decision.

20

4.29 Defendants failed to provide due process notice to PLN of the reason for rejecting

21 PLN’s mail by, among other inadequacies, failing to identify the specific mail policy that

22 Defendants relied on. Defendants also failed to provide PLN with any notice of or opportunities

23 to be heard to challenge the censorship decisions.

24

4.30 On information and belief, Defendants fail to provide due process notice and an

25 opportunity to appeal to other senders of censored mail addressed to prisoners at the Lewis

26 County Jail.

27

COMPLAINT - 8
9870.14 hd106701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 1 Filed 04/11/14 Page 9 of 13

1

4.31 On information and belief, Defendants failed to provide any notice to the

2 prisoner-addressees that the Jail censored PLN’s mail. Defendants also failed to provide the

3 prisoner-addressees with any notice of or opportunity to be heard to challenge the censorship

4 decisions.

5

4.32 Prison Legal News intends to continue sending copies of Court Opinions to

6 prisoners at the Lewis County Jail.

7

4.33 By banning incoming mail that is not in postcard form, Defendants have

8 interfered with the free speech rights of other publishers and correspondents who have attempted

9 to or want to correspond with prisoners at the Lewis County Jail.

10

Outgoing Mail

11

4.34 Lewis County Jail prisoners want to send letters and other correspondence to non-

12 prisoners and entities outside the Jail.

13

4.35 On information and belief, prisoners incarcerated at Lewis County Jail want to

14 send publication order forms and other non-postcard correspondence to Prison Legal News.

15

4.36 Since at least February 3, 2010, Defendants have banned prisoners from sending

16 outgoing letters and other correspondence not in postcard form.

17

4.37 By banning outgoing mail not in postcard form, Defendants have deterred

18 prisoners from exercising their free speech rights to communicate with family, friends, persons

19 acting as their power of attorney, counselors, clergy, employers, prospective employers, financial

20 institutions, public agencies, schools, and newspapers.

21

4.38 By banning outgoing mail not in postcard form, Defendants have interfered with

22 the prisoners’ protected free speech rights.

23

4.39 By banning outgoing mail that is not in postcard form, Defendants interfered with

24 the intended or potential recipients’ protected free speech rights, including PLN’s rights.

25

4.40 On information and belief, when rejecting outgoing mail that is not in postcard

26 form, Defendants failed to provide constitutionally adequate notice to the prisoner, and failed to

27

COMPLAINT - 9
9870.14 hd106701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 1 Filed 04/11/14 Page 10 of 13

1 provide the prisoner with any notice of or opportunity to be heard to challenge the censorship

2 decisions.

3

4.41 On information and belief, when rejecting outgoing mail that is not in postcard

4 form, Defendants failed to provide constitutionally adequate notice to the intended recipient, and

5 failed to provide the intended recipient with any notice of or opportunity to be heard to challenge

6 the censorship decisions.

7 B. JAIL POLICIES

8

4.42 POL 05.07.050 is the Lewis County Jail policy that “applies to incoming and

9 outgoing inmate mail.” Exhibit A is a true copy of the Lewis County Jail Policy.

10

4.42.1 This policy states, in pertinent part, “Incoming and outgoing personal mail

11 shall be postcard media only.”

12

4.42.2 This policy requires notice for rejected incoming mail that contains

13 “contraband” by referring to a Notice of Withheld Material but does not describe the contents of

14 such Notice, provide an exemplar, or require notice of an opportunity to appeal the censorship

15 decision.

16

4.42.3 Although this policy requires written notice to the sender and inmate when

17 the Administrative Lieutenant authorizes restrictions of incoming or outgoing mail because he or

18 she deems mail “a threat to the legitimate penological interest of the facility,” the policy does not

19 describe the contents of the notice, how it differs from the Notice of Withheld Material, and in

20 what way a “threat” differs from “contraband.” Among other deficiencies, the policy requires

21 notice of a right to request a review but does not state it will be conducted by someone other than

22 the person who made the censorship decision.

23

4.42.4 Other than the provisions described above, this policy does not provide for

24 any due process notice or opportunity to be heard.

25

4.42.5 This policy mandates that Jail staff “impose disciplinary sanctions when

26 inmates violate or attempt to violate the mail policy.” This would include attempting to mail a

27 letter from Jail or requesting receipt of a letter in Jail.

COMPLAINT - 10
9870.14 hd106701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 1 Filed 04/11/14 Page 11 of 13

1

4.43 The Lewis County Sheriff Website states: “ALL INCOMING MAIL, WITH

2 THE EXCEPTION OF LEGAL MAIL, WILL NEED TO BE ON A POSTCARD.” Exhibit B is

3 a true copy of a printout of the Lewis County Sheriff’s Website stating this policy.

4

V. CLAIM ALLEGATIONS

5

COUNT 1

6

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

7

5.1 Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.

8

5.2 The acts described above constitute violations of Plaintiff’s rights, the rights of

9 other correspondents who have attempted to or want to correspond with prisoners at the Lewis

10 County Jail, and the rights of prisoners confined at the Lewis County Jail, under the First

11 Amendment to the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

12

5.3 The acts described above have caused damages to Plaintiff, and will continue to

13 cause damage.

14

5.4 Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against all Defendants in their

15 official capacities. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and nominal damages against all governmental

16 entities and against all individual Defendants in their individual capacities. Plaintiff seeks

17 punitive damages solely against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities.

18

COUNT 2

19

DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

20

TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

21

5.5 Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.

22

5.6 The acts described above constitute violations of Plaintiff’s rights, the rights of

23 other correspondents who have attempted to or want to correspond with prisoners at the Lewis

24 County Jail, and the rights of prisoners confined at the Lewis County Jail, under the Fourteenth

25 Amendment to the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

26

5.7 The acts described above have caused damages to Plaintiff, and will continue to

27 cause damage.

COMPLAINT - 11
9870.14 hd106701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 1 Filed 04/11/14 Page 12 of 13

1

5.8 Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against all Defendants in their

2 official capacities. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and nominal damages against all governmental

3 entities and against all individual Defendants in their individual capacities. Plaintiff seeks

4 punitive damages solely against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities.

5

VI. INJUNCTI ON ALLEGATIONS

6

6.1 Plaintiff, and others, will continue to attempt to correspond with prisoners

7 confined by Defendants in the Lewis County Jail. Defendants’ unconstitutional policy, practices,

8 and customs are ongoing and continue to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and the rights of

9 other correspondents and prisoners. There is no adequate remedy at law for these violations.

10

6.2 Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from: (1) refusing

11 to deliver or allow delivery of informational brochures, subscription forms, book catalogs, book

12 offers, court opinions, and any other correspondence from Prison Legal News and from other

13 correspondents; (2) censoring or rejecting mail on the ground that it is not in the form of a

14 postcard; (3) censoring or rejecting catalogs; and (4) censoring or rejecting mail without

15 affording due process of law.

16

VII. REQUES T FOR RELIEF

17

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests relief as follows:

18

7.1 A preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction preventing Defendants from

19 continuing to violate the Constitution, and providing other equitable relief;

20

7.2 A declaration that Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate the

21 Constitution;

22

7.3 An award of nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages for each violation of

23 its First Amendment rights to free speech and expression in an amount to be proved at trial;

24

7.4 An award of nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages for each violation of

25 its Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process in an amount to be proved at trial;

26

7.5 A trial by jury on damages;

27

COMPLAINT - 12
9870.14 hd106701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 1 Filed 04/11/14 Page 13 of 13

1

7.6 Costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and under

2 other applicable law;

3

7.7 Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

4

7.8 The right to conform the pleadings to the proof and evidence presented at trial;

5 and

6

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

7

DATED this 11th day of April, 2014.

8

MacDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

9

10

By: s/ Jesse Wing

Jesse Wing, WSBA # 27751

11

Katherine C. Chamberlain, WSBA # 40014

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

12

705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500

13

Seattle, Washington 98104

E-Mails:

JesseW@mhb.com

14

KatherineC@mhb.com

Telephone: (206) 622-1604

15

Attorneys for Plaintiff

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the

16

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COMPLAINT - 13
9870.14 hd106701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 
 Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 78 Filed 10/28/14 Page 1 of 3

1

THE HON. J. RICHARD CREATURA

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

10

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the

No. 3:14-cv-05304-JRC

11 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT

12

Plaintiff,

INJUNCTION

13

v.

14 LEWIS COUNTY; LEWIS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; STEVE MANSFIELD,
15 individually and in his capacity as Lewis County Sheriff; KEVIN HANSON, individually
16 and in his capacity as Lewis County Jail Administrator; and JIM PEA, individually and
17 in his capacity as Lewis County Administrative Lieutenant,
18 Defendants.
19

20 On April 11, 2014, Plaintiff Prison Legal News filed this lawsuit seeking to enjoin
21 Defendants’ Postcard-Only Mail Policy and to require due process. Dkt. 1. On September 10,
22 2014, after briefing and argument by both parties, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for
23 Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. 76.
24 The parties have filed a Stipulated Motion for Entry of Permanent Injunction, which
25 adopts the findings and conclusions of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order (Dkt. 76).
26 Further, the parties have agreed that Lewis County Jail’s policy or practice of prohibiting mail
27

ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION - 1 No. 3:14-cv-05304-JRC
9870.14 hi262202.002

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 78 Filed 10/28/14 Page 2 of 3

1 that is not a postcard violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that the Jail’s

2 policy or practice failed to afford to prisoners and non-prisoner correspondents due process

3 notice and an opportunity to appeal the Jail’s decisions to censor or reject mail in violation of the

4 Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the parties agree that a

5 permanent injunction is necessary because Plaintiff suffered irreparable harm, remedies at law

6 are inadequate, the balance of the hardships favors the injunction, and the public would not be

7 disserved by entry of a permanent injunction.

8

The Court, having reviewed the parties’ Stipulated Motion, finds that they have satisfied

9 each of the four elements of a permanent injunction under eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,

10 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).

11

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court:

12

1. PERMANENTLY ENJOINS defendants from restricting incoming and outgoing

13 prisoner mail to postcards only, and orders defendants not to refuse to deliver or process prisoner

14 mail on the grounds that it is in a form other than a postcard.

15

2. PERMANENTLY ENJOINS defendants from rejecting mail to or from prisoners

16 without providing notice to the prisoner. This notification, at a minimum, will set forth the

17 reason the mail was rejected and the procedure to follow if the prisoner wishes to appeal the

18 rejection.

19

3. PERMANENTLY ENJOINS defendants from rejecting mail from non-prisoner

20 correspondents without providing notice to the non-prisoner correspondent. This notification, at

21 a minimum, will set forth the reason the mail was rejected, and the procedure to follow if the

22 non-prisoner correspondent wishes to appeal the rejection.

23

4. PERMANENTLY ENJOINS defendants to give notice to the non-prisoner

24 correspondent addressee of rejected outgoing mail whenever Constitutionally required.

25 When notification is required it will, at a minimum, set forth the reason the mail was rejected,

26 and the procedure to follow if the non-prisoner correspondent wishes to appeal the rejection.

27

ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION - 2 No. 3:14-cv-05304-JRC
9870.14 hi262202.002

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 78 Filed 10/28/14 Page 3 of 3

1

5. PERMANENTLY ENJOINS defendants to refer for decision any appeal of

2 rejected mail to a jail official other than the person who originally rejected the correspondence.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED this 28th day of October, 2014.

5

A

6

J. Richard Creatura

United States Magistrate Judge 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION - 3 No. 3:14-cv-05304-JRC
9870.14 hi262202.002

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 
 Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 80 Filed 11/05/14 Page 1 of 2

THE HON. J. RICHARD CREATURA 1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

8 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
9
Plaintiff, 10
v. 11

No. 3:14-cv-05304-JRC
STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES CLAIM

LEWIS COUNTY; LEWIS COUNTY 12 SHERIFF'S OFFICE; STEVE MANSFIELD,
individually and in his capacity as Lewis 13 County Sheriff; KEVIN HANSON, individually
and in his capacity as Lewis County Jail 14 Administrator; and JIM PEA, individually and
in his capacity as Lewis County Administrative 15 Lieutenant,

16

Defendants.

17 STIPULATION
18 The parties have resolved the Plaintiff’s claims for damages, attorney fees, and costs so
19 they stipulate to dismissal with prejudice of those claims. Since the Court has entered a
20 permanent injunction and retains jurisdiction over that order, this Stipulation resolves all
21 remaining issues in this case.
22

23 MacDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

FOSTER PEPPER PLLC

24 By: /s/Jesse Wing

Jesse Wing, WSBA # 27751

25

JesseW@mhb.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 26

27 DATED this 3rd day of November, 2014.

By: /s/Milton G. Rowland per e-mail authority Milton G. Rowland, WSBA # 15625 rowlm@foster.com Attorneys for Defendants
DATED this 3rd day of November, 2014.

STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES CLAIM - 1
No. 3:14-cv-05304-JRC
9870.14 hj210910

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:14-cv-05304-JRC Document 80 Filed 11/05/14 Page 2 of 2

1

ORDER

2

Based on the foregoing stipulation it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff’s damages claim is

3 dismissed with prejudice and without costs taxed to either party. The Court retains jurisdiction

4 over its permanent injunction. All issues in the case have now been resolved.

5

DATED this 5th day of November, 2014.

6

A

7

J. Richard Creatura

8

United States Magistrate Judge

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES CLAIM - 2
No. 3:14-cv-05304-JRC
9870.14 hj210910

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 
 PRESS RELEASE
Human Rights Defense Center For Immediate Release
September 11, 2014
Federal Court Orders Lewis County Jail to Stop Widespread Censorship
“First Amendment rights are too important to be subject to such arbitrariness.” – Judge Creatura
TACOMA, WA – On Wednesday, a federal judge entered a preliminary injunction against Lewis County in a lawsuit challenging a postcards-only mail policy at the county jail.
The lawsuit was filed on April 11, 2014 by Prison Legal News (PLN), a non-profit monthly publication that covers criminal justice-related issues and a project of the Human Rights Defense Center. PLN alleged that the jail’s policy of restricting incoming and outgoing correspondence at the jail to postcards violated its rights under the First Amendment. Further, the complaint argued that the jail’s failure to provide notice to the sender when mail was censored or rejected violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
While county officials claimed the jail had changed its mail policy after the suit was filed, “and is now allowing news sources to distribute both publications and other forms of correspondence to prisoners,” U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura wrote there was “substantial evidence to believe that this policy has not yet been adopted.” Further, “First Amendment rights are too important to be subject to such arbitrariness,” he added.
Between September and October 2013, pursuant to the jail’s postcard-only policy, jailers had rejected dozens of letters sent by PLN to prisoners, including subscription brochures, book catalogs and copies of court rulings.
“The postcard-only policy drastically reduces prisoners’ and other correspondents’ ability to communicate. It is more than a mere inconvenience and becomes a substantial barrier to First Amendment rights,” Judge Creatura stated, noting that the Washington Dept. of Corrections and other jail systems, including those in King, Pierce and Spokane counties, do not have postcard-only policies.
The district court enjoined county officials from “restricting incoming and outgoing prisoner mail to postcards only,” from “rejecting mail to or from prisoners without providing notice to the prisoner” and from “rejecting mail from non-prisoner correspondents without providing notice to the non-prisoner correspondent.” The court also required appeals of rejected mail to be referred to a jail official “other than the person who originally rejected the correspondence.”
“We are pleased that the court found the constitutional violations at the jail warranted the entry of an injunction against Lewis County,” said PLN editor Paul Wright. “No one is above the law or the constitution – and sometimes it takes a federal judge to make that clear.”
PLN’s attorney, Jesse Wing of MacDonald Hoague & Bayless, noted that the Jail’s censorship harmed many people who communicate with prisoners but who are not themselves incarcerated,

as well as prisoners who have been charged but not convicted of anything. And, Wing explained that communicating with the outside world is “essential to maintaining family, employment, educational, and other important relationships critical for a person to productively return to society after time in jail.” As a result, he said, “The Court’s order has a huge positive effect, helping many people.”
PLN is represented by attorneys Jesse A. Wing and Katherine Chamberlain of the Seattle law firm of MacDonald Hoague & Bayless, and by Human Rights Defense Center general counsel Lance Weber. The case is Prison Legal News v. Lewis County, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Case No. 3:14-cv-05304-JRC.
________________________
The Human Rights Defense Center, founded in 1990 and based in Lake Worth, Florida, is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting human rights in U.S. detention facilities. HRDC publishes Prison Legal News (PLN), a monthly magazine that includes reports, reviews and analysis of court rulings and news related to prisoners’ rights and criminal justice issues. PLN has around 9,000 subscribers nationwide and operates a website (www.prisonlegalnews.org) that includes a comprehensive database of prison and jail-related articles, news reports, court rulings, verdicts, settlements and related documents.
For further information, please contact:
Paul Wright, Editor Prison Legal News (561) 360-2523 (office) (802) 275-8594 (cell) pwright@prisonlegalnews.org
Jesse Wing, Attorney Katherine Chamberlain, Attorney MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 622-1604 (office) katherinec@mhb.com

 
 U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:14-cv-05304-JRC

Prison Legal News v. Lewis County et al Assigned to: Judge J Richard Creatura Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 04/11/2014 Date Terminated: 11/05/2014 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Prison Legal News a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

represented by Jesse Andrew Wing MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 SECOND AVE STE 1500 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1745 206-622-1604 Fax: 206-343-3961 Email: jessew@mhb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine C. Chamberlain MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 SECOND AVE STE 1500 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1745 206-622-1604 Email: katherinec@mhb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lance Weber Dan Newlin & Partners 7335 W. Sand Lake Road Suite 300 Orlando, FL 32819 407-250-6513 Email: lance.weber@newlinlaw.com

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Lewis County
Defendant Lewis County Sheriff's Office
Defendant Steve Mansfield individually and in his capacity as Lewis County Sheriff
Defendant Kevin Hanson individually and in his capacity as Lewis County Jail Administrator
Defendant Jim Pea individually and in his capacity as Lewis County Administrative Lieutenant

represented by Milton G Rowland FOSTER PEPPER (SPOKANE) 422 W. RIVERSIDE, STE 1310 SPOKANE, WA 99201 509-777-1610 Email: rowlm@foster.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Milton G Rowland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Milton G Rowland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Milton G Rowland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Milton G Rowland (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

04/11/2014
04/11/2014 04/11/2014
04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014
04/11/2014

1 COMPLAINT against defendant(s) All Defendants, filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Lewis County Jail Policy (POL 05.07.050), # 2 Exhibit B Website Inmate Mail Rules, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet, # 4 Summons 1-Lewis County, # 5 Summons 2-Lewis County Sheriff's Office, # 6 Summons 3-Mansfield, Steve Sheriff, # 7 Summons 4-Hanson, Kevin - Jail Administrator, # 8 Summons 5-Pea, Jim - Administrative Lieutenant)(Wing, Jesse) (Receipt #0981-3569762) Modified on 4/11/2014: corrected description of attachments and added receipt number as filing fee was not waived, cnsl paid. (CMG). (Entered: 04/11/2014)
Judge J Richard Creatura added. (CMG) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
NOTICE to Filer - Attorney Case Opening Instructions Need to be Reviewed: Due to the number of errors made during the case opening process it is imperative that the filer please review the case opening instructions found on the court's website at wawd.uscourts.gov under the Attorneys tab/Civil Case Opening/Attorney's Guide to Opening a Civil Case prior to opening the next case. Call the Attorney Case Opening Helpdesk at 206-3708787 with any additional questions you might have. Thank you. (CMG) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
2 Summons Issued electronically as to defendant Lewis County. (CMG) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
3 Summons Issued electronically as to defendant Lewis County Sheriff's Office. (CMG) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
4 Summons Issued electronically as to defendant Steve Mansfield. (CMG) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
5 Summons Issued electronically as to defendant Jim Pea. (CMG) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
6 Summons Issued electronically as to defendant Kevin Hanson. (CMG) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
7 NOTICE OF INITIAL ASSIGNMENT TO A US MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND CONSENT OR DECLINE FORM. If consent or decline, return the executed form by 6/10/2014. Please Note: Forms must not be electronically filed with the Court. (KAM) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
8 MINUTE ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITIONS by Judge J Richard Creatura. (KAM) (Entered: 04/11/2014)

04/11/2014
04/11/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/21/2014 04/22/2014 05/13/2014 05/14/2014 05/14/2014 05/14/2014 05/14/2014

9 MINUTE ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EARLY SETTLEMENT. Joint Status Report due by 7/10/2014. FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 6/26/2014. Initial Disclosure Deadline is 7/3/2014 by Judge J Richard Creatura. (KAM) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
Joint Status Report NOTED on motion calendar; Noting Date 7/10/2014. (KAM) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/16/2014, (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
11 DECLARATION of Katherine C. Chamberlain filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-11, # 2 Exhibit 1217)(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
12 DECLARATION of Paul Wright filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-CC, # 2 Exhibit DD-VV)(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
13 MINUTE ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Benjamin H Settle for all further proceedings by William M. McCool. (Cc to BHS) (KAM) (Entered: 04/22/2014)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Milton G Rowland on behalf of Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea. (Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
NOTICE Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1 - Plaintiff, Prison Legal News, must file a Corporate Disclosure Statement by 5/21/2014. (GMR) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
15 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
16 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint on Auditor's Office as Designee for Defendant Lewis County on 4/22/2014, filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
17 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint on Defendant Lewis County Sheriff's Office on 4/22/2014, filed by Plaintiff

05/14/2014 05/14/2014 05/14/2014 05/14/2014 05/16/2014 05/16/2014 05/16/2014 05/16/2014 05/21/2014

Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
18 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint on Defendant Steve Mansfield on 4/22/2014, filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
19 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint on Defendant Kevin Hanson - Jail Administrator on 4/22/2014, filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
20 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint on Defendant Jim Pea - Administrative Lieutenant on 4/22/2014, filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
21 NOTICE that the following is RE-NOTED: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. Noting Date 5/23/2014, (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/14/2014)
22 RESPONSE, by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea, to 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . (Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
23 DECLARATION of Jim Pea filed by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
24 DECLARATION of Kari Lupo filed by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
25 DECLARATION of Kevin Hanson filed by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
26 NOTICE that the following is RE-NOTED: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. Noting Date 5/30/2014, (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/21/2014)

05/27/2014 05/27/2014 05/28/2014 05/30/2014
05/30/2014 05/30/2014

27 Stipulated MOTION & [Proposed] Order for Approval to File Over-Length Reply Brief by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. Noting Date 5/27/2014, (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
28 DECLARATION of Jesse Wing filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 27 Stipulated MOTION & [Proposed] Order for Approval to File Over-Length Reply Brief (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
29 ORDER granting 27 Stipulated Motion to file overlength brief by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(TG) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
30 Second DECLARATION of Paul Wright filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 FAQ Prison Legal News, # 2 Exhibit 2 E-Mail with Subject on Question re Receipt of Material from PLN, # 3 Exhibit 3 PLN Article of Mar-5, 2012, # 4 Exhibit 4 Excerpts of PLN's Amicus Brief, # 5 Exhibit 5 PLN's Webpage for Download to Amicus Brief, # 6 Exhibit 6 Postcard from Prisoner Robert Mead (Columbia County Jail), # 7 Exhibit 7 Postcard from Prisoner Cedric Burton (Spokane County Jail), # 8 Exhibit 8 Postcard from Prisoner Samuel Bertolet (Spokane County Jail), # 9 Exhibit 9 Postcard from Prisoner Kevin Nichols (Spokane County Jail), # 10 Exhibit 10 Postcard from Prisoner Daren Suiter (Spokane County Jail), # 11 Exhibit 11 Letter & Refusal Form from Prisoner Caleb Nichols (S.C.J.), # 12 Exhibit 12 Consent Decree (adv. Spokane Cty.; CV-11-029-RHW, Dkt. 109), # 13 Exhibit 13 Consent Decree (adv. Chelan Cty.; CV-11-337EFS, Dkt. 52), # 14 Exhibit 14 Prisoner Correspondence Received May 15, 2014, # 15 Exhibit 15 Prisoner Correspondence Received May 4, 2014, # 16 Exhibit 16 Prisoner Correspondence Received May 12, 2014, # 17 Exhibit 17 PLN Demographic Survey, # 18 Exhibit 18 PLN Reader Survey, # 19 Exhibit 19 PLN Letter to Lewis County Jail re PRA)(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
31 DECLARATION of Charlotte Holmes filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Return Envelope)(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
32 DECLARATION of Judy Williamson filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Resident Appeal Report, # 2 Exhibit B Resident Greivance Report, # 3 Exhibit C Letter re Incoming-Outgoing Policy, dated Dec-11, 2013, # 4 Exhibit D Blank Postcard, # 5 Exhibit E Notice that All Visitors Must Have a

05/30/2014 05/30/2014
05/30/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014

Homewav Account for Any Visiting, beginning Jun-18, 2012)(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
33 DECLARATION of Lucy Lennox filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A 2013 Associated Press Article, # 2 Exhibit B Return Envelope from Lewis County Jail)(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
34 DECLARATION of Jesse Wing filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Juliebrie Magness Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 Julie Davis Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 3 Chris Teuscher Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 4 Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree (3:10-cv00355 Dkt 133-1), # 5 Exhibit 5 Settlement and Release Agreement (1:10-cv-01840 Dkt. 49-1), # 6 Exhibit 6 Order Granting Final Approval of Settlement of Class Action, # 7 Exhibit 7 Visitation Information - Lewis County, # 8 Exhibit 8 Inmate Phone System Lewis County, # 9 Exhibit 9 Inmate Claims Lack of Access to Legal Resources, # 10 Exhibit 10 Order Granting Preliminary Injunction (PLN v. County of Ventura))(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
35 REPLY, filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News, TO RESPONSE to 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
36 DECLARATION of Forrest Amos filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
37 DECLARATION of Chad Holmes filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
38 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 36 Declaration, 37 Declaration . (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
NOTICE TO FILER REGARDING LACK OF PROPER SIGNATURE: the 32 Declaration of Judy Williamson, filed on 5/30/2014, lacks a valid signature. Pursuant to Section III(L) of the Electronic Filing Procedures actual signatures are required for all individuals who are not the filing attorney. To correct the omission, please promptly file only the correctly formatted signature page as an attachment, using the event "Praecipe to Attach Document" under "Other Documents". Please do not re-file the entire document.

06/02/2014 06/03/2014 06/05/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/11/2014 06/11/2014
06/13/2014 06/13/2014

If you require assistance, please feel free to call the Helpdesk at 206-370-8440. Thank you. (GMR) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
39 PRAECIPE to attach document re 32 Declaration, by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
40 NOTICE of Amended Declaration of Forrest Amos re 36 Declaration ; filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Notice of Restricted Mail)(Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
41 DECLARATION of Harvey C. Maddox filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Grievance Report # 107045, # 2 Exhibit B Grievance Report # 107240, # 3 Exhibit C Grievance Report # 107499)(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
42 Supplemental DECLARATION of Jesse Wing filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Grievance Communications)(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
43 NOTICE of Intent to File Surreply re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ; filed by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea. (Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
44 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,, by Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Portions of Mail Policy, # 2 Exhibit Amended Portion of Mail Policy, # 3 Exhibit Notice of Withheld Material)(Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
45 Supplemental DECLARATION of Kevin Hanson filed by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Incidents Reports, # 2 Exhibit Policy Related to Inmate Mail, # 3 Exhibit Flyer, # 4 Exhibit Signed Form)(Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
46 Stipulated MOTION for Leave to Respond to Def. Hanson's Supplemental (Surreply) Declaration (Dkt. 45) by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 6/13/2014, (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
47 DECLARATION of Jesse Wing filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 46 Stipulated MOTION for Leave to Respond to Def.

06/17/2014 06/24/2014 06/25/2014 07/01/2014 07/10/2014 07/11/2014
07/18/2014 07/18/2014

Hanson's Supplemental (Surreply) Declaration (Dkt. 45) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 USPS Postage Rates)(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
48 ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle granting 46 Stipulated Motion to respond to surreply.(TG) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
49 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties estimated Trial Days: 7. Filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News.(Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
50 MINUTE ORDER ON CONSENT to proceed before a Magistrate Judge, as directed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle: Case reassigned to Judge J. Richard Creatura for all further proceedings; Judge Benjamin H. Settle no longer assigned to case.(MGC) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
51 ORDER SCHEDULING ORAL ARGUMENTS AND RENOTING Plaintiff's 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction: the motion is renoted to and oral arguments are set for Friday, July 11, 2014 at 11:00 AM in D Courtroom; by Judge J Richard Creatura. (GMR) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
52 SUPPLEMENT Citation of Additional Legal Authorities by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea. (Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
53 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge J Richard Creatura- Dep Clerk: S Huntington; Pla Counsel: Jesse Wing, Katherine Chamberlain; Def Counsel: Milton Rowland; Time of Hearing: 11:00 AM; Courtroom: D; Session #: TAC140711;Oral Argument on Motion for Preliminary Injunction 10 held on 7/11/2014. The Court has taken this under advisement, written order will follow. (SH) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
54 DECLARATION of Carrie Breen filed by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Nelson, JohnRowland, Milton) Modified filer name on 7/18/2014 (KAM). (Entered: 07/18/2014)
55 DECLARATION of David Hartz filed by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 07/18/2014)

07/22/2014 07/22/2014 07/25/2014 07/29/2014 07/29/2014 07/29/2014
07/29/2014

56 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 7/22/2014, (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 07/22/2014)
57 DECLARATION of Katherine Chamberlain filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 56 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 07/22/2014)
58 ORDER granting 56 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing by Judge J Richard Creatura. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff must file its supplemental brief on or before Tuesday, July 29, 2014. Defendants must file any response by Friday, August 1, 2014. Briefs shall not exceed five (5) pages, exclusive of evidence referenced therein.(SH) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
59 DECLARATION of Lucy Lennox filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 56 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing, 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
60 DECLARATION of Sam Rutherford filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 56 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing, 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
61 DECLARATION of Katherine Chamberlain filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 56 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing, 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37)(Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
62 MEMORANDUM filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Supplemental Brief (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 07/29/2014)

08/01/2014 08/01/2014 08/04/2014 08/04/2014 08/04/2014 08/06/2014 08/06/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014

63 NOTICE of Agreement of Counsel Regarding Briefing Deadlines ; filed by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea. (Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
64 DECLARATION of Milton Rowland re 63 Notice-Other by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email String)(Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
65 RESPONSIVE BRIEF to Supplemental Briefing re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea.. (Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
66 DECLARATION of Carrie Breen filed by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
67 Supplemental DECLARATION of Kevin Hanson filed by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea re 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
68 NOTICE Of Intent to File Motion to Strike re 66 Declaration, 65 Brief - Responsive ; filed by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
69 MOTION Strike Material in Supplemental Response re 66 Declaration, 65 Brief - Responsive by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/6/2014, (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
70 RESPONSE, by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea, to 69 MOTION Strike Material in Supplemental Response re 66 Declaration, 65Brief - Responsive . (Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
71 Supplemental DECLARATION of Kevin Hanson filed by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea re 69 MOTION Strike Material in Supplemental Response re 66 Declaration, 65 Brief Responsive (Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 08/07/2014)

08/07/2014
08/07/2014
08/18/2014 08/22/2014 09/10/2014 10/15/2014 10/28/2014 11/03/2014 11/05/2014 	  

72 DECLARATION of Milton G. Rowland filed by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea re 69 MOTION Strike Material in Supplemental Response re 66 Declaration, 65 Brief - Responsive (Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
73 DECLARATION of Carrie Breen (Corrected) filed by Defendants Kevin Hanson, Lewis County, Lewis County Sheriff's Office, Steve Mansfield, Jim Pea re 69 MOTION Strike Material in Supplemental Response re 66 Declaration, 65 Brief - Responsive (Rowland, Milton) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
74 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Lance Weber on behalf of Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Weber, Lance) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
75 Letter from Judge Creatura re: Summer Extern (SH) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
76 ORDER granting 10 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Judge J Richard Creatura.(SH) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
77 Stipulated MOTION for Entry of Permanent Injunction by Plaintiff Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/15/2014, (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
78 ORDER granting 77 Stipulated Motion and GRANTING Permanent Injunction by Judge J Richard Creatura.(SH) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
79 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff's Damages Claim by parties (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
80 SIGNED Stipulation and Order Dismissing Plaintiff's Damages Claim 79 by Judge J Richard Creatura. (SH) (Entered: 11/05/2014)