Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 1 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 13
oRrGiNAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
PRISON LEGAL NEWS.,

FILED IN HER
U-8-0-C .4%rQE
ocr ~l

Plaintiffs,
vs.
FULTON COUNTY, GA and SHERIFF MYRON FREEMAN, individually and in his official capacity as Fulton County Sheriff,

Y41~
CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.
1 O. 7-CV-8 261

Defendants .

--------------------------------------------

~

COM PLA INT COME NOW Plaintiffs PRISON LEGAL NEWS files this action challenging Fulton County, Georgia and Fulton County Sheriff Myron Freeman's policy barring prisoners' receipt of any and all books, magazines, and newspapers (other than religious publications) . This policy is challenged both on its face, and as applied to Prison Legal News . Despite an order in baker v. Barrett, No.:001 CV-1 OG5-RWS (July 22, 2002) finding this Reading Materials Policy unconstitutional, the policy is still being applied as to Prison Legal News, whose subscribers' copies of the publication are being returned to the sender or destroyed .

-1 -

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 1 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 2 of 13
JURISDICTION 1.
This action arises under the authority vested in this Court by virtue of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1985,28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C . §§2201 & 2202, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and 28 U.S .C . § 1367 (pendent jurisdiction) . Venue is proper in this Court .
PARTIES 2.
Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS publishes a subscriber based publication for inmates, lawyers and advocates about prison issues in the United States and abroad .
3. Defendant FULTON COUNTY oversees and is responsible for the Futon County Jail . Defendant MYRON FREEMAN is the Fulton County Sheriff and is responsible for establishing final policies and procedures for the Fulton County Jail relating to inmate mail .
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Prison Legal News 4.
Prison Legal News (PLN) is an independent, monthly magazine that provides review and analysis of prisoner rights, court rulings and news about prison issues.
-2-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 1 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 3 of 13
PLN has a national focus on both state and federal prison issues, with international coverage as well . PLN provides information that enables prisoners and other concerned individuals and organizations to seek the protection and enforcement of prisoner's rights at the grass roots level .
5. PLN began operations in 1990 and is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization . PLN's business office is located in Seattle, Washington . PLN's editorial office is located in Brattleboro , Vermont.
6. PLN is primarily funded by subscription and advertising revenue and book sales and individual donations.
7. PLN's' coverage includes articles regarding court access, disciplinary hearings, prison conditions, excessive force, mail censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, abuse of women prisoners, retaliation , the Prison Legal Reform Act (PLRA), medical treatment, AIDS, the death penalty, control units, attorney fees and much more .
-3-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 1 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 4 of 13
8. As of October, 2007, PLN has a circulation of approximately 6,700 hardcopy issues per month. PLN also has subscribers in European and Asian countries . About 65% of PLNs subscribers are state and federal prisoners . The balance of PLN's subscribers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, public defender agencies, judges, journalists, academics, paralegals, public and university libraries, prison law libraries, investment bankers, prison rights activists, students, family members of prisoners and concerned private individuals . State-level government officials also subscribe to PLN, including attorney generals, prison wardens, and members of other prisoner related agencies . PLN has prisoner subscribers in all fifty states. Based on PLN's November 2005 reader survey each subscriber's magazine is read by an average of almost 9 people, so the monthly readership of PLN is around 60 ,000 .
9. PLN has "regular" writers and also solicits and publishes articles written by other writers, many of them in prison . Authors who have published in PLN include : Noam Chomsky, Dan Savage , William Kunstler and Ron Kuby , Mumia Abu -Jamal, Ken Silverstein, Jennifer Vogel, Adrian Lomax, Raymond Luc Levasseur, John Perott i, Will ie Wisely, Christian Parenti, William Greider, and Noelle Hanrahan .
-4-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 1 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 5 of 13
Fulton County Mail Policy 10 .
The Fulton County Jail has a policy, adopted and/or ratified by DefendantFreeman as final decision-maker for Defendant Fulton County, that reading materials mailed to inmates are returned to the sender or destroyed without notice to the inmate-subscriber. The policy provides : "Books, magazines, and newspapers _for inmates shall not be accepted . The only exceptions are religious publications (soft covered), that is [sic] ordered directly from the publisher or provided by approved religious groups. Copies of books or publications, etc ., shall not be accepted." (hereinafter "Reading Materials Policy") (Policy V (J)(1) titled "Inmate Mail Procedures" dated January 1, 2002} (A true and correct copy of the policy is attached as Exhibit A) . This policy was continued, affirmed and/or ratified by Defendant Freeman by order dated January 3, 2005 . (A true and correct copy of this Memoranda is attached as Exhibit B) .
11 . The Reading Materials Policy was challenged by an inmate, and found to be unconstitutional in Daker v. Barrett, No. 1 :00-CV-1065-RWS . (A true and correct copy of the Court's Order of July 22, 2002 is attached as Exhibit C) .
-5 -

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 1 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 6 of 13
12 . Clearly established law dictates the unconstitutionality of the Reading Materials Policy .
13 . Since the baker decision, Defendants have failed to abandon the Reading Materials Policy . Several inmates have filed additional lawsuits challenging the policy, and continued denial of reading materials . See, e.g., baker v. Barrett, No. 1 :05-NiI-0398 (Dec . 28, 2005); Robertson v. Freeman, No. 1 :06-CV-01940-CAM (Aug. 1 , 2006).
14 . PLN has several subscribers to its publication housed in the Fulton CountyJail . These inmates are sent copies of PLN by standard rate and first-class mail .
15 . These subscribers have not received their copies of PLN, and have reported filing grievances concerning the publication ban .
16 . Copies of PLN, sent to inmate-subscribers, have been returned to PLN by the Defendants or destroyed . PLN has also been informed by subscriber-inmates that
-6-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 1 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 7 of 13
hey have not received copies of PLN . PLN is only aware of one copy of its publication reaching a subscriber in the Fulton County Jail in the last year. At no point has PLN been provided with notice that its publications are being banned nor provided with an opportunity to administratively appeal said decisions .
17 . PLN has suffered financial damages, as well as particularized loss of their constitutional rights .
18 . Because Defendant-Freeman has continued to engage in the constitutionally impermissible Reading Materials Policy for several years since a finding of unconstitutionality, and in the face of several lawsuits and grievances, punitive damages are available due to his reckless, and deliberate indifference to constitutional rights and his actual knowledge of continued enforcement of unconstitutional policies.
19 . All actions of defendants were under color of law and pursuant the policies and procedures of Fulton County .
-7-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 1 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 8 of 13
CAUSES OF ACTION 20 .
Each and every allegation is incorporated herein for each claim for relief . 21 .
Plaintiff has a free speech and press right to communicate with inmates through the distribution of Prison Legal News and inmates retain a right to receive the publication underthe United States and Georgia Constitutions' free speech, free press and due process clauses .
22 . The Fulton County Jail's absolute ban on subscription publications is in violation of the free expression protections of the United States and Georgia Constitutions .
23 . There are no individualized determinations made about particular publications by the Fulton County Jail.
24 . A blanket prohibition on receipt of publications intended for delivery to and receipt by a prisoner is presumptively unconstitutional .
-8-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 1 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 9 of 13
25 . The Fulton County Jail's absolute ban on subscription publications is (1) overbroad and overinclusive, (2) arbitrary and capricious, (3) not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and (4) gives unbridled discretion to licensing authorities in violation of the Due Process and Free Speech and Press protections of the United States and Georgia Constitutions .
26 . The Fulton County Jail's absolute ban on subscription publications is not rationally related to a legitimate, neutral government objective, there are no alternate means for Plaintiffs or inmates to express themselves, the accommodation of the constitutional rights asserted will not have a detrimental impact on prison staff, inmates and the allocation of jail resources and the outright ban is an exaggerated response to prison concerns .
27 . The Fulton County Jail's ban on subscription publications does not bear a logical connection between any asserted governmental interests and is too broad to render its absolute ban rational .
-9-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 1 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 10 of 13
28 . The handful of publications in the Fulton County Jail library, primarily works of fiction provided when an inmate trustee pushes a cart through each zone periodically, provide insufficient alternative reading material for inmates, and Plaintiff has no alternative manner for communicating with their subscribers . On information and belief, no magazines or newspapers are available in the jail library and the Atlanta Constitution is the only publication sold in the jail commissary .
29 . Defendants cannot articulate or particularize a detrimental impact on prison staff, inmates or prison resources that would justify either the blanket ban or a particular ban on the distribution of the Prison Legal News. Distribution of publications through the regular mail distribution procedures would not create an excessive burden.
30 . The Fulton County Jail's absolute ban on subscription publications is an exaggerated response in light of obvious alternatives such as (1) a "publishers only rule," (2) individualized determinations for security concerns, (3) utilization of disciplinary action if particular inmates abuse the mail/publications process.
-~a

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 1 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 11 of 13
31 . The Fulton County Jail's absolute ban on subscription publications is also accompanied by a failure to notify inmates or PLN that publications have been rejected. The failure to notify inmates and PLN of the denial of publications impact the Plaintiff who has undertaken financial expense to maintain subscribers and to ensure delivery of the Prison Legal News . This failure to notify subscribers or Plaintiff or to provide a reasonable opportunity to challenge decisions to refuse distribution of publications to a neutral decision-maker not involved in the initial decision violates procedural due process requirements of the United States and Georgia Constitutions .
32 . The Reading Materials Policy states one exception to the absolute ban : "The only exceptions are religious publications (soft covered), that is ordered directly from the publisher or provided by approved religious groups." This exception renders the Reading Materials Policy a content-based restriction on speech that favors religious expression in violation of the free expression, equal protection and separation of church and state provisions of the United States and Georgia Constitutions.
- 11-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 1 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 12 of 13
33 . The case law is clear as to the constitutional claims, and a previous decision held that the Defendants conduct was unlawful over five years ago . Defendant Freeman, individually, is not entitled to qualified immunity and his actions meet the requirements for punitive damages . Damages are not sought against DefendantFulton County.
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant the following relief (1) Declaratory judgment that the Fulton County Jail's Reading Materials Policy, an absolute ban on subscription publications and the practice of no due process notice when publications are banned, violates the Free Expression and Due Process clauses of the United States and Georgia Constitutions ; (2) Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief against further enforcement of the Fulton County Jail's Reading Materials Policy ; (3) Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief permitting distribution of the Prison Legal News ; (4) Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief requiring notification to PLN of any failure to distribute copies of the Prison Legal News ;
- 1 2-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 1 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 13 of 13

(5) Damages against Defendant-Freeman in his individual capacity in an amount to be determined by a jury;
(6) Reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs of litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws ; and
(7) Such further relief as this Court deems just and proper . DATED: This the 22"d day of October, 2007 .
Respectfully submitted, Attorneys for Plaintiff

Post Office Box 5391 Atlanta, GA 31107 Tel : (404) 522 -0507 wgerrvweber e.gmail.com

Gerald Weber

L

Georgia Bar No. 744878

1126 Ponce de Leon Ave . Atlanta, GA 30306 Tel : (404) 872-7-86 Bs ears minds rin .com

Brian Spears Georgia Bar No . 670112

-13-

 
 Minute Sheet

https://ecf.gand.circ11.dcn/cgi-bin/atl_mkminCV2.pl
Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 15 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
1:07-cv-02618-CAP Prison Legal News v. Fulton County, GA et al
Honorable Charles A. Pannell, Jr.

Minute Sheet for proceedings held In Open Court on 01/31/2008.

TIME COURT COMMENCED: 9:30 A.M. TIME COURT CONCLUDED: 10:05 A.M. TIME IN COURT: 00:35

COURT REPORTER: Martha Fructhey DEPUTY CLERK: Y. Martin

ATTORNEY(S) PRESENT:
PROCEEDING CATEGORY: MOTIONS RULED ON: MINUTE TEXT:
HEARING STATUS:

Rolesia Dancy representing Fulton County, GA Rolesia Dancy representing Myron Freeman Nwakaego Okparaeke representing Fulton County, GA Nwakaego Okparaeke representing Myron Freeman George Spears representing Prison Legal News Gerald Weber representing Prison Legal News
Motion Hearing(PI or TRO Hearing-Evidentiary);
[8]Motion for Preliminary Injunction GRANTED
Court heard from counsel. Dft Verbally moved for court ordered mediation. Court will not order mediation at this time, but will consider at a later date. Written order to follow. Hearing Concluded

1 of 1

01/31/2008 10:04 AM

 
 Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 16 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA and MYRON FREEMAN, individually and in his official capacity as Fulton County Sheriff,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-2618-CAP

O R D E R

This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for

a preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 8].

I. Statement of Facts

The plaintiff in this matter is an independent, monthly

magazine, Prison Legal News (“PLN”) that has subscribers who are

incarcerated in the Fulton County Jail (“Jail”). PLN filed this

lawsuit challenging the Jail’s mail policy. According to PLN, the

policy that was in effect at the time the lawsuit was filed (“old

mail policy”), which was declared unconstitutional by this court in a 2002 ruling,1 prevented inmates from receiving its publication.

The defendants filed an answer to the lawsuit denying that the old

mail policy was unconstitutional [Doc. No. 4 at 5-6].

1 See Daker v. Barrett, No. 1:00-CV-1065-RWS (N.D. Ga. July 22, 2002).

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 16 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 2 of 5
On December 18, 2007, PLN moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from continuing to enforce the mail policy. On December 20, 2007, Defendant Freeman modified the mail policy (“new mail policy”), which defendants contend is constitutional. See Freeman Aff. at ¶ 4[Ex. A to Doc. 11]. Accordingly, the defendants contend that the motion for preliminary injunction is now moot.
On January 31, 2008, the court conducted a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction. At the hearing, the parties were in substantial agreement on many issues. First, the defendants conceded that the old mail policy that was in effect when this lawsuit was filed was unconstitutional. Second, while the plaintiff indicated that it may have challenges to the new mail policy once discovery is completed, the new mail policy is an improvement over the old mail policy. Thus, for purposes of the motion for preliminary injunction, the plaintiff indicated its satisfaction with enforcement of the new mail policy.
The parties disagreed, however, on whether an injunction should be issued by the court to compel the defendants to continue using the new mail policy. The defendants contend that because they have voluntarily adopted and are currently enforcing the new mail policy, there is no need for injunctive relief. The plaintiff
2

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 16 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 3 of 5
on the other hand argued that an injunction was necessary to prevent the defendants from returning to the old mail policy. II. Legal Analysis
A. Preliminary Injunction Standard A district court may grant a preliminary injunction only upon the movant's showing that (1) it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the movant will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction is issued, (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the possible injury that the injunction may cause the opposing party, and (4) if issued, the injunction would not disserve the public interest. Horton v. City of St. Augustine, 272 F.3d 1318, 1326 (11th Cir. 2001). B. Application of the Standard to the Facts
1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits For purposes of the relief sought in the motion for preliminary injunction, the plaintiff has already succeeded on the merits. The defendants have conceded that the old mail policy was unconstitutional and have changed the policy.
2. Irreparable Harm With regard to the issue of irreparable harm, the United States Supreme Court has held, “The loss of First Amendment freedoms for even minimal period of time unquestionably constitutes
3

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 16 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 4 of 5
irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373-74 (1976). Thus, the plaintiff has demonstrated irreparable harm.
The defendants argued that because the old mail policy is not being enforced and a new policy is in effect, there is no irreparable harm to the plaintiff occurring at this time. The Eleventh Circuit has held, however that voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not render an issue moot because “nothing would prevent the defendant from resuming its challenged action.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 315 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2002). In light of the defendants admitted mistake in enforcing an unconstitutional policy for more than five years after this court struck it down, the court finds that an injunction is necessary to prevent the defendants from imposing additional irreparable injury on the plaintiff.
3. Balance of Injury The third inquiry of the preliminary injunction analysis is whether the plaintiff can establish that the injury it would sustain if the defendants were not enjoined outweighs the harm an injunction would cause the defendants. Here, the defendants assured the court that it was their intention to refrain from using the old mail policy and to continue to enforce the new mail policy. Therefore, issuance of the instant injunction is of no harm whatsoever to the defendants.
4

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 16 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 5 of 5
4. Public Policy The fourth and final inquiry this court must make is whether the injunction sought by the plaintiff would disserve public policy. In this case, a relapse to the use of an unconstitutional policy would disserve the public interest. Thus, the injunction requiring the defendants to refrain from using the old mail policy and to continue to use the new mail policy would serve the public interest. III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff has established (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and (2) that it would suffer irreparable injury without an injunction. Additionally, the court found that there was no injury to the defendants that outweighed the potential injury to the plaintiff and that the injunction did not disserve public policy. Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 8] is GRANTED. The defendants are HEREBY ENJOINED from the use of the old mail policy; the defendants are REQUIRED to enforce the new mail policy; and the defendants are REQUIRED to notify the plaintiff and the court should it make any change in the new mail policy. SO ORDERED, this 4th day of February, 2008.
/s/ Charles A. Pannell, Jr. CHARLES A. PANNELL, JR. United States District Judge
5

 
 Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 1 of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS,

)

)

v.

)

)

FULTON COONTY, GA and

)

SHERIFF MYRON FREEMAN,

)

Individual and in his official )

Capacity as Fulton County Sheriff )

)

Defendants.

)

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:07-CV-2618-CAP

JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSED CHANGES TO FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT JAIL BUREAU POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 3000-01

CONE NOIq, the parties in the above-s ed case, by and

through their undersigned counsel, and move this Honorable Court

to apprcve changes to the Fulton County Sheriff's Department

Jail Bureau Policies and Procedures Number 3000-01

Policy"), as attached hereto as Exhibit "A."

On February 4, 2008, the Court ordered Defendants Fulton

County, Georgia and Sheriff Myron Freeman ("Defendants") to

enforce the Mail Policy currently in olace and to notify the

Plaintiff and the Court should it make any change in the new

mail policy.

Defendants

have

notified

Plaintiff

of

, D

r

OD ~

o

s

e

d

changes to the Mail pOlicy.

Plaintiff and Defendants have

agreed that the provisions of the policy having to do with the

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 2 of 22

receipt and processing of publications are constitutional.

Cons

ly, parties re

ful move the Court -co find

the portions of the Mail Policy attached hereto as Exhibit "p._"

having to do with the receipt and processing of publications

constitutional. A proposed order is attached as Exhibit \'B."

Respectfully submitted this

day of May, 2008.

/s/ Gera~d Weber Gerald Weber Gecrgia Bar No. 744878 wgerryweber@gmail.com
P.O. Box 5391 Atlanta, Georgia 31107 (404) 522-0507
/s/ G. Brian Spears Brian Spears Goorgia Bar No. 670112 bspears ndspring.com

Rolesia Butler Dancy Georgia Bar No. 099928
/s/ Nwakaego Okparaeke Nwakaego T. Okparaeke Georgia Bar No. 141449 nwakaego.okparaeke@fultoncountyga.gov
OFFICE OF THE FULTON COUNTY ATTORNEY 141 Pryor Street, S.W. Suite 4038 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 612-0246

1126 Ponce de Leon Ave., N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30306 (404) 872-7086

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 3 of 22

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that the fore"Jcin"J JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE

PROPOSED CHANGES TO FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT JAIL

BUREAU POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 3000-01 has been prepared in 12

point Courier New font and complies with Local Rule 5 1 and 7

and that on this day,

T
~

electronically

filed

the

fore"Jo

document with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system.

This

day of May, 2008.
/s/ Nwakaego Okparaeke Nwakae"Jo Okparaeke

OFFICE OF THE FULTON COUNTY ATTORNEY 141 Pryor Street, S.W.
Suite 4038 Atlanta, Geor"Jia 30303 (404) 612-0246

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 4 of 22
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 5 of 22

Fulton County, Sheriff's Office Jail Bureau Policies and Procedures

>,umb"r: 30011-01

Pages: 7

<dhjv\:L \I;liL Tl'ifpIlOllt'. \ isiring>Pro;..:r;lHl ;llld \rtivity inde\": Imlutc 'Jail Prol'(:durt.'s Rl'f1.'rl'lH'l'.'-,: -f-ALDF-2.\-hO. 5B-05 {liro 5B-I0
,\ppro\ ing _\lltllOf'it~ Sigll~llun.':

Distri htlt j OIl:
AmendsiRe~('inds:
,~, 200S

I. PurpOSt'

II. Policy

.'\.

fnn-::alt..'s ill :-:pc'ci:ii' ;~~;l;~;jfl'l]]Cn( unit;; L'an wri!(' ;::-;13 rC<..',:i\\~ h:l1t:rs on the S;l!11C basis as

inmates in the !:2t'lh:ral population.

B.

,-,end or on ilL'

uf ,-'UnttTL uj' rnaiL I..'.\<..-\.'pt \\ 111.:11 there IS a !"ca:::onahk' bch:C

ll;~n Im;il;uions ~-irc nC('t"SS~ir: to prolC":':l pL:blic saf<..'lY til' l1iailll;lin Clciliiy order [ind security.

(

F. l-:Ul LuI 1 i: ilcd ll'. th(· (nlhw. !1)2~: ,.:nurts; ..-,(li:f]::\cL official;.: u1'Ihe <.'Gnilliing
,:",t;llc ';ii,.) l"t:;i! -:hil'j'C\Cl'\,:li\c t)ft:ccrs: :ldrn:liistr~ttor:::: uf~~nt'\';mcc s:."tcrl1s: (jnd SI:Ci!Y. ir: t::c prl'~'~'n~'t: ,·;)'the i :1'1:11('":< n~;\y h: ail()\\cd It)
ik~!cd 11l:1il CUi' ':(jj:(r:;ba!'l~~ b,,-:'l)n: it i~ sc(l1cd, \Ln! t() inrn:ltes [i'mil may bl" opened (inly 11.') inspect (or
(y,

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 6 of 22

Ill. Scnpe

IV. Definitions

.-\.

PriviIL'gcd ( OITl'Spond£:l1Ct.'

~< tl];" pri \-j h.Tl:d 1)1";\ ikgcd.

ilf 111 lkTial til:ll l~

, order or

D. Indigent lilinate /\n inm::lt' \\ill1 h~lb1\i.:e of three d\)lbr~ is.I,(IU! IX lcs:: ill his hu" :l(c-uunt fur Jl'urtc~n (j·n
COllsccuti\\.'
Y. Prorl"llun.'s

,, .
the criv:ll:dioli pmc(':~s. inmClt:..':': ::1"1..' inro;:rl'd of{hc: m:~il fln.h.:cdun.'s. Thi::-: il1ft.: il1;J(i(lfi i;: ,;hu :';ldtcd in 1h:: 11l11l{f{i' llalldbook.

As

,i~ an i:;1:~;it\.· l",tn aff()rd rnst;l~!L'. limitatiun shall not he irnpos{'d on the YO[UllH:

of mail seIlt l:l:' Oil the ll.:llgth.

\'1' ,,'jlr;h:nt or nniJ, unl'.':::,':,; th:rc is (j r('j~;()n:dl;c

h,,-'Jl'-.'f1 l:lt.-;;;ch !imitaIions arc ncc{kd io P]\)tc-c-r r~tlhllC s:lfc~{y or ill'.:' St:CUrt.' ,-mu (y,krl.\

nrtbe facitit:-'.

5.
EffectiYe .__.__~

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 7 of 22

iC'.
\ :nlJti\)l! uf lll;:il u;-cs. Othl..'r\\ ;~(', iJl!}il/lt' II1liil cali o/1~r!)(' slOpped OJ' sll.\jh'ndcd Ii." a COUrI Order.
Fh'ltli il:'-'(\~-:"::t: and (-"lit;,:;.!! il ('l'l1":l L'() ;:L(j \\ ;~\.' !C'eel,'r" ":h'j"l'!:';i rl',L~; n:Jhk h,:hl'fli;n :h..::-n.· is :';!llnm:mc':ll thn.'Jt In pCi":-:t,ns or 1]);,: ::;Cl'uril~ ();' th(:
11lUli i:-, v;iliil)l':d in full (lr p:irL

.-\fElirs 13ureau.

S/,

'\-bil !"l-'I..yj\,cd fur ~~L'rS(mS ;:n1 ill

~jt tlie Ful;or; County J;lil on (hI..; (\;;1t: of n:l'cipt

ofr:);til ,""i'l;ii! he r'<... ll;n~l:d W lhc l\: :;! ()(fkc. Till..' h;i!\\:] C'r.lUnty Lil d(Je~ not op,;r~l\c- a

rL'J"\',',ir(:i;it;: cr rt.-':llnl !~l:j:l :;1...'(\'I,:c. \\-l>,:n :Lail is rCli.iEh_'d In il1L' Po;.;; O:Ticc hCl':"J;';': ltl;:

;lddrcs;>,;c' i:; not in

;il1ik' F~dt(}ll

J:lij, the c:\;I..Tior t)fthc i1e~n o!'m;lil "ILl)

he :-:l;nnpt.:d \\ iIi! ;1 flUlll.'(" li"i;n llll' 'itidr1...';';sl'l.;" l') llU longer in cush);_ly prior to 1(,<, n:'tunl to

th\..' Post OI1'ic(:.

B. Inmate ::,\lail Limitations

lllm;;(t'S in <llinillcr
Jaikr.

1:1t!..~r-,(LjL(;;I;; n;;iil !l1u:ncd

,_)f-lil~IU... di;lh.> f;ln-,iiy mdl~hcrs] Illay h.: ;lPI1rU\'l'd

1111; Chicf3Ln,l..~r Inm:'.l(,:) n1\l::,t ~uhuil a /{Ctjlil'S( fo C()II1Ill11l1inul' wilh oJ1/Jl('arct'rafed

Fatnily ,1IclJlber F'urm for ;l!'llrm;Ii.

j,

Tb: Cl:il..'i ,hiLT ;:-;)];;11 rl:!Url1 Jh.: i~m)j t(l llit.' :;ij;ia!t: . ::-latiilg if;; l' ['\:ql:est \';;1> lkr,iul OJ

lr~hc 1\.'qU(","..! \\-as ;:pprn\-t~tL;!w (h]<.,'[ J::ih:r rrw: include sliplll:l1iIJns,

:hr:
Sheri cr

C. Indigent Inmates

t;st~lhli::;ht:d \\-ilhin Iv;Cl (~) ch:s ~';kr lhe' inll1;Hl' h~IS ::-ubmi1tcd an C()mrnis~ary ,

rt(jw:st to lh;.'

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 8 of 22
F;;:i<, ,- _ l.OO(I~Ol
..c..C".·~~c~L"~~~~.•~~.•~ ••.•. c..•..•••

IlL' ,C;:~-il' :r:;J: rc'~_'ci\'c fret: st~m1ps t\-} alhYx for up tu every 1WO \Vl'cKS. The J:d1
nL;rL'~:U pn \ !,,:c:-:: in ;;atc:-: ~1.ilh('U[ ;'ir;Jlk'r:i; {{.-'.\liurcc" !V"ln-vri\'ikgt'cl m~),.;jll~S in tht' witb ramiJ: alld friends).

hut nn: 1:mll,,'d tn: Coun~. nflil']cli;; orllk' confining ~;uthorit:::

::-:t:llc ;:md l<.)cal" ,~icf ('xccuti\"!.; onl(:~Ts: ;;dministr;dnrs of griL'\'~lllCC: sy;.;tcms~ ~ll1d

tnl'f-:-;\"JCrs \)f ~hL'

audwniy. It-;con:inl] rri\-dcgl'd mail ntay only he opened to

in~p(,t't for rtlll{r;li)~IIl(1 in the presellt'e of the inlllatt.'. unless waiYl'd by the inmate in

\\riling or the mail is ru:t:iyul in t'ircmllsl~llH't'S \\lll!.:h indicate conUllllination or

other immint'nt thn.:.:H to health and sat'ct~'.

3.

Sl~;]r~h:dl ddi\cr pri\dcgcd m~ji11t) inm;:;lt~:-: \1nlhL:,

Friday, :Jnd :::b:l11l'lJ"il>E th~.'

'~"Jail ill tb: inrll:lles' p-rl','-o(,lll'C 10 inl(TCcpt !j;0l1i6 ur ()thc1" (orm~ uCCI..l!1trabantl,

"L

,'\0 /ncid!'J11 Fkport :-:1:<111 he \-\-'fiue], if conrrab:l1ld ::' J(:iund in privileged maiL Th:.: SC)~J(,f

sh;tJl lx' notdicd hy till.' ('hid' Jailer or dc~il)nl:(' thnr thl' (UlllrLlband has been seJl.c:d, If

contrd:Klnd i~ ::O:l'i;-:cd. lh(.' :-:cizing. ::;l~drmcJl]hcr "ll;dl pwmpti:y' dt-.li\,(T it to the \\,;ltch

L'(lmm,\lllkr f~y- lkll'n;,Il1;ltion o( ,jppl\)pri;u(' a':"tiOllf:)). The ;.::hain of custody :)h~dl be

prupt.:rly mailll:Jir;cd.

COjjlr~-i~;~lJ1d that j,'; lc~'_;ll (li l:~idl' l'orrl.'l"lit':lU! ill~;t:!ui(Jr;~:; sblll ('lL' returned to the sender
unlc,s,-; pni::-:hablc. 1\.'J"ishabk:-; shall be rhscardcd.

h.
:u t'.\cL'l'd sc\ L'nt' -1'xo {j ;J\)lir:; ;kTSUJl ur ag,--'iK)', whi,,-h (:11]

\-;:rifl\..'~Jt;on that is propcrl,Y addressed tn a ,::llcg()ry (judge;;, the couns, dC.).

L

Outgoillg .\Jail Procedures

Omgoj;]g m:lil may he opened Jnd ~b: cOlltents inspected to cl'tl..'rmine if:

Effective

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 9 of 22

TilL' ('hi,:!' .l:i;]cr t,)f

:-:];,1:] :n:-:pl...'C;" lil~l,;ii'ig m:;1'\ "~lsp('cIt..:d or

~; ;'('~\ts t}l- ('(j!l:r~:h;l;;d, The (hic'Lbih,"; n

:-lJail iilitia[(' i.l f(Jnlla! in',(',:!i,'

~\lld the V\';,h.'n..:c ::lull be prol..'c;':"l'd III :12l', rd;llh.'l,.' with .S'Oj> ]0.3, Prupertyawl

E'vidc/lce.

OUIF(lij]~: m~iil \\'ill be.' ('(dice-led unl-'C' ;l daily <.':\('l,.'pt fl'Jr \\'cd(cnds and holidays,

F. Illcomilig ,\Iail

1.

\1:1il :;;ull n(l\ he k:id fur tnt>r'.: than !\\('l)l:-f~)ur (::':-1) hUllr;.:, c:C1.:1udint:: \\cckcnd:-; ~llld

hoJi<bys,

IllCO!l~:n~~ m;~i! .-,lull b: i1~(j:lit\ircd tc) dl.'lL'r:m::\.' ;:l1Y ..:s:::pc :(t1(,ILP;~, ",--"(-'Urll) !)r nihcT rlik~
\'lnlaIJ()l1S or;J c'1i';.;pir~h)' to introduce CnJ11r;,lband illto tb:: Lh.:dity.

The llllirh.-'y order \\'ill ;h'-'ll b-: ~l rc;:cipt t~Jr [tit..' trans:iclion.

\l{};]I..'Y urdc_c: {(1r inn1,:iCS !~cus;.'d i:, ,:,'<1"T:-: s[~r;npt'd "For Dtpo\it Ouly:J n:~:cipt i~)r th.: rrailSddiol1.

:Cllk/\\.'~ fHcllwnot1, (:1C.]. :,il;dl have their money 1u their ;h'(UU1~t. cHid :h~ innwk' shall !'eCL')\L'

number and

in custody rrior tel ilS l\:tum h)

C:.:rtifi,:d or m;nJ 1,')
:\n Incidel1t ReporT shat! be \\ riner! n,ail mum '<':::dY if contr~lb:\n(i j:.-; dis,:o\'crcd in in(:oming l1];ljj. The Chil'fJaih:r shall he 110ilficd. <iud the prucessing o-fc\'idcncl' Sh~i:llJ:...' in :lccnrd:J]']c;." \\'j;h SOP /0,03. Pr(}jJcr~r nlld Evidence Cuntrol. Th~ st'ndcr slnll be !!lititli:d n:g:lrdinf::, the discover} ofcomrJband ~;lld the m~)Cic ofnoLifying th:..' scr,dcr slu];
Effective _ _ _~~~~

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 10 of 22

(;. Rejection of ,'lail

':,;;,:11 i:]< iluti\)Il> SLdJ: h(.' {('tur:'l...·d io 1];1..' :"c :dcr

Rcjei'lf.'d .Hail Sot[jh·ation Form, \\ h i\.'h:\'t.:r );.: brct. \\'ilhin \\ hich to app:..:al from the

dl'ci>ion to

!ll!...' !11ilil. Th,: rCjl..''..~lcd :~;;lil :·"!ull l"n..: rctalllnl by lilt' ,Tad during th,H

t\'·:(":1!)

d:l; pl.'rin~L Th1,.~ f"l':jt,\,:tcd r;l;iil ,,:,)-wll he' rctLnl\,,'d to the StTldcr lll;].:'S:-> an app,,;;Ji

is

m:idc. In [he e\',,-'111 rli;;l ;iL

i~ il'Cl't\cd, tlil' flj":C1Cd mail shall h,' rl't~l;llcd

Jl 111<.: Jail !'l'lidin!:! rC\'(t'\\'. L; fh~' ,';;Sl.' (\1';111 nppl'al hy L'illlCf tlK iilm~Hc or ~(,l1dcr, ifl1;(;

1\'jl'Clioll orm;,il i:-: ,u~(,ljncd by the Inlin1t.~ Gril.'\':lli!...'C Di\'i~ion of lhe Lq}:!J :\tYairs

nt;:\'au., rh!...·n :hl..' rejected m:llcri;il (h:dl be returned to the sender.

hut ~In: !lot lJ-n:itcd to:

:L The l:-1Jil e'JiHains threats Cor ph~,-::i:'::;jl h;:rm ,lg,iinst a p(;~rson or thn:ats of ,.'riminal
acth--ity: b. Thc l1"!:!i! dlrl:alcl1s blackmail or cxto11ion: l'. The Irl;lil cont:lins plans for escape: d. Th.: l1Jall CunCL'I"nS acii\'itll..'~ \'iCli:lting jail rulc-s 'l.nd regulations: c. The rnuil i~" in codc; or

II. Rl'tllfll('d .\fail Profcdun::s

addre;;s shall be rClUnled to the inrl.latc.

ttl the .sender.

I.

Pulilications

!.

Books (SOn CU\-(T onl~,'),

and nc\\-sp-;!j)crs rna)' be n:cc-ived O:,T,Y if shipped

directly from the publisber or fi'om ,l distributor", I-brd cover hooks \v111 not hl.~ received,

regardless of the source.

Effective _ __

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 11 of 22

Yore: Di{"fl·Oflilrh's. rc!(f.!t'Ul/.\" pilblicr.llj(}l1.~, ur/to"l'rior approl"ed program hooks. am/noJlprofit organi:,alioll jJllhlicarimL\ "Ire JWI illclui/ed in tlIis IOtaf.

:J" fire h::zard .

.T.

P~ll.'kagcs

XI

\l\al! be ilblk'C1C"d for contraband.

Tbis

~h~l1! be fcyiewc-d <ltlcasl annually.

Effective ~____~~

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 12 of 22
EXHIBITB

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 13 of 22
IN THE L~ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

JOINT CONSENT ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED CHANGES TO FULTON COUNTY SHERIEF'S DEPl'.RTMENT JAIL BUREAU POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 3000-01

'1',-
.-,,:r:-,LC

. j ---.:; "I

bno

c

thc'

-, ~ C'

,-~ :

• '. cJ .:

F.::

i,L

L':::::

,< r
-'~-J

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 14 of 22

. '-'-', ,

- ,--'-"-.::----. -:-- ,--,

Consented to by: /s/ Gerald Weber
:=

.C
/s/ Nwakaego

/. - c- . _ " ',;' _, • r

Brian Spears

OFFICE OF THE FULTON COUNTY ATTORNEY ,-
i -: C-:;) C.1,

>., ;

-,

J---_ ',_- ':;' • ,

\ .:

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 15 of 22
E HIBIT A

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 16 of 22

Fulton County Sheriff's Office <
Jail Bureau Policies and Procedures

'r:rhTrh r Date:

.. ~ --,~----

' ~'<uml_ll'r: JUOO-OI

I Pag(~s: 7

::uhjed: :";L!iL Tdt'phont\ \ 'i.'dting/Progr:JnJ ~lnd ·\('!h-Hy lndl'x: Inm~Ht .\I:lil l)roccdures
Rt'fl'rcn('('~: ..t-/\I_DF-2A-(lO. 5B-05 thru 5B-IO

, 0"lstn"ImtJ"OJl: "·\ll Jail Bureau Personnd
A Illcnds!Rl'sl'inds: i Jalluary ,-I, .'..(:)()Q ~,

-' \ ppro\-ing ,\uthorit~, Sigllmur\.':

Rcvit'w: Aflllll~Jlly

L Purpose

To d':"Triht: thl' pnxcd: in::, th;li shall be uC:l,'d correSpO!IJencc ~l!1d JXlt:kag¢s.

hi] ntm::itl personnel to procL'"ss inrn,ltcs'

II. Policy

A.

lnniak:: in ;;Ft..'ci;;.l ;l~;ll1<)1::'cm('n! lll1it;; C~lI1 \\ritc ;:mel n~l.'l'jvc letters on the S~lrne hasis as

Inmates ill the f!cJ1I..:ral population.

U.

\\'hc.'n the inll:;ltc b~'dr" the lL!iJillg co;>! there I:; no limit on the \"olUl11C of ldters hl'_'shc can

-::L'nd Dr on !lh.' il'jjf:th, h:;lguagc, or conh.:Ilt, ufn);;:iL \,.'.\(Cpt \\'h;:11 there is a reasonable belief

lh~i[ lJn~jta[iun;,: <'-;f(' necC'ss,-lry to protect rlL:bJic :>afc!y or maintain Etcility order and security.

Indigl'!'ll :nm:itl~S r.::\_',::Yc :1 specified ;;nq:tfY :lllownncc to maintain community tics, and llr:(C;;~-~jry POS!~ige for privikgcd correspondence.

D. hrnaks have access to publications.

L

Ij)m:~[t:' m;-,iL huih i:,c.-\

;-lr,J

m;!) h: \)jkl,cd tn intcrCt:pl C;JSrl, ch:cks, ~lTld

)];Of;CY ~);-du;:: ;lJld It) illSpt'CI fur ccriif;ibilld. \-bil i.:; rC~HL ccnsored, and rejected l-)(~sed on

k'f'itirn:i~c C;;ciiily illlcrl's;:s oforckr ;n1d sccu:Jty, !nnJ~itl:s ;:1","" ll.()tiJled. ii! \'.THmg. when

in-l·ti!11ing or ()Wr(lJlll2 kUl'rs arc withhl,.~ld in pan or in fuiJ.

F.

]nr(j~lh..'::: ar(> p\..~n11i[fl'd tel ;;('nd ::::c;li,,'d ktlL'r:; to a _,,:pl'cifil'd ('lass of per;;ons and org;:mi7arions,

inclwhlg. hUI Lot lirnill'd 10. lbl.~ frdlo\\ 1l1,:;: couns; Ct)lmsc]: officials or the confining

;;dlhoriIy: :,';i(\..' <lEd inl';d ,-'hid'c:,\\..'cl.:ti\-c ufficers; admmistrators of grit' vance systems: and

])il:'!nbns uribe

Starr in (he prcsellcc \.,fthe ir.m;\tcs. rnay be nllowcd to

(;U:go;:ii:-' pri\-ik'gcd mad CUi- (ULlr:~b:lnl.; h\.'!~)re it IS sealed. \:iail to inn1Gtes from

these spci:_'ified ci:.lSSC5 IJfpcf'SOllS ::l]\d ()rg~d1izLdions may be OpCf1I?Q only tt) inspect for

l'O;,lr~lb;l1:d ;-;nd (.lnly in The rn.:scnCe uf the InmaTe, unless waived in writing, or in

circlirt;st~ln\.'cs \\"llich indic;_dt' (,cI~I:-mjin~Hiur:; or olher imminent threat 10 hea!tb ~H1d S;:iI(:ty.

C.

L\L'!udin.:; \\ cckcnds :lui hl)lidays or i.:'lllL'r~l'r:cy situa(lon:<~ incoming and outgoing )ctk:rs ;.1'12

hckl [(_)J' )10 ]r;!lfc than 24 hours and pacKages urc hdd fur l1U more than 48 hours.

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 17 of 22

,300tHl!

Pn[..;t.'2of7

IY. DefiniTions

,\. Prh'iJrgrd CorrrspondC1H,'L'

,:,'

j-; dcnrll'd ;1::: ,~ ,i;: b,,"\'.-;':'lTi inrl~~il(,~ :i;ld anornt'ys; kf!n] :lid

'-\

pl'u"idini::

:-:tT\ i,,'c:.; 1(l imr:;llCS \if rrlraprc'iessionals h~1\--ing ;1

h!:~:; fi(;z.' ;i.<,,;::,-l('i~Jli,,)n 'X!lh :-:~;dl 'lf~~;h.'i"s (lr :;t:(ln~c.'y:-::

;md clerks ofn:_'den-d, state, u1d

the ))It.'dla or public officials

?\·(;1~~rri\'ik2\.'d LI,rrc<j;()lldulCC i\ d,,'f';;]L'd ~lS (li:l; C<,'!lT('~Jxmd\..'IllT flwt is n01 classified as pri\ ikgcd,

C

or !llrkri;;i rlwl is rexu;:!ly explicit, 1'0""" Ihre;;! to the .,,,cllril),, order or

(l:":ilc f:h..'ilil) or {h{lt fUL'i1ii<ll,,';:; crimin:d activity,

n. fndigcIlt JllInatc

/\1'; ir.m;~te \\;,Ih h~ihn('e nftLrcc .-:i,jlbe..: (53 cOl1sccU(i\'(, da)/s,

(11' less in bis'h1.'f account for fourteen (14)

V. Prol'l'dun.'s

A. Geller;)1 Cuidelines

bUlh 5t:)11' :!nd inmateS.
Dil:'ii1~~ !l,;." nr:L.'nt:l:iO!1 rrocc;::s, innj{ill'S ;:rl' ink:rrrneJ ofrhc mail procedures. This infni']L:llillJ1 i::-' ~d:::o :<wtcd in the llJllliJ/{' llalJdbooj,:,
3.

.\:::

:l~ an i;;r: ~"i1c em ;dli:ll',j p'Y';::::::":, lilllitation shall not be illlposed on the volume

of nwil ~('nL dr ();} (he kTig_th.

, or (l'n~t.'nt of fnaiL unk.::.:; there is;;1 reasonable

hl"i:c'flh:l1 S'l,ch I; l1iwlior:.:-; are nCl'(kd 10 prore:.:-; public s;jf~:!y or the secure and orJcrlv

ui,cr;1ti<)Jll.)( [he J;Kdity.

m;111 :\)-,:1JJ not be h",kl for murr: than twenty (2.:.1) hours and
Effective _ _ _ __

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 18 of 22
L'

\ icd::lti()11 ofn~;,ij n ;('S. Othl';'\,·i::<'. iJlJiWh' flu;l! l~all ollly be slojJjJcd or slojJl'udcd by il COllr! Order.

mall is I.\-ilhheld in full or jXin,

dei.:isiollS b: ;\ff~lirs Bureau.

lnn;~i[L';-; ;i~H:: :}JL' SL'Jidc;- Sh~l;l ha\'c the o},portunity 10 ~lj!pcaj sllch their ;'-TTh:;;l ;c :hc Ii ,ll::ne ()ric\-~ll1cC Division of tile Legal

9.

~Lil rl'l'\.:j\ l·d flir pnSOl]S ),(,t in clls1ed:;:d :11(' FLlion County J::lil nn the clute ofrl'ceipt

n(]]];til ~~h;:;!: he rC'1t:f,;cd 10 [he POS! Offict, Th\.' Fulton County Jail docs not operate a

cr Tl':Url1 lruil S(TVl\.'l', \\'};cn :~~~ii! i:;. rL'\l:r:h;O 10 the Post Office beG1U;;C thc

~tddn..>SS.L'(' i::-: 110\ in ('uswdy Zit ill,--' Fult(ll1 C('llJ1t,;/ LiL the c-"'-lTior of the item ofm:liJ ~h;jll

he :-:l:lJnpcd \Yllh a 111)lkc lh::lllhc ~lddrc:;::;l'c I:; llU longer in cu~tody prior to its return to

the Post OOlcc_

11)0 \'1ail Roorn

B. Inmate :\fail Limitations

Inr~i:ill'S ;j1 (' Jl!'ohihikd jhnn

\ i;; n~aif with inmnk's ;It the jail ur witll

inm:ll,.:s ill ;u]l)thcr ,_:~ji1 tit ,-'j)r!\',,'l;Of]:ll 1:1('1

v:ilhliur \vr;l1cn ~lppnJ\-,d from the Chief

Jailer.

J::lcJ'-rc·L:ri;:, r:;; i~;;:ii ;11,; ;-ncd ((1Upk:--: ()l ;::~l:-'C,:!;j(:...' C;l!ri!y nil'lr,hus] irwy be' appron'c! lb: Chic-fJ:,i \..1. Inr:::h:C: i-ri\;~,l :::,l:hL-li:;; RL"jllc,\{ w Cf)JIIl!luni""t1fe Idlft ail JllcuJ'L'erated FWlJi(r _lfcmhcr _Form for approyal.

-,

T11l' ( l:i,,'fJ~iikr :--:!J:dl rL'lurn 11l~' !~,'ll,~J!n t!it' i:j;J;~lk, slating ifthl' request was denied OJ

IflllL' ]'cqut."Si ..y;:::-:. apprU\·t'll. [hl' ChiL'[ J:;i!er may inchld::: stipulations.

-0
Sheriff

unless authurized

C. indig,ollt inmates

1.

Fur the pl.:rrO~(> of

il~(:i~cn(('. ;,]1 i:F;l:He ,-:.:haIJ have thn.'t2 (53 or Itss in

h!s:lier ~jC,:()llllt f" r fi)lll-:CC;1 ( l--i ) (OllS(CUil \'(:'

\' crif1c ~lt ion of i ndigcncC' shall be

l'stahli:;hc>d within t\\-() (:) (by::; ~dlcr the inlllalt: b~15 submitted an indigt'nt request to the

Comnllssary .

Effective _ _ _ __

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 19 of 22

1~~ [hl' i) ;!;;nc (iu: iii'ics

free q;",mps to allow fitf up !.O

11 \-l' t."=- i

t..'VCfy' lWO (2) weeks. The ];;d!

n~;rc':;u

Uk':; ~\ il.lo,'~j( ;:;~:'.r)I.,.';~': :\'>:dl-',TCC:-: nCiJl-p,'i\'i1q-:ed

in the

;""l'l'l-)r[ l;t 1.,.',

;)i..'S

wllh family ,tlld friends),

D. Prh ikgt:d "Jail

i.

:--i;Jh:' ;;:j d kii..',l; \..': ;C'(,-''\l'l'U:i,c On~Cl'rs: ;:tI:i1' ":i:<r;;1ors (,fgric\':l11cC :;:y::tcms; ~ll1d

;;'lL'J:~h\T:; ,)r:h'

;lw!inrily. l!:ciii];; ~g i"ri\ ikgi..'d nwil may ~Jl be 0pt.'IH.'d to

ill-"Pl'ct fur fiilltr:l!l:md iu the prt'~Cill'l' of the illlllatl', IInll'ss ,,,;lin'tl by the innwtt' in

"riling or the Illail is n,Tt'h cd in rircum,Q;1l1Cl'S "hirh illdicali' cOlltamination or

olher lllllllillfllf rhrnl:l to hcullh and safety.

3.

:::!::!Lc.h:il (kii\ Vi

m:lil to inni;';',;:::: ~d(lj',d;~y tl:rDu.~~h Friday, Dnd 511:11\ open the

':;;lil in tlh.> ::l:11:i1(S' P;-l''-'CJ'll'C Ie illlerl't',)"l ::;C'>l :6 ur other forms ()fc(lntr~!band"

:L

;,\nincidell! R('jlort ~:h;d! bt' \\'riu("J: if ('\:;;~r:!b;illd i~ ((lund in pri\'ilegecl nwil. The ~enJcr

:-;il;;Jl hl' nUliJicd hy 1he Chit:fJ,liJel' or dl'::;~)r;l'(' ;h;~t Ihe contraband has been seized. If

ccn:r:il-,;,l1d is :-:l'i;':c'd. llll' \;CiLinf SI~lrfl~';el1lhLT :-;];;111 plompt::;/ deliver it to the watch

('c\ll:m::ndcr i~.Jr dl'k,;;,in;-llion of

;lc·l;onis). The ch,.!in Ofcllstody ::;h~il! be

f!1\1j)Crly rn;linwined.

In:1iJ :-h:d1 l](l( 1.');:, !.'!'C·!h·,L I-:u: ,,~:jy he hl"ld it))' a n::ason:lblc time not 011 th~jt is rropcr!y (jddrc~sl'd to a

E.

Otlt~olllg .\'Iail Procedures

\\ ilh any(uc. \\:ith the m:;;; shalf Ito! he limited. unless such mail '.'iola:c;';

a. Tllc ili:;:/ ,-'\.\;~[:ilns t)~rc:i!;': (lfphy::i('~-d h~jrm HClivir)<
b, The m:n'] ,n:;l!cll:-; hbcknwil or CX[0l1ion;

a person or threats of criminal
Effective ______

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 20 of 22
:'fliJO-Ol

')'1 j ;;,-
12. The- rntlij IS In code; or

3.

::-'-":l!~ (,;- ('(J!j;r;d,;jnd. The (!;it'I J~iiin (~1

::-h;:;i! lnitiate a fClr!1l~ll investigation,

:lnd the L,\-;dl.'!l('c ~:'\(i:] CC

in ::'-~l·f.':-;];a,,,:·c \\'ilh S'OP ]0.3, PN;jJL'rJ)' alld

E'ritlL'ilce.

4.

Ou

C\('{.'pt for \vcl'kcnd:; ~md holicbys.

F.

Jlll'"",ing .'!ail

1.

fvLlil ;':!J:i.ll r>-q be held for mnrL ,!i;l;l t\' t:rlly-rnur C::::i) hCllJr;-;, l":\c!uding weekends and

llOlidays.

Pos:;]l moncy nrdc: rC::,!,'l'!"l'd The 111Cll'jc'Y ord;:f \\ ill 1btTI be ~l receipt for lb.' tr,ms:iclioll.

!he lil;l:; ~h;jll hi..' [;iken 10 ILl..': innwlc for 5ign:lture. l(i 1]-;,,' ir;ill;;:(,'_~ ;rc('cnmL ~llld the il1lT;~nc <:-:halll"<..'ccivc

-I.

:l)1;IL':,":l''<-; [Bellwood, Cli..'.], ::;h:dll--;JVC tht'ir Ir10nl'},

'"For Dt.:po~jt Only:~

~() llll'ir ;!'w'l'ount, and the inrn:ilc shalllTl'l'iv(,

~l receipt for tile tr;'lilsaction.

hi!. :hc l'xterior ufthc item ofrn8il ~h;lll prior (0 its return t()
C:"Ttifinj ,if
rna il is pro..:cS::,.'J ]i, the S;~n1(, manner as :d! otber ilh.:uming mail.
,\n iJlddi'lI! /?Cl'Orl :;hall be \\ riu<:n rr:lll r()tirtl st:tii' if contnlb~;r;d is disco\'(;'rt.'d in ;nc()minc nU,l. Thl' Chil'fJ:likr ::;h;-lll he IWfiflcd, ~:lid the processing of evidence Sh:lil b:: in :lccnrtbncc 'xilh SOP IO.{F, PruperfY ami El·jdellL'e CUllltO/. Thc sender sil;;ill be notified r::g~1f'diJlg :lit.: Jisco\.-r.:ry oj COlllf:lbund ~;nJ the In()(1c nfTh)tifying the ser.,dcr shall
Effective ______

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 21 of 22

:<

(', 1 ~ ~J ,-' \ '

C.

1~l'jl'f1jOJi of .\Iail

Th: _"cLder ,c-:h:di be J,(ltiiJcd i( ,,',,',''''1111'' Elail is fej\".'ctcd \>i~ i'l

/?t:j((,II'ti J/aij SOli/ielltioll Form. If:i::iil is

Ih.~. lfiJ';l;lk:.; :md the sender :-:hali

:-;;:t:l :-J;:!l! hc rctalnt:d by lilL' Jail during lhat

\\\:(';-t1) f:;O) d:l) j'l.:ricd. Th~

;;';;;il ,--:hall he' rctl:rncd 10 lh(' :;t:ndcr unless an appeal

i:.::

l:.,;:dt~. III the L'\'t');1 1l~:J! ;;1:

is fL't'L':\ cd. rhl.' !cjech.'d nl:,)] shall ht rct:liJl(J

~!t tbe .bii !~ending ]"('\'i(>\\'. In ;he C5( nr,)i'1 ;iJipl';-d either Ill!...' itlf11<l1(, or sender, iflhc

ofn~~lil j,c-: ::un;lined b) I!;C In;r;::lc Grjt.'\·~ilj(T Division of the Legal /\n'airs

i3WI':nL 1hen il'll.' rl'},'clCd ll--;;llcri;'] shall be returned to the sC'llcicr.

icc of rn;Ji'l may incluJe. but ~11't.: L01 limited to:

~l. The !:-wil ({'IH,{I!lS 111r(';1[s Cif phY:-:lc;;J h;ilT"

a person or thn:ats of criminal

activity:

b. TI1L' r:l;,il lhn:atcns bbcknlail or cxtoniol1;

,-', The rnaiJ c(I!1!:iillS pians for c::.:cape:

d. T11(,..> n;;lil cuncc'rn::-- :icti\'ilic:-: \ iul:11ingjail rule.' ,lod regulations:

c. The rn~lil is iII code; or

L Tbe nail Ctil1t;irns inf~'q-!')]:lli(ln lh~;L IrC\);:~)~i\:liic;Hl'd, \\'uuJd ..'re;l1e J ckar and pre,'-ol..'nl

dTib'tT uf',-j(lICnCC and physical harm to persons.

II. RClUrncd ,"biJ Procedurt.'s

j. 1n11::1t(' mail C1.'turncd the po.c,t Ol'1lcc' dUe r() i;,sufficient postage or an incurrect
~lddr;;ss shall be rcturn('d 1O tbe inmate.

to the scndcL

r.

PlIhlkations

l.

Books (soft CQ\--cr Gnly),

~;Jl(l nl'wsp:q}('rs m:ly lK' n:cclvl'd O:\TLY ifshipped

directl) from the publish;;r or from D distributor. Hard cover books \vill not be received,

regardless of the source,

Effective _ _ _ __

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 25 Filed 05/09/08 Page 22 of 22
P:li!t' j (if '7

.YOft': DiCfioJl(.uit's, rd(f..:i(}l/,<" puhlica/iolls, lilhcfprior uFprm'ct! prugram ho(!ks, {llld IIUlIpnj"ir tllpt11li:'£1fioll jlilhlic(ifio/lS tlri' Hul il/eliided in this IOlOI.
;1 fire h~\zard.

XI

<Lilli be inspel'lcd for contraband.

.:-:hall be rc"\'il'wcd at least CiIlJlually.

Effective _____

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 31 Filed 05/14/08 Page 1 of 2
IN THE L~ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

JOINT CONSENT ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED CHANGES TO FULTON COUNTY SHERIEF'S DEPl'.RTMENT JAIL BUREAU POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 3000-01

'1',-
.-,,:r:-,LC

. j ---.:; "I

bno

c

thc'

-, ~ C'

,-~ :

• '. cJ .:

F.::

i,L

L':::::

,< r
-'~-J

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 31 Filed 05/14/08 Page 2 of 2

. '-'-', ,

- ,--'-"-.::----. -:-- ,--,

14th

May

Consented to by: /s/ Gerald Weber
:=

.C
/s/ Nwakaego

/. - c- . _ " ',;' _, • r

Brian Spears

OFFICE OF THE FULTON COUNTY ATTORNEY ,-
i -: C-:;) C.1,

>., ;

-,

J---_ ',_- ':;' • ,

\ .:

 
 Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

----------------------------------------------)

PRISON LEGAL NEWS,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

FULTON COUNTY and

)

SHERIFF MYRON FREEMAN, )

individually and in his official

)

capacity as Fulton County Sheriff, )

)

Defendants.

)

----------------------------------------------)

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:07-CV-2618-CAP

AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS and files this Amended Complaint challenging Fulton County and Fulton County Sheriff Myron Freeman’s policy barring prisoners’ receipt of any and all books, magazines, and newspapers (other than religious publications). This policy is challenged both on its face, and as applied to Prison Legal News. Despite an order in Daker v. Barrett, No. 1:00-CV1065-RWS (July 22, 2002) finding this Reading Materials Policy unconstitutional, the policy is still being applied as to Prison Legal News, whose subscribers’ copies of the publication are being returned to the sender. This Amended Complaint
-1-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 16
addresses the new policy adopted after this lawsuit, as well as the revisions to the new policy enacted in consultation with Plaintiffs.
JURISDICTION 1.
This action arises under the authority vested in this Court by virtue of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1985, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 & 2202, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (pendent jurisdiction). Venue is proper in this Court.
PARTIES 2.
Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS publishes a subscriber based publication for inmates, lawyers and advocates about prison issues in the United States and abroad.
3. Defendant FULTON COUNTY oversees and is responsible for the Fulton County Jail. Defendant MYRON FREEMAN is the Fulton County Sheriff and is responsible for establishing final policies and procedures for the Fulton County Jail relating to inmate mail.
-2-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 3 of 16
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Prison Legal News 4.
Prison Legal News (PLN) is an independent, monthly magazine that provides review and analysis of prisoner rights, court rulings and news about prison issues. PLN has a national focus on both state and federal prison issues, with international coverage as well. PLN provides information that enables prisoners and other concerned individuals and organizations to seek the protection and enforcement of prisoner's rights at the grass roots level.
5. PLN began operations in 1990 and is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. PLN's business office is located in Seattle, Washington. PLN's editorial office is located in Brattleboro, Vermont.
6. PLN is primarily funded by subscription and advertising revenue and book sales and individual donations.
7. PLN’s' coverage includes articles regarding court access, disciplinary hearings, prison conditions, excessive force, mail censorship, jail litigation, visiting,
-3-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 4 of 16
telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, abuse of women prisoners, retaliation, the Prison Legal Reform Act (PLRA), medical treatment, AIDS, the death penalty, control units, attorney fees and much more.
8. As of May 2007 PLN has a circulation of approximately 6,700 hardcopy issues per month. PLN also has subscribers in European and Asian countries. About 65% of PLN's subscribers are state and federal prisoners. The balance of PLN's subscribers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, public defender agencies, judges, journalists, academics, paralegals, public and university libraries, prison law libraries, investment bankers, prison rights activists, students, family members of prisoners and concerned private individuals. State-level government officials also subscribe to PLN, including attorney generals, prison wardens, and members of other prisoner related agencies. PLN has prisoner subscribers in all fifty states. Based on PLN's November 2005 reader survey each subscriber's magazine is read by an average of almost 9 people, so the monthly readership of PLN is around 54,000.
9. PLN has "regular" writers and also solicits and publishes articles written by other writers, many of them in prison. Authors who have published in PLN include:
-4-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 5 of 16
Noam Chomsky, Dan Savage, William Kunstler and Ron Kuby, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Ken Silverstein, Jennifer Vogel, Adrian Lomax, Raymond Luc Levasseur, John Perotti, Willie Wisely, Christian Parenti, William Greider, and Noelle Hanrahan.
Fulton County Mail Policy 10.
The Fulton County Jail has a policy, adopted and/or ratified by DefendantFreeman as final decision-maker for Defendant Fulton County, that reading materials mailed to inmates are returned to the sender without notice to the inmate-subscriber. The policy provides: “Books, magazines, and newspapers for inmates shall not be accepted. The only exceptions are religious publications (soft covered), that is ordered directly from the publisher or provided by approved religious groups. Copies of books or publications, etc., shall not be accepted.” (hereinafter “Reading Materials Policy”) (Policy V (J)(1) titled “Inmate Mail Procedures” dated January 1, 2002). This policy was continued, affirmed and/or ratified by Defendant Freeman by order dated January 3, 2005.
11. The Reading Materials Policy was challenged by an inmate, and found to be unconstitutional in Daker v. Barrett, No. 1:00-CV-1065-RWS (July 22, 2002).
-5-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 6 of 16
12. Clearly established law dictates the unconstitutionality of the Reading Materials Policy.
13. Since the Dakar decision, Defendants have failed to abandon the Reading Materials Policy. Several inmates have filed additional lawsuits challenging the policy, and continued denial of reading materials. See, e.g., Daker v. Barrett, No. 1:05-MI-0398 (Dec. 28, 2005); Robertson v. Freeman, No. 1:06-CV-01940-CAM (Aug. 1, 2006).
14. PLN has several subscribers to its publication housed in the Fulton County Jail. These inmates are sent copies of PLN by standard, first-class mail.
15. These subscribers have not received their copies of PLN, and have reported filing grievances concerning the publication ban.
16. Copies of PLN, sent to inmate-subscribers, have been returned to PLN by the Defendants or destroyed. PLN has also been informed by subscriber-inmates that they have not received copies of PLN. PLN is only aware of one copy of its
-6-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 7 of 16
publication reaching a subscriber in the Fulton County Jail in the last year. 17.
PLN has suffered financial damages, as well as particularized loss of their constitutional rights.
18. Because Defendant-Freeman has continued to engage in the constitutionally impermissible Reading Materials Policy for several years since a finding of unconstitutionality, and in the face of several lawsuits and grievances, punitive damages are available due to his reckless, and deliberate indifference to constitutional rights and his actual knowledge of continued enforcement of unconstitutional policies.
19. All actions of defendants were under color of law and pursuant the policies and procedures of Fulton County.
Amended Publications Policy 20.
This lawsuit was filed on October 27, 2007 challenging the then-existing Fulton County Jail’s publications policy.
-7-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 8 of 16
21. The parties have engaged in settlement discussions and correspondence on issues concerning the policy, damages and attorneys fees since the filing of this action. Much progress has been made, but issues remain.
22. On January 4, 2008, Defendants adopted a new publications policy a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. Plaintiff had not previously viewed said amended policy.
23. The following week, Plaintiff submitted a memoranda to Defendants outlining concerns with the constitutionality of the revised policy including the (1) the lack of notice to the sender for rejected publications, (2) the bar on publications sent by a distributor (as opposed to the publisher itself), and (3) the preference for religious publications over non-profit publications.
24. On February 4, 2008, this Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and entered an order granting said injunction, specifying that “defendants are HEREBY ENJOINED from the use of the old mail policy; the defendants are REQUIRED to enforce the new mail policy; and the defendants are
-8-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 9 of 16
REQUIRED to inform the plaintiff and the court should it make any change to the new policy.”
25. Subsequently, in February 2008, as the result of further settlement discussions, the Plaintiffs provided proposed revisions to the policy to address concerns with the constitutionality of the new policy.
26. The parties have reached an agreement concerning the language of the revised policy that adequately addresses the concerns of Plaintiff.
27. The revised policy, incorporating Plaintiff’s concerns, is awaiting adoptin by the Defendants.
28. The Plaintiff has received a report from inmates that magazines continue to be rejected for delivery at the jail in reliance by jail staff upon the now enjoined former publications policy.
29. Absent an order enjoining the Defendants to follow the new policy, as amended, it is not absolutely clear that they will not return to the old policy or fail to
-9-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 10 of 16
abide by the new policy in light of the previous finding of unconstitutionality, several subsequent lawsuits identifying the prior ruling and determination of unconstitutionality, Defendants failure to correct the policy over several years and Defendants failure to fully comply with their new policy even after this Court’s injunction.
CAUSES OF ACTION 30.
Each and every allegation is incorporated herein for each claim for relief. 31.
Plaintiff has a free speech and press right to communicate with inmates through the distribution of Prison Legal News and inmates retain a right to receive the publication under the United States and Georgia Constitutions’ free speech, free press and due process clauses.
32. The Fulton County Jail’s former absolute ban on subscription publications is in violation of the free expression protections of the United States and Georgia Constitutions.
-10-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 11 of 16
33. There are no individualized determinations made about particular publications by the Fulton County Jail under its former policy.
34. A blanket prohibition on receipt of publications intended for delivery to and receipt by a prisoner is presumptively unconstitutional.
35. The Fulton County Jail’s former absolute ban on subscription publications is (1) overbroad and overinclusive, (2) arbitrary and capricious, (3) not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and (4) gives unbridled discretion to licensing authorities in violation of the Due Process and Free Speech and Press protections of the United States and Georgia Constitutions.
36. The Fulton County Jail’s former absolute ban on subscription publications is not rationally related to a legitimate, neutral government objective, there are no alternate means for Plaintiffs or inmates to express themselves, the accommodation of the constitutional rights asserted will not have a detrimental impact on prison staff, inmates and the allocation of jail resources and the outright ban is an exaggerated response to prison concerns.
-11-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 12 of 16
37. The Fulton County Jail’s former ban on subscription publications does not bear a logical connection between any asserted governmental interests and is too broad to render its absolute ban rational.
38. The handful of publications in the Fulton County Jail library, primarily works of fiction provided when an inmate trustee pushes a cart through each zone periodically, provide insufficient alternative reading material for inmates, and Plaintiff has no alternative manner for communicating with their subscribers. On information and belief, no magazines or newspapers are available in the jail library and the Atlanta Constitution is the only publication sold in the jail commissary.
39. Defendants cannot articulate or particularize a detrimental impact on prison staff, inmates or prison resources that would justify either the blanket ban or a particular ban on the distribution of the Prison Legal News. Distribution of publications through the regular mail distribution procedures would not create an excessive burden.
-12-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 13 of 16
40. The Fulton County Jail’s former absolute ban on subscription publications is an exaggerated response in light of obvious alternatives such as (1) a “publishers only rule,” (2) individualized determinations for security concerns, (3) utilization of disciplinary action if particular inmates abuse the mail/publications process.
41. The Fulton County Jail’s former absolute ban on subscription publications is also accompanied by a failure to notify inmates or PLN that publications have been rejected. The failure to notify inmates and PLN of the denial of publications impact the Plaintiff who has undertaken financial expense to maintain subscribers and to ensure delivery of the Prison Legal News. This failure to notify subscribers or Plaintiff or to provide a reasonable opportunity to challenge decisions to refuse distribution of publications to a neutral decisionmaker not involved in the initial decision violates procedural due process requirements of the United States and Georgia Constitutions.
42. The former Reading Materials Policy states one exception to the absolute ban: “The only exceptions are religious publications (soft covered), that is ordered directly from the publisher or provided by approved religious groups.” This exception
-13-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 14 of 16
renders the Reading Materials Policy a content-based restriction on speech that favors religious expression in violation of the free expression, equal protection and separation of church and state provisions of the United States and Georgia Constitutions.
43. The case law is clear as to the constitutional claims, and a previous decision held that the Defendants conduct was unlawful over five years ago. Defendant Freeman, individually, is not entitled to qualified immunity and his actions meet the requirements for punitive damages. Damages are not sought against DefendantFulton County.
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant the following relief: (a) Declaratory judgment that the Fulton County Jail’s former Reading Materials Policy, an absolute ban on subscription publications, violates the Free Expression and Due Process clauses of the United States and Georgia Constitutions; (b) Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief against further enforcement of the former Fulton County Jail’s Reading Materials Policy and an order requiring that Defendants comply with the current policy as amended per the agreement of counsel for the parties;
-14-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 15 of 16
(c) Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief permitting distribution of the Prison Legal News;
(d) Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief requiring notification to PLN of any failure to distribute copies of the Prison Legal News;
(e) Nominal, compensatory and punitive damages against Defendant-Freeman in his individual capacity in an amount to be determined by a jury;
(f) Reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs of litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws; and
(g) Such further relief as this Court deems just and proper. DATED: This the 25th day of March, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

Post Office Box 5391 Atlanta, GA 31107 Tel: (404) 522-0507 Email: wgerryweber@gmail.com

S/ GERALD WEBER Georgia Bar No. 744878

-15-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21 Filed 03/25/08 Page 16 of 16

1126 Ponce de Leon Ave., N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30306 Tele: (404) 872-7086 Fax: (404) 892-1128 Email: Bspears@mindspring.com

S/ G. BRIAN SPEARS Bar No. 670112
Attorneys for Plaintiff

-16-

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21-1 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 7
Fulton County Sheriff's Office Jail Bureau Policies and Procedures

Effective Date:

January 4, 2008

Number: 3000-01

Pages: 7

Subject: Mail, Telephone, Visiting/Program and Activity Index: Inmate Mail Procedures

Distribution: All Jail Bureau Personnel

References: 4-ALDF-2A-60, 58-OS thru 58-10

(~

Amends/Rescinds: May 21, 2007

Y'v %. Approving Authority Signature:f

~ ...., -ATA\...--

~ /V'.A~.A "" Review: Annually

I. Purpose
To describe the procedures that shall be used by Jail Bureau personnel to process inmates' correspondence and packages.

II. Policy
A. Inmates in special management units can write and receive letters on the same basis as inmates in the general population.
B. When the inmate bears the mailing cost there is no limit on the volume ofletters he/she can send or on the length, language, or content, of mail, except when there is a reasonable belief that limitations are necessary to protect public safety or maintain facility order and security.
C. Indigent inmates receive a specified postage allowance to maintain community ties, and necessary postage for privileged correspondence.
D. Inmates have access to publications.
E. Inmate mail, both incoming and outgoing, may be opened to intercept cash, checks, and money orders and to inspect for contraband. Mail is read, censored, and rejected based on legitimate facility interests of order and security. Inmates are notified, in writing, when in-coming or outgoing letters are withheld in part or in full.
F. Inmates are permitted to send sealed letters to a specified class of persons and organizations, including, but not limited to, the following: courts; counsel; officials of the confining authority; state and local chief executive officers; administrators of grievance systems; and members of the paroling authority. Staff, in the presence of the inmates, may be allowed to inspect outgoing privileged mail for contraband before it is sealed. Mail to inmates from these specified classes of persons and organizations may be opened only to inspect for contraband and only in the presence of the inmate, unless waived in writing, or in circumstances which indicate contamination or other imminent threat to health and safety.
G. Excluding weekends and holidays or emergency situations, incoming and outgoing letters are held for no more than 24 hours and packages are held for no more than 48 hours.

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21-1 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 7

Subject: Inmate Mail Procedures

Policy No. 3000-01

Page 2 of7

III. Scope
This policy shall apply to all Jail Bureau personnel.
IV. Definitions
A. Privileged Correspondence
Privileged correspondence is defined as mail between inmates and attorneys; legal aid services and other agencies providing legal services to inmates or paraprofessionals having a bona fide association with such agencies or attorneys; judges and clerks of federal, state, and local courts; grand juries; law enforcement agents or agencies; the media or public officials and their authorized representatives acting in official capacities.
B. Non-Privileged Correspondence
Non-privileged correspondence is defined as that correspondence that is not classified as privileged.
C. Rejected Mail
Correspondence or material that is sexually explicit, poses a threat to the security, order or discipline of the facility or that facilitates criminal activity.
D. Indigent Inmate
An inmate with a balance of three dollars ($3.00) or less in his/her account for fourteen (14) consecutive days.
V. Procedures
A. General Guidelines
I. Written policies and procedures that govern inmate correspondence are made available to both staff and inmates.
2. During the orientation process, inmates are informed of the mail procedures. This information is also stated in the Inmate Handbook.
3. Inmates in special management housing units can send and receive mail in the same manner as inmates in general population.
4. As long as an inmate can afford postage, limitation shaH not be imposed on the volume of mail sent, or on the length, language, or content of mail, unless there is a reasonable belief that such limitations are needed to protect public safety, or the secure and orderly operation of the facility.
Effective January 4, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21-1 Filed 03/25/08 Page 3 of 7

Subject: Inmate Mail Procedures

Policy No. 3000-01

Page 3 of7

5. Incoming and outgoing mail shall not be held for more than twenty (24) hours and packages will not be held for more than 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays.
6. Inmate mail privileges shall not be withdrawn as a form of punishment, except for violation of mail rules. Otherwise, inmate mail can only be stopped or suspended by a Court Order.
7. Both incoming and outgoing mail may be opened, inspected for contraband, read and censored and will be rejected ifthere is a reasonable belief that there is an imminent threat to persons or the security of the facility. Inmates are notified if incoming or outgoing mail is withheld in full or part.
8. If an inmate's mail is censored or rejected, the inmate and/or sender shall be notified of the reason(s) for the action. Inmates shall have the opportunity to appeal such decisions by submitting their appeal to the Inmate Grievance Division of the Legal Affairs Bureau.
9. Mail received for persons not in custody at the Fulton County Jail on the date of receipt of mail shall be returned to the Post Office. The Fulton County Jail does not operate a forwarding or return mail service.
10. Mail Room personnel shall maintain a Daily Log of all mail that is returned to the sender.
B. Inmate Mail Limitations
1. Inmates are prohibited from corresponding with inmates within the jail or with inmates in another jailor correctional facility, without written approval from the Chief Jailer.
2. Inter-relations mail [married couples or immediate family members] may be approved by the Chief Jailer. Inmates must submit a Request to Communicate with an Incarcerated Family Member Form for approval.
3. The Chief Jailer shall return the form to the inmate, stating if the request was denied or approved. If the request is approved, the Chief Jailer may include stipulations.
4. Transfer of funds from one inmate to another is prohibited, unless authorized by the Sheriff.
C. Indigent Inmates
I. For the purpose of establishing indigence, an inmate shall have three ($3.00) or less in hislher account for fourteen (14) consecutive days. Verification of indigence shall be established within two (2) days after the inmate has submitted an indigent request to the Commissary.
2. Indigent status may be reassessed at the Commissary's discretion.
3. If the inmate qualifies as indigent, he/she may receive free stamps to allow for up to
Effective January 4, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21-1 Filed 03/25/08 Page 4 of 7

Subject: Inmate Mail Procednres

Policy No. 3000-01

Page 4 of7

five (5) privileged and five (5) non-privileged mailings every two (2) weeks. The Jail Bureau provides inmates without financial resources non-privileged mailings in the support of community ties (corresponding with family and friends).
D. Privileged Mail
I. Inmates are permitted to send sealed privileged mail to a specified class of persons and organizations, including but not limited to: Courts, officials of the confining authority; state and local chief executive officers; administrators of grievance systems; and members of the paroling authority. Incoming privileged mail may only be opened to inspect for contraband in the presence of the inmate, unless waived by the inmate in writing or the mail is received in circumstances which indicate contamination or other imminent threat to health and safety.
2. Mail Room staff shall stamp all privileged mail "Legal Mail."
3. Staff shall deliver privileged mail to inmates Monday through Friday, and shall open the mail in the inmates' presence to intercept monies or other forms of contraband.
4. An Incident Report shall be written if contraband is found in privileged mail. The sender shall be notified by the Chief Jailer or designee that the contraband has been seized. If contraband is seized, the seizing staff member shall promptly deliver it to the watch commander for determination of appropriate action(s). The chain of custody shall be properly maintained.
5. Contraband that is legal outside correctional institutions shall be returned to the sender unless perishable. Perishables shall be disposed of.
6. Outgoing privileged mail shall not be opened, but may be held for a reasonable time not to exceed seventy-two (72) hours pending verification that is properly addressed to a person or agency, which falls under the privilege category (judges, the courts, etc.).
E. Outgoing Mail Procedures
1. Inmates are permitted unlimited and uncensored correspondence with anyone, with the exception of other inmates. Outgoing mail shall not be limited, unless such mail violates standard operating procedures, federal or state laws, or by court order.
2. Outgoing mail may be opened and the contents inspected to determine if:
a. The mail contains threats of physical harm against a person or threats of criminal activity;
b. The mail threatens blackmail or extortion;
c. The mail contains plans of escape;
Effective January 4, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21-1 Filed 03/25/08 Page 5 of 7

Subject: Inmate Mail Procedures

olicy No. 3000-01

Page 5 of7

d. Themail consists of activity violating jail rules and regulations;
e. The mail is in code; or
f. Themail contains information that, if communicated, would create a clear and present danger of violence and physical harm to humans.
3. The Chief Jailer or designee shall inspect outgoing mail suspected of containing security threats or contraband. The Chief Jailer or designee shall initiate a formal investigation, and the evidence shall be processed in accordance with SOP 10.3, Property and
4. Outgoing mail will be collected once a day by staff, and is delivered to the Post Office daily except for weekends and holidays.
F. Incoming Mail
I. Mail shall not be held for more than twenty-four (24) hours, excluding weekends and holidays.
2. Incoming mail shall be monitored to determine any escape attempts, security or other rule violations or a conspiracy to introduce contraband into the facility.
3. Postal money orders received through the mail shall be taken to the inmate for signature. The money order will then be posted to the inmate's account, and the inmate shall receive a receipt for the transaction.
4. Money orders for inmates housed injail annexes [Bellwood, etc.], shall have their money orders stamped "For Deposit Only," posted to their account, and the inmate shall receive a receipt for the transaction.
5. All incoming inmate mail shall be matched with the inmate's booking number and housing location before delivery. Inmates that are no longer in the Fulton County Jail will have their correspondence stamped "Return to Sender" and it will be returned to the Postal Office.
6. Certified or registered mail is also picked up by the mail staff. Certified and registered mail is processed in the same manner as all other incoming mail.
7. An Incident Report shall be written by mail room staff if contraband is discovered in incoming mail. The Chief Jailer shall be notified, and the processing of evidence shall be in accordance with SOP 10.03, Property and Evidence Control. The sender shall be notified regarding the discovery of contraband and the mode of notifying the sender shall depend on the nature of the seized contraband, i,e., letter, phone call, etc. Notification may be deferred if deemed appropriate in the course of a further investigation of the
Effective January 4, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21-1 Filed 03/25/08 Page 6 of 7

Subject: Inmate Mall Procedures

Policy No. 3000-01

Page 6 of7

circumstances.
8. Contraband that is legal outside of correctional institutions shall be returned to the sender unless perishable. Perishables shall be disposed of.
9. A log of all registered, insured and certified mail shall be maintained by Mail Room staff.
G. Rejection of Mail
1. Inmates shall be notified via Rejected Mail Notification Form when incoming or outgoing mail is rejected.
2. Reasons for rejection of mail may include, but are not limited to:
a. Themail contains threats of physical harm against a person or threats of criminal activity;
b. Themail threatens blackmail or extortion; c. The mail contains plans for escape; d. The mail concerns activities violating jail rules and regulations; e. The mail is in code; or f. The mail contains information that, if communicated, would create a clear and present
danger of violence and physical harm to persons.
H. Returned Mail Procedures
I. Inmate mail returned to by the Post Office due to insufficient postage or an incorrect address shall be returned to the inmate.
2. Mail received for inmates no longer in custody at the Fulton County Jail shall be returned to the sender.
I. Publications
I. Books (soft cover only), magazines, and newspapers may be received ONLY if shipped directly from the publisher. Walden Books, Barnes & Noble, Borders, etc., are NOT publishers. Hard cover books will not be received, regardless of the source.
2. Books, magazines, and newspapers for inmates shall not be accepted via the mail from any other source. The only exception is for religious publications (soft covered), provided by approved religious groups. Copies of books or publications, etc., shall not be accepted.
3. Inmates may also obtain publications from the Perusal Library.
4. Each inmate may retain no more than a total offour (4) soft-covered reading materials in his/her cell, e.g., two (2) magazines and two (2) books.
Effective January 4, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 21-1 Filed 03/25/08 Page 7 of 7

Subject: Inmate Mail Procedures

Policy No. 3000-01

Page 7 of7

Note: Dictionaries, religious publications and other prior approved program books are not included in this total.
5. Inmates are not pennitted to accumulate printed materials, or other mail in an excessive amount, as this may pose a fire hazard.
J. Packages
All packages shall be inspected for contraband.
VI. Review
This policy shall be reviewed at least annually.

Effective January 4, 2008

 
 Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 73 Filed 07/13/09 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA and MYRON FREEMAN, individually and in his official capacity as Fulton County Sheriff,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-2618-CAP

O R D E R

This matter is before the court on defendants Fulton County

and Fulton County Sheriff Myron Freeman’s motion for summary

judgment [Doc. No. 52] and plaintiff Prison Legal News’s (“PLN”)

cross-motion for partial summary judgment [Doc. No. 50].

I. Statement of Facts

PLN is an independent, monthly magazine that has subscribers

who are incarcerated in the Fulton County Jail (“Jail”). In 2007,

PLN filed this lawsuit challenging the Jail’s old mail policy.

According to PLN, the old mail policy, which this court declared unconstitutional in 2002,1 prevented inmates from receiving PLN’s

publication.

Freeman’s predecessor, Jacquelyn Barrett, promulgated the old

mail policy, and Freeman retained the policy in a general order on

1 See Daker v. Barrett, No. 1:00-CV-1065-RWS (N.D. Ga. July 22, 2002).

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 73 Filed 07/13/09 Page 2 of 13
January 3, 2005. Freeman’s general order adopted all of the existing policies of the Fulton County Sheriff’s Department that were in place prior to his taking office. Freeman was not aware that the old mail policy was unconstitutional when he signed the general order. The defendants claim that Freeman issued this order because he wanted to maintain a sense of continuity for his employees and pre serve the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office’s accreditation with the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (“CALEA”). Moreover, he believed that this accreditation signified that the Sheriff’s Office complied with all applicable laws and standards. However, sometime prior to May 2007, Freeman’s legal counsel told him that the Jail’s old mail policy was unconstitutional.2
On December 18, 2007, PLN moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from continuing to enforce the old mail policy. On December 20, 2007, Freeman modified the Jail’s mail policy (“new mail policy”). On February, 4 2008, this court granted PLN’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Freeman
2 The plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts [Doc. No. 50-3] appears to indicate that defendant Freeman learned in 2005 that the old mail policy was unconstitutional, but page nineteen of defendant Freeman’s deposition, from which the plaintiff gets this date, indicates that the year was actually 2007, as does the remainder of the plaintiff’s document. Therefore, the court will regard the “2005” date as a typo and follow the 2007 date.
2

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 73 Filed 07/13/09 Page 3 of 13
from using the old mail policy and requiring Freeman to enforce the new mail policy.
On September 2, 2008, the defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss all of PLN’s claims. PLN has conceded its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as well as its claims against Fulton County and Freeman in his official capacity [Doc. No. 55 n.1 at 1–2]; therefore the defendants are entitled to judgment on those claims. As to PLN’s remaining claims for compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages against Freeman in his individual capacity as Fulton County Sheriff, the defendants argue that Freeman is entitled to qualified immunity. The defendants also argue that during the period before Freeman implemented the new mail policy, the old mail policy was still the official rule but the actual custom in the mail room was to disregard the old mail policy and to allow mail sent directly from publishers.3 The defendants argue that PLN fell into the category of authorized mail.
Also on September 2, 2008, PLN filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on its individual liability claims for
3 According to defendants the custom in the mail room was to allow mail if it came directly from the publisher. The mail room workers tried to determine the origin of the sender’s address by doing internet, phone, and other types of research
3

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 73 Filed 07/13/09 Page 4 of 13
nominal damages against Freeman.4 PLN claims that Freeman is not entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity as Fulton County Sheriff because he failed to follow clearly established law relating to PLN’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Furthermore, PLN disputes both the existence and the constitutionality of the alleged custom in the mail room. II. Legal Analysis
A. Summary Judgment Standard Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a court to enter summary judgment when all “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that no dispute exists as to any material fact. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. , 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). This burden is discharged by “‘showing’--that is, pointing out to the district court--that there is an absence of evidence to support [an essential element of] the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). In determining whether the moving party has met its burden, a district court must view the
4 PLN is not moving for summary judgment on its claims for compensatory and punitive damages.
4

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 73 Filed 07/13/09 Page 5 of 13
evidence and all factual inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Johnson v. Clifton, 74 F.3d 1087, 1090 (11th Cir. 1996). Once the moving party has adequately supported its motion, the nonmovant has the burden of showing that summary judgment is improper by coming forward with specific facts showing a genuine dispute. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
In deciding a summary judgment motion, the court's function is not to resolve issues of material fact, but rather to determine whether there are any such issues to be tried. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (1986). The applicable substantive law will identify those facts that are material. Id. at 248. Facts that are disputed, but which do not affect the outcome of the case, are not material and thus will not preclude the entry of summary judgment. Id.
Genuine disputes are those in which “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. In order for factual issues to be “genuine” they must have a real basis in the record. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. When the record as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmovant, there is no “genuine issue for trial.” Id. (citations omitted).
5

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 73 Filed 07/13/09 Page 6 of 13
B. Qualified Immunity Standard Qualified immunity gives government officials immunity from civil suit for damages so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Amnesty International v. Battle, 559 F.3d 1170, 1181 (11th Cir. 2009). A right is clearly established if “previous case law [has] . . . developed it in a concrete factual context so as to make it obvious to a reasonable government actor that his [or her] actions violate federal law.” GJR Investments v. County of Escambia, Florida, 132 F.3d 1359, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998). In the Eleventh Circuit, a right is clearly established, and therefore obvious to the reasonable official, if it can be found in the case law of the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, or the highest court in the state where the event occurred. Amnesty International , 559 F.3d at 1184. Abrogating immunity only when an official has violated clearly established law balances the need for government officials to be able to reasonably perform their discretionary duties free from harassment and the need for citizens to be able to seek redress if officia ls violate their statutory or constitutional rights. See GJR Investments, 132 F.3d at 1366. In 2001, the Supreme Court developed a rigid two-step analysis for deciding if a government official is entitled to qualified immunity. Pearson v. Callahan, ____ U.S. ____, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815
6

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 73 Filed 07/13/09 Page 7 of 13

(2009). First, a court considering a qualified immunity claim had

to determine whether the plaintiff was exercising a statutory or

constitutional right and whether the government official infringed

that right. Amnesty International, 559 F.3d at 1181. Second, the

court had to determine if the statutory or constitutional right was

clearly established at the time the event occurred. Id.

This rigid analysis proved impractical, so the Supreme Court

has recently ruled that a court considering a qualified immunity

claim is no longer required to follow this sequence. SeePearson,

129 S.Ct. at 818. Instead, the

court should now use its

discretion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case at

hand, to determine the best method for using the two steps in

deciding whether a gover nment official has violated a clearly

established statutory or constitutional right. See id.

C. The Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment as to PLN’s

Remaining Claims Against Freeman in His Individual Capacity

The issue before the court is whether Freeman is entitled to

qualified immunity as to claims brought against him in his

individual capacity. The defendants argue that while PLN may have

a First Amendment right to distribute literature to prison inmates,

Freeman did not violate that right. Furthermore, the defendants

argue that a reasonable person in Freeman’s position would not have

understood that Freeman’s actions violated clearly established law.

7

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 73 Filed 07/13/09 Page 8 of 13

Therefore, according to the defendants, Freeman is entitled to

qualified immunity.

1. Was PLN exercising a clearly established

constitutional right by sending its newsletter to inmates

at the Fulton County Jail?

PLN alleges that the Jail’s old mail policy, which completely

banned inmates from receiving nonreligious subscriptions, was an

unconstitutional violation of its First Amendment right to

communicate with inmates. The Supreme Court has recognized that

“prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from

the protections of the Constitution, nor do they bar free citizens

from exercising their own constitutional rights by reaching out to

those on the ‘inside.’” Thornburgh v. Abbott , 490 U.S. 401, 406

(1989). The Supreme Court

has also recognized that the

constitutional right to “reach out” to prison inmates extends to

publishers. Id. at 408. Therefore, PLN has a clearly established

constitutional right to send inmates its subscription newsletter.

The court notes that this is not an unlimited right, and a mail

policy that prevented PLN from s ending items that could prove to

be a security risk such as pornography or violent materials would

not be unconstitutional. See id. at 413 (“Such regulations are

‘valid if [they are] reasonably related to legitimate penological

interests.’” (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987))).

8

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 73 Filed 07/13/09 Page 9 of 13
2. Did Freeman’s actions violate PLN’s clearly established right? The defendants argue that a reasonable official in Freeman’s position would not have understood that his actions violated PLN’s constitutional rights. The defendants base this argument on Freeman’s belief that the Jail’s CALEA accreditation implied that the Jail conformed to all applicable laws and standards. The defendant’s argument fundamentally misinterprets the qualified immunity standard. Government officials have a duty to not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights; a duty that includes being aware of all previous case law that established such statutory and constitutional rights. See GJR Investments, 132 F.3d at 1366. Freeman’s reliance on the Jail’s CALEA accreditation as proof of statutory and constitutional compliance was a subjective belief that did not satisfy this standard. PLN’s right was clearly established in Thornburgh , therefore an objectively reasonable official in Freeman’s position would have been aware of the right. SeeAmnesty International, 559 F.3d at 1184. Furthermore, this court had already determined that the Jail’s old mail policy was unconstitutional in 2002, 3 years before Freeman took office. See Daker v. Barrett , NO. 1:00-CV1065-RWS (July 22, 2002). The fact that Freeman signed a blanket order adopting all of the Jail’s policies and was not specifically
9

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 73 Filed 07/13/09 Page 10 of 13
aware of the unconstitutional mail policy is irrelevant. As sheriff, Freeman was responsible for the constitutionality of all of the Jail’s policies; thus, because the mail policy was unconstitutional when Freeman retained it in his 2005 general order, he is responsible for any constitutional violations that resulted from the policy after he took office.
A factual dispute remains, however, as to whether Freeman’s actions actually violated PLN’s right. The defendants argue that Freeman did not violate PLN’s right because the mail room staff ignored the unconstitutional old mail policy and instead followed a custom of delivering mail that came directly from publishers, which included PLN’s newsletter. Therefore, if the mail room staff was ignoring the unconstitutional old mail policy and delivering PLN’s newsletters, then PLN did not suffer any actual constitutional infringement. PLN, on the other hand, argues that there was no such custom in the mail room and that several of its subscribers did not receive their PLN newsletter.
The record neither sufficiently supports the existence of this alleged alternative custom nor sufficiently establishes that inmates were receiving their newsletters. To support the argument that a constitutional custom existed, the defendants cite the depositions of four officers who worked in the mail room or had some knowledge of the mail room’s activities during the period in
10

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 73 Filed 07/13/09 Page 11 of 13

question. These depositions do not clearly support a general

custom, and actually suggest a disorganized system based on the

officers’ observations and verbal directions from superiors about

how to handle incoming mail. Furthermore, three different inmates

testified that they had subscriptions to PLN during the period in

question but rarely if ever rece ived their copies of PLN’s

newsletters.

The factual discrepancies between the parties’ arguments

create a genuine issue of

material fact concer ning whether

Freeman’s actions violated PLN’s constitutional right. Viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to PLN (the nonmovant on the

qualified immunity issue), a reasonable jury could find that a

constitutionally adequate custom did not exist in the mail room and

that PLN’s newsletters were not reaching inmates in the Jail. This

would constitute a violation of PLN’s clearly established right.

Therefore, the defendants have not satisfied the burden of showing

that the record as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact

to find for PLN. See Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., 475 U.S.

at 586. As such, the defendants are not entitled to summary

judgment based on Freeman’s qualified immunity claim.

11

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 73 Filed 07/13/09 Page 12 of 13
D. PLN’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Claims for First and Fourteenth Amendment Violations PLN claims that Freeman violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by retaining the unconstitutional old mail policy. PLN claims that this action infringed its First Amendment right because it prevented PLN from exercising its right to “reach out” to prison inmates. Additionally, PLN claims that Freeman violated its Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by not notifying PLN that the old mail policy was curtailing its First Amendment right. PLN has not overcome its burden of production for summary judgment because of the same genuine issue of material fact at issue in the defendants’ motion. If there was a constitutional custom in the mail room that essentially overrode the unconstitutional old mail policy, then Freeman’s actions did not infringe PLN’s First Amendment right. If PLN’s First Amendment right was not violated, then it was not deprived of its due process right in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, PLN’s claims would be barred by qualified immunity. Alternatively, if no such custom existed or if it was only rarely followed, then Freeman’s actions did infringe PLN’s constitutional rights and Freeman would not be entitled to qualified immunity. Thus, PLN has not satisfied the burden of showing that the record as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find
12

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 73 Filed 07/13/09 Page 13 of 13
for the defendants. See Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. , 475 U.S. at 586. As such, PLN is not entitled to partial summary judgment on its claim for nominal damages. III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defend ants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 52]. As to PLN’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and claims against Fulton County and Freeman in his official capacity the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. As to PLN’s remaining claims for compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages against Freeman in his individual capacity as Fulton County Sheriff the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Additionally, PLN’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment on its individual liability claims for nominal damages against Freeman [Doc. No. 50] is DENIED.
This action will be scheduled for trial after the court receives the parties’ proposed pretrial orders. The parties are ORDERED to submit their proposed pretrial orders within 20 days of the date of this order.
SO ORDERED, this 13th day of July, 2009.
/s/ Charles A. Pannell, Jr. CHARLES A. PANNELL, JR. United States District Judge
13

 
 Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 83 Filed 11/09/09 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS,

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v.

)

)

)

FULTON COUNTY, GA and

)

SHERIFF MYRON FREEMAN,

)

Individually and in his official )

Capacity as Fulton County Sheriff )

)

Defendants.

)

___________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:07-CV-2618CAP

CONSENT JUDGMENT

It having appeared to this Court that the parties

have reached an agreement on the issue of liability and

damages exclusive of court costs and court-awarded

attorney’s fees, it is hereby Ordered that the Clerk of

Court enter Judgment on behalf of the Plantiff and against

the Defendants in an amount of Thirty Thousand Dollars

($30,000.00).

SO ORDERED this _9_t_h___day of ___N_o_v_e_m_b_e_r________, 2009.

_/_s_/_C_h_a_r_l_e_s__A_.__P_a_n_n_e_l_l_,__J_r_._____ Hon. Charles A. Pannell United States District Court Judge

 
 Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 98 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA and MYRON FREEMAN, individually and in his official capacity as Fulton County Sheriff,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-2618-CAP

O R D E R

This action is before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for

attorneys’ fees and expenses [Doc. No. 88].

I. Statement of Facts

The plaintiff in this matter is an independent, monthly

magazine, Prison Legal News (“PLN”) that has subscribers who are

incarcerated in the Fulton County Jail (“Jail”). PLN filed this

lawsuit challenging the Jail’s mail policy. According to PLN, the

policy that was in effect at the time the lawsuit was filed (“old

mail policy”), which was declared unconstitutional by this court in a 2002 ruling,1 prevented inmates from receiving its publication.

The defendants filed an answer to the lawsuit denying that the old

mail policy was unconstitutional [Doc. No. 4 at 5-6].

1 See Daker v. Barrett, No. 1:00-CV-1065-RWS (N.D. Ga. July 22, 2002).

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 98 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 11
On December 18, 2007, PLN moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from continuing to enforce the mail policy. On December 20, 2007, Defendant Freeman modified the mail policy (“new mail policy”), which defendants contend is constitutional. See Freeman Aff. at ¶ 4[Ex. A to Doc. 11]. Thus, the defendants argued that the motion for preliminary injunction became moot upon the adoption of the new mail policy.
The court conducted a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction at which the defendants conceded that the old mail policy that was in effect when this lawsuit was filed was unconstitutional. Despite this admission, the defendants continued to argue that no injunction should be issued. The plaintiff argued and the court agreed that an injunction was necessary to prevent the defendants from returning to the old mail policy. Accordingly, the motion for preliminary injunction was granted [Doc. No. 16].
The parties then engaged in discovery and eventually summary judgment motion practice. After the denial of their motion for summary judgment and the indication by the court that trial was imminent, the defendants settled this case in mediation. The case has been closed and all that remains for the court to consider is the plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and expenses. In sum, the defendants forced the plaintiff to litigate a case for nearly 2 years, when the central issue of the cause of action, the
2

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 98 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 11
validity of the Jail’s mail policy, had already be determined by this court years earlier. II. Attorneys’ Fees
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, prevailing parties in civil rights actions are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983). In this case, it is undisputed that the plaintiff was the prevailing party. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses.
In calculating a reasonable attorneys’ fee award, the court must multiply the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by the customary fee charged in the community for similar legal services to reach a sum commonly referred to as the “lodestar.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34; Norman v. Housing Authority, 836 F.2d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 1988). The court may then adjust the lodestar to reach a more appropriate attorneys’ fee, based on a variety of factors, including the novelty or difficulty of the question presented and the time and labor required. Association of Disabled Americans v. Neptune Designs, Inc., 469 F.3d 1357, 1359 n.1 (11th Cir. 2006).
3

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 98 Filed 03/17/10 Page 4 of 11
A. Hourly Rate The Eleventh Circuit provided the following instruction for determining a reasonable hourly rate for the attorneys involved in a case: [O]rdinarily there are no quotations for the prevailing market rate for a given attorney's services. Instead, the best information available to the court is usually a range of fees set by the market place, with the variants best explained by reference to an attorney's demonstrated skill. It is the job of the district court in a given case to interpolate the reasonable rate based on an analysis of the skills enumerated above which were exhibited by the attorney in the case at bar . . . . Norman, 836 F.2d at 1301. In this case, attorneys Brian Spears and Gerald Weber assert an hourly rate of $350 and $410, respectively. Additionally, the plaintiff indicates the use of a paralegal, Teresa Knight, whose hourly rate is asserted to be $95. Other than to point out that the two attorneys agreed to represent PLN without compensation, the defendant does not challenge the reasonableness of the hourly rates sought by the plaintiff. The court has reviewed the affidavits of Spears and Weber as well as the affidavit of Phillip E. Friduss. Given the relative skill of counsel and the prevailing rates in the Atlanta area at the time services were rendered, the court finds that the rates charged to plaintiff were reasonable. Also, the court finds the hourly rate of $95 for Ms. Knight to be reasonable. Accordingly,
4

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 98 Filed 03/17/10 Page 5 of 11

the court will utilize these rates to calculate the fee award in

this case.

B. Hours Expended

The plaintiff has set forth exhibits documenting the time

expended by both attorneys and the paralegal who worked on this

case. These totals are:

Brian Spears

198.75 hours

Gerald Weber

219.0 hours

Teresa Knight

53.33 hours

See Exs. A & B to Spears Dec. [Doc. No. 89]; Ex. B to Weber Dec.

[Doc. No. 90]; Second Weber Dec. [Doc. No. 97-3]; Supp. Spears Dec.

[Doc. No. 97-4].

As to the work performed, compensable activities include

pre-litigation services in preparation of filing the lawsuit,

background research and reading in complex cases, productive

attorney discussions and strategy sessions, negotiations, routine

activities such as making telephone calls and reading mail related

to the case, monitoring and enforcing the favorable judgment, and

even preparing and litigating the request for attorney's fees. See

City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 573 n.6 (1986) (allowing

compensation for productive attorney discussions and strategy

conferences); Webb v. Board of Education of Dyer County, Tenn., 471

U.S. 234, 243 (1985) (allowing compensation for pre-litigation

5

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 98 Filed 03/17/10 Page 6 of 11
services in preparation of suit); Cruz v. Hauck, 762 F.2d 1230, 1233-34 (5th Cir. 1985) (allowing compensation for preparing and litigating fee request); Adams v. Mathis, 752 F.2d 553, 554 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding that measures to enforce judgment are compensable); New York State Association for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1146 & n.5 (2d Cir. 1983) (allowing compensation for background research and reading in complex cases); Brewster v. Dukakis, 544 F.Supp. 1069, 1079 (D.Mass. 1982) (compensating for negotiation sessions), aff’d as modified, 786 F.2d 16, 21 (lst Cir. 1986); In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 611 F.Supp. 1296, 1321-48 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) (compensating routine activities such as telephone calls or reading mail that contribute to the litigation).
Reasonable travel time of the prevailing party's attorneys ordinarily is compensated on an hourly basis, although the rate may be reduced if no legal work was performed during travel. Johnson, 706 F.2d at 1208. As with attorneys’ work, the hours expended by paralegals, law clerks, and other paraprofessionals are also compensable to the extent these individuals are engaged in work traditionally performed by an attorney. Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285 (1989); Jean v. Nelson, 863 F.2d 759, 778 (11th Cir. 1988). In short, “with the exception of routine office overhead normally absorbed by the practicing attorney, all
6

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 98 Filed 03/17/10 Page 7 of 11
reasonable expenses incurred in case preparation, during the course of litigation, or as an aspect of settlement of the case may be taxed as costs under section 1988" and “the standard of reasonableness is to be given a liberal interpretation.” N.A.A.C.P. v. City of Evergreen, Alabama, 812 F.2d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 1987) (quoting Dowdell v. City of Apopka, Florida, 698 F.2d 1181, 1192 (11th Cir. 1983)).
The Eleventh Circuit has stated that its decisions regarding attorney's fees “contemplate a task-by-task examination of the hours billed” and that applicants should “show the time spent on the different claims.” ACLU v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 427, 429 (11th Cir. 1999). The Eleventh Circuit has also stated that where a fee application and supporting documents are voluminous, a district court is not required to engage in an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee award. Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 783 (11th Cir. 1994). In such cases, it is sufficient for the district court to determine the total number of hours devoted to the litigation and then reduce that figure by an across-the-board percentage reduction if such a reduction is warranted. Id. The Eleventh Circuit has even intimated that such a method may be the preferred course with a voluminous fee request to avoid waste of judicial resources. Id.
7

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 98 Filed 03/17/10 Page 8 of 11
The supporting documentation filed by the plaintiff does not allow the court to make a task-by-task analysis prescribed by the Eleventh Circuit. The time records submitted by the two attorneys and the paralegal are chronological listings of tasks performed by each. There are 684 individual entries in the time records. Many of the fee entries contain several different activities grouped together as one entry, making it nearly impossible for the court to decipher how much time was spent on each individual activity. There was no overall summary of the time counsel devoted to various stages of the litigation such as initial investigation, drafting the complaint, initiating discovery, responding to discovery, prehearing preparation, etc. Due to the lack of adequate summaries, the court cannot undertake a task-by-task analysis of the reasonableness of the hours recorded in the voluminous time records. Where a litigant submits a fee application that is too consolidated and vague to permit the district court to determine whether the hours claimed were reasonably spent, that applicant runs the risk that the fees sought will be reduced by the court. Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 327 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 516 U.S. 862 (1995). In such cases, courts have reduced entire fee applications, or portions thereof, by a stated percentage to accommodate for the deficiencies contained in the application. Mallinson-Montague v. Pocrnick, 224 F.3d 1224,
8

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 98 Filed 03/17/10 Page 9 of 11
1235 (10th Cir. 2000); George v. GTE Directories Corp., 114 F.Supp.2d 1281, 1292-93 (M.D. Fla. 2000).
In response to the motion for attorneys’ fees, the defendants argue that the number of hours expended in this case is excessive. In particular, the defendants point out that many of the activities billed for by Spears and Weber are duplicative. Moreover, the defendants question the need for two attorneys of the experience level of those involved in this case.
The court agrees with the defendants that, in light of the extensive experience and expertise of the two attorneys representing the plaintiff here, the number of hours expended is excessive. Accordingly, the court finds that the fee request should be reduced by thirty percent. The court is forced to resort to a percentage reduction because the submissions by the plaintiff do not allow a task-by-task analysis without an unreasonable investment of further time and judicial resources in this matter. The final fee request is for $164,418.85. Therefore, the lodestar amount is $115,093.20. C. Adjustment to the Lodestar
Once the lodestar is obtained, the court may then adjust it upwards or downwards. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434; Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984); Barnes, 168 F.3d at 427; Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302. The Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit have stated that
9

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 98 Filed 03/17/10 Page 10 of 11
while the adjustment may be based on a number of factors, the most important factor is the results obtained. Henslev, 461 U.S. at 434; Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302. The Supreme Court has warned, however, that upward adjustments are rarely warranted because the factors on which a prevailing party typically seeks an enhancement already have been considered by the court in determining the reasonable hourly rate:
Expanding on our earlier finding in Hensley that many of the Johnson[v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974)] factors “are subsumed within the initial calculation” of the lodestar, we specifically held in Blum that the “novelty [and] complexity of the issues,” “the special skill and experience of counsel,” the “quality of representation,” and the “results obtained” from the litigation are presumably fully reflected in the lodestar amount, and thus cannot serve as independent bases for increasing the basic fee award. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565 (1986). The plaintiff in this case does not seek an enhancement of the lodestar, and the court finds no basis for such enhancement However, the court does find that the degree of success and benefit to the public as a result of this case do warrant the award of the full lodestar amount. III. Expenses The plaintiff is seeking to recover expenses in the amount of $4,666.01. The only objection to this amount raised by the
10

Case 1:07-cv-02618-CAP Document 98 Filed 03/17/10 Page 11 of 11
defendants is that the amount listed as owing to Bay Mediation is more than the defendants were charged by Bay Mediation. In reply to the defendants’ opposition, the plaintiff has provided the court with the invoice it received from Bay Mediation as well as a copy of the check paying the full amount of the invoice. Because this evidence supports the amount sought in the plaintiff’s original motion, the court will not reduce the expense total. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to an award of $4,666.01 as expenses incurred in litigating this action. IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the court hereby GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion for costs, fees, and other expenses [Doc. No. 87]. Accordingly, the total amount awarded is $115,093.20 in attorneys’ fees, plus expenses in the amount of $4,666.01.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of March, 2010.
/s/ Charles A. Pannell, Jr. CHARLES A. PANNELL, JR. United States District Judge
11

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-2618 As of: 10/26/2017 11:34 PM EDT 1 of 11
4months,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07−cv−02618−CAP

Prison Legal News v. Fulton County, GA et al Assigned to: Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/22/2007 Date Terminated: 11/09/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Prison Legal News

represented by George Brian Spears Law Office of Brian Spears 1126 Ponce de Leon Avenue Atlanta, GA 30306 404−872−7086 Fax: 404−892−1128 Email: Bspears@mindspring.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald R. Weber Law Offices of Gerry Weber P.O. Box 5391 Atlanta, GA 31107 404−522−0507 Email: wgerryweber@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lance Weber Human Rights Defense Center P.O. Box 1151 1013 Lucerne Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−360−2523 Fax: . Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY

Sabarish Neelakanta Human Rights Defense Center P.O. Box 1151 1013 Lucerne Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−360−2523 Fax: . Email: sneelakanta@humanrightsdefensecenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason M. Beach Hunton & Williams LLP − Atlanta Bank of America Plaza, Suite 4100 600 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30308−2216 404−888−4000 Email: jbeach@hunton.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lawrence J. Bracken , II Hunton & Williams LLP − Atlanta

Case: 1:07-cv-2618 As of: 10/26/2017 11:34 PM EDT 2 of 11
Bank of America Plaza, Suite 4100 600 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30308−2216 404−888−4000 Email: lbracken@hunton.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Fulton County, GA

represented by Ashley Jenell Moore Palmer Fulton County Attorney's Office 141 Pryor Street, SW Suite 4038 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−612−0245 Fax: 404−730−6324 Email: Ashley.Palmer@fultoncountyga.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly Ann Alexander Office of Fulton County Attorney Fulton County Government Center 141 Pryor Street, S.W. Suite 4038 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−612−0255 Fax: 404−730−6324 Email: kimberly.alexander@fultoncountyga.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nikisha L. McDonald DeKalb County Law Department 1300 Commerce Dr. 5th Floor Decatur, GA 30030 404−371−3011 Fax: 404−371−3024 Email: nmcdonald@dekalbcountyga.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nwakaego Ijeoma Nkumeh Office of the Fulton County Attorney 141 Pryor St. Suite 4038 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−612−0286 Fax: 404−730−6540 Email: nnkumeh@kennesaw.edu TERMINATED: 02/04/2009
Rolesia Butler Dancy U.S. Department of Labor−ATL Office of the Solicitor 61 Forsyth Street, SW Room 7T10 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−302−5457 Fax: 404−302−5438 Email: dancy.rolesia@dol.gov TERMINATED: 03/02/2009
Steven E. Rosenberg Office of Fulton County Attorney

Case: 1:07-cv-2618 As of: 10/26/2017 11:34 PM EDT 3 of 11

141 Pryor Street, S.W. Suite 4038 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−730−7750 Email: STEVEN.ROSENBERG@CO.FULTON.GA.US TERMINATED: 01/24/2017

Defendant
Sheriff Myron Freeman individually

represented by Ashley Jenell Moore Palmer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nikisha L. McDonald (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nwakaego Ijeoma Nkumeh (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/04/2009

Rolesia Butler Dancy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/02/2009

Steven E. Rosenberg (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/24/2017

Defendant
Sheriff Theodore Jackson in is official capacity as Fulton County Sheriff

represented by Nikisha L. McDonald (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nwakaego Ijeoma Nkumeh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven E. Rosenberg Office of Fulton County Attorney Fulton County Government Center 141 Pryor Street, S.W. Suite 4038 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−730−7750 Email: STEVEN.ROSENBERG@CO.FULTON.GA.US TERMINATED: 01/24/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ashley Jenell Moore Palmer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kimberly Ann Alexander (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rolesia Butler Dancy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/02/2009

Case: 1:07-cv-2618 As of: 10/26/2017 11:34 PM EDT 4 of 11

Date Filed 10/22/2007
10/24/2007
10/24/2007
11/13/2007 12/14/2007 12/17/2007 12/17/2007 12/18/2007 01/07/2008 01/08/2008
01/08/2008 01/17/2008 01/23/2008 01/24/2008 01/24/2008 01/28/2008 01/29/2008

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed and summon(s) issued. Consent form to proceed before U.S. Magistrate and pretrial instructions provided. ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 570542.), filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Summons # 5 Civil Cover Sheet)(ekb) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 10/23/2007)
2 DOCUMENT FILING ERROR: Return of Service Executed by Prison Legal News. Fulton County, GA served. (Spears, George) Modified on 10/25/2007 to accurately reflect e−filed pleading − effectuation of service not shown on document (clk). (Entered: 10/24/2007)
3 DOCUMENT FILING ERROR: Return of Service Executed by Prison Legal News. Myron Freeman served. (Spears, George) Modified on 10/25/2007 to accurately reflect e−filed pleading − effectuation of service not shown on document (clk). (Entered: 10/24/2007)
4 ANSWER to 1 COMPLAINT by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman. Discovery ends on 4/11/2008.(Okparaeke, Nwakaego) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 11/13/2007)
5 Joint PRELIMINARY REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN filed by Prison Legal News, Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman. (Spears, George) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
6 NOTICE by Prison Legal News re 1 Complaint, Declaration of Paul Wright Under Penalty of Perjury (Spears, George) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
7 ORDER APPROVING 5 Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan, proceed with discovery. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 12/17/2007. (adg) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction with Brief In Support by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in support of Motion)(Spears, George) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
9 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response re: 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman. (Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
10 ORDER GRANTING 9 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. The defendants shall file a response to the plaintiffsmotion for preliminary injunction within 10 days from the date ofthis order. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 1/8/2008. (adg) Modified on 1/8/2008 to correct signature date (adg). (Entered: 01/08/2008)
Notification of Docket Correction re 10 Order on Motion for Extension of Time. Modified on 1/8/2008 to correct signature date. (adg) (Entered: 01/08/2008)
11 RESPONSE in Opposition re 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman. (Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
12 REPLY BRIEF in Support re 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit)(Spears, George) Modified on 1/24/2008 to correct docket text. (adg). (Entered: 01/23/2008)
Notification of Docket Correction re 12 Response in Support of Motion. Modified on 1/24/2008 to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed document as a Reply Brief. (adg) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
Submission of 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, submitted to District Judge Charles A. Pannell. (adg) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re: 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Motion Hearing set for 1/31/2007 09:30 AM in Courtroom 2307 before Judge Charles A. Pannell Jr.. (mam) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
13 REPLY BRIEF re 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Supplement to) filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits)(Spears, George) (Entered:

Case: 1:07-cv-2618 As of: 10/26/2017 11:34 PM EDT 5 of 11

01/31/2008 01/31/2008
02/04/2008
02/06/2008 02/16/2008 02/20/2008 02/22/2008 03/25/2008 04/14/2008 04/22/2008 04/28/2008 05/09/2008 05/10/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/14/2008 05/14/2008 05/14/2008

01/29/2008)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by Rolesia Butler Dancy on behalf of Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman (Dancy, Rolesia) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
15 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr: Motion Hearing held on 1/31/2008 re 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Prison Legal News. Court heard from counsel. Dft Verbally moved for court orderedmediation. Court will not order mediation at this time, but will considerat a later date. Written order to follow. Hearing Concluded. (Court Reporter Martha Fructhey.)(adg) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
16 ORDER GRANTING 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The defendants areHEREBY ENJOINED from the use of the old mail policy; the defendantsare REQUIRED to enforce the new mail policy; and the defendants areREQUIRED to notify the plaintiff and the court should it make anychange in the new mail policy.. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 2/4/2008. (adg) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
17 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 03/27/08−04/01/08, 5/16/08−5/20/08, by George Brian Spears. (Spears, George) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
18 Joint Certificate of Interested Persons by Prison Legal News. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 02/16/2008)
19 Joint MOTION to Stay Discovery, Rule 26 Disclosures, and the Filing of an Amended Complaint by Prison Legal News, Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman. (Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 02/20/2008)
20 ORDER GRANTING 19 Motion to Stay discovery, Rule 26 disclosures, and the filing of anamended complaint. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 2/22/2008. (adg) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
21 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit "A")(Spears, George) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 03/25/2008)
22 Amended ANSWER to 21 Amended Complaint by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman.(Okparaeke, Nwakaego) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain Pretrial Instructions. (Entered: 04/14/2008)
23 Initial Disclosures by Prison Legal News.(Spears, George) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
24 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 6/23/08−7/3/08, by George Brian Spears. (Spears, George) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
25 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment for Changes to Fulton County Jail Mail Policy by Prison Legal News, Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman. (Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
26 Initial Disclosures by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman.(Dancy, Rolesia) (Entered: 05/10/2008)
27 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Prison Legal News, Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Spears, George) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery (First Interrogatories, Request to Produce and Request to Admit) by Prison Legal News.(Spears, George) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
29 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of discovery to Defendant Freeman (hand delivered on 5−13−08) by Prison Legal News.(Spears, George) (Entered: 05/14/2008)
30 ORDER granting 27 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Discovery ends on 7/9/2008.. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 5/14/2008. (adg) (Entered: 05/14/2008)
31 ORDER APPROVING 25 Joint Consent Order Approving Proposed Changes to Fulton County Sheriff's Department Jail Bureau Policies and Procedures 3000−01. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 5/14/2008. (adg) (Entered: 05/14/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-2618 As of: 10/26/2017 11:34 PM EDT 6 of 11

05/21/2008 06/03/2008 06/11/2008 06/12/2008 06/17/2008 07/02/2008 07/09/2008 07/09/2008 07/10/2008 07/10/2008
07/17/2008 08/19/2008 08/20/2008 08/22/2008 08/25/2008 08/26/2008 08/27/2008

32 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): July 7−26, by Gerald R. Weber. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Discovery to Plaintiff by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman.(Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for Fulton County's Responses to Plaintiff's First Requests to Admit, Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents by Fulton County, GA.(Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
35 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Responses to Plaintiff's First Interrogtories, Requests for Admission, and Request for Production of Documents by Myron Freeman.(Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
36 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Paul Wright filed by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman (Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
37 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants' First Interrogatories and Requests for Production) by Prison Legal News.(Spears, George) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
38 Consent MOTION for Discovery (Final Depositions and Schedule) by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order (order))(Spears, George) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
39 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for Defendants' Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman.(Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
40 CERTIFICATE of Counsel (service of discovery) by George Brian Spears on behalf of Prison Legal News (Spears, George) (Entered: 07/10/2008)
41 CONSENT ORDER GRANTING 38 Motion Regarding Final Depositions and Schedule. Plaintiff is permitted to conduct the depositions of Major Banner and former Detention Officer Hester by on or before 7/23/2008; dispositive motions, if any, are to be filed not later than 8/20/2008; if no dispositive motions are filed by 8/20/2008, the parties shall file a consolidated proposed pretrial order with the Court by 8/30/2008; If a dispositive motion is filed by either party, then the parties are to file their consolidated proposed pretrial order by not later than thirty days following the entry of the Court's order. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 7/10/2008. (adg) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (interrogatory supplement) by Prison Legal News.(Spears, George) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
43 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time file dispositive motions by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order proposed order)(Spears, George) (Entered: 08/19/2008)
44 ORDER GRANTING 43 Motion for Extension of Time for filing dispositive motions to 8/30/2008. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 8/20/2008. (adg) (Entered: 08/20/2008)
45 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman. (Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
46 PROPOSED ORDER on Defendants' Motion to Exceed Page Limitation re: 45 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
47 ORDER GRANTING 45 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 8/26/2008. (adg) (Entered: 08/26/2008)
48 NOTICE Of Filing Original Discovery by Prison Legal News (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Banner deposition, # 2 Exhibit Banner exhibits, # 3 Exhibit Burkett deposition, # 4 Exhibit Freeman deposition, # 5 Exhibit Freeman exhibits 1, # 6 Exhibit Freeman exhibits 2, # 7 Exhibit Hester deposition, # 8 Exhibit Hester exhibits, # 9 Exhibit Simmons deposition, # 10 Exhibit Thomas deposition, # 11 Exhibit Thomas exhibits 1,

Case: 1:07-cv-2618 As of: 10/26/2017 11:34 PM EDT 7 of 11

08/29/2008 08/29/2008 08/29/2008 09/02/2008
09/02/2008
09/03/2008 09/08/2008 09/22/2008 09/22/2008 09/22/2008 09/22/2008 09/22/2008 09/22/2008 09/24/2008 10/09/2008

# 12 Exhibit Thomas exhibits 2, # 13 Exhibit Fulton County Response to Request to Produce, # 14 Exhibit Fulton County Response to Request to Admit, # 15 Exhibit Fulton County Response to Interrogatories, # 16 Exhibit Freeman's Response to Request to Produce, # 17 Exhibit Freeman Response to Request to Admit, # 18 Exhibit Freeman's Response to Interrogatories)(Spears, George) Modified on 8/29/2008 to correct docket text (adg). (Entered: 08/27/2008)
Notification of Docket Correction re 48 Notice of Filing. Modified on 8/29/2008 to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed document as a Notice of Filing Original Discovery. (adg) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
49 NOTICE Of Filing Original Discovery by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman (Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
51 DEPOSITION of PAUL WRIGHT taken on June 25, 2008 by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman.(adg) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Individual Liability for at Least Nominal Damages with Brief In Support by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Partial Summary Judgment, # 2 Statement of Material Facts SMF in support, # 3 Affidavit (Greathouse), # 4 Affidavit (Robinson), # 5 Affidavit (Wright), # 6 Affidavit (Robertson))(Spears, George) −−Please refer to http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain the Notice to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion form contained on the Court's website.−− Modified on 9/3/2008 to correct docket text (adg). (Entered: 09/02/2008)
52 MOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief In Support by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Material Facts, # 2 Brief)(Okparaeke, Nwakaego) −−Please refer to http://www.gand.uscourts.gov to obtain the Notice to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion form contained on the Court's website.−− (Entered: 09/02/2008)
53 Amended Initial Disclosures by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman.(Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
54 ORDER, the court has received the attached correspondence and enters this order for the purpose of including this correspondence on the record. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 9/8/2008. (adg) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
55 RESPONSE re 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Prison Legal News. (Spears, George) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
56 Statement of Material Facts re 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Contested Material Facts) filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit exhibits)(Spears, George) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
57 Response to Statement of Material Facts re 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit exhibits)(Spears, George) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
58 RESPONSE in Opposition re 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Individual Liability for at Least Nominal Damages filed by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman. (Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
59 Response to Statement of Material Facts re 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Individual Liability for at Least Nominal Damages filed by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman. (Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
60 Statement of Material Facts re 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Individual Liability for at Least Nominal Damages filed by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman. (Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
61 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 10/15/08−10/17/08; 10/24/08−10/27/08; 11/3/08−11/4/08; 12/11/08−12/12/08; 12/30/08−1/6/09, by George Brian Spears. (Spears, George) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
62 REPLY BRIEF re 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Individual Liability for at Least Nominal Damages filed by Prison Legal News. (Spears, George) (Entered: 10/09/2008)

Case: 1:07-cv-2618 As of: 10/26/2017 11:34 PM EDT 8 of 11

10/09/2008 10/09/2008 10/10/2008 10/14/2008 01/19/2009 02/04/2009 02/09/2009
02/12/2009 03/02/2009 03/30/2009 06/09/2009 06/19/2009 07/13/2009
07/21/2009 07/21/2009 07/21/2009

63 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman.(Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
64 NOTICE by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman re 54 Order regarding David Robertson's 9/4/08 Letter to the Court (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Chief Edward McNeil)(Okparaeke, Nwakaego) (Entered: 10/09/2008)
Submission of 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Individual Liability for at Least Nominal Damages, submitted to District Judge Charles A. Pannell. (ank) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
Submission of 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment, submitted to District Judge Charles A. Pannell. (adg) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
65 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 3/20−3/21/2009; 3/27−3/28/2009; 4/16−4/19/2009; 5/17−5/20/2009; 7/10−7/13/2009, by George Brian Spears. (Spears, George) (Entered: 01/19/2009)
66 Certification of Consent to Substitution of Counsel. Nikisha L. McDonald replacing attorney Nwakaego Ijeoma Okparaeke. (McDonald, Nikisha) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
67 NOTICE of Filing (Supplemental Authority) re 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Individual Liability for at Least Nominal Damages, 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Prison Legal News (Attachments: # 1 Supplement (Bonner v. Outlaw, 8th Circuit Decision))(Weber, Gerald) Modified on 2/10/2009 to correct docket text (gar). (Entered: 02/09/2009)
68 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 3/5−3/6/09, by George Brian Spears. (Spears, George) (Entered: 02/12/2009)
69 Certification of Consent to Substitution of Counsel. Steven E. Rosenberg replacing attorney Rolesia Butler Dancy. (Rosenberg, Steven) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
70 NOTICE by Prison Legal News (Substitution of Sheriff−Defendant) (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
71 NOTICE of Second Notice of Supplemental Authority re 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, by Prison Legal News (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Spears, George) Modified on 6/10/2009 to add document link (rvb). (Entered: 06/09/2009)
72 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 7/31/09−8/3/09, 8/6/09−8/7/09, 8/28/09−9/2/09, 9/18/09−9/21/09, 10/2/09−10/6/09, 10/15/09−10/20/09, 10/23/09, 11/4/09−11/9/09, 11/20/09−11/23/09, by George Brian Spears. (Spears, George) Modified on 6/22/2009 to clarify dates (rvb). (Entered: 06/19/2009)
73 ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 52 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claim for injunctive and declaratory relief and claims against Fulton County and Freeman in his official capacity. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiff's claims for compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages against Freeman in his individual capacity as Fulton County Sheriff. Plaintiff's 50 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. This action will be scheduled for trial after the court receives the parties' pretrial order. The parties are ORDERED to submit their proposed pretrial orders within 20 days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 07/13/2009. (rvb) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
74 DOCUMENT FILING ERROR MOTION for Clarification re: 73 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment And/or Reconsideration by Prison Legal News. (Spears, George) Modified on 7/22/2009 (rvb). (Entered: 07/21/2009)
75 MOTION for Order for Court Ordered Mediation by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Spears, George) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
76 REDOCKETED #74 MOTION AS MOTION for Clarification and/or MOTION for Reconsideration re 73 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. by Prison Legal News. (rvb) (Entered: 07/22/2009)

Case: 1:07-cv-2618 As of: 10/26/2017 11:34 PM EDT 9 of 11

07/28/2009
07/28/2009 07/29/2009 07/30/2009
09/25/2009 10/08/2009 11/06/2009 11/09/2009 11/09/2009 11/12/2009 11/12/2009 11/18/2009 11/23/2009 12/17/2009 12/18/2009 12/18/2009
12/18/2009
12/18/2009

77 RESPONSE re 76 MOTION for Clarification re: 73 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Myron Freeman. (McDonald, Nikisha) Modified on 7/29/2009 to delete duplicative text (rvb). (Entered: 07/28/2009)
78 RESPONSE re 75 MOTION for Order Court Ordered Mediation filed by Myron Freeman. (McDonald, Nikisha) (Entered: 07/28/2009)
79 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Pretrial Order and for Court Ordered Mediation by Myron Freeman. (McDonald, Nikisha) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
80 ORDER granting 79 Motion for Order for Mediation and for Extension of Time to Submit Pretrial Order. The parties are hereby ORDERED to participate in non−binding mediation through a method of their mutual choosing and agreement by no later than 09/15/2009 and to report the outcome of the mediation by no later than 09/25/2009. It is further ORDERED that the time within which the parties are to submit their proposed pretrial order, in the event that mediation is not successful, has been extended to 10/15/2009. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 07/30/2009. (rvb) (Entered: 07/30/2009)
81 JOINT RESPONSE re 80 Order for Mediation filed by Theodore Jackson, Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman. (Rosenberg, Steven) Modified on 10/1/2009 to correct docket text (adg). (Entered: 09/25/2009)
Submission of 76 MOTION for Clarification and/or MOTION for Reconsideration re 73 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, submitted to District Judge Charles A. Pannell. (adg) (Entered: 10/08/2009)
82 PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER Consent Judgment. (Rosenberg, Steven) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
83 CONSENT JUDGMENT in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendants in the amount of $30,000.00. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 11/9/2009. (adg) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
Civil Case Terminated. (adg) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
84 BILL OF COSTS by Prison Legal News. (Spears, George) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
85 AFFIDAVIT re 84 Bill of Costs by Prison Legal News. (Spears, George) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
86 Costs Taxed in amount of $ 2,869.96 against Defendants (adg) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
87 MOTION for Costs and Fees by Prison Legal News. (Spears, George) (Entered: 11/23/2009)
Submission of 87 MOTION for Costs and Fees, submitted to District Judge Charles A. Pannell. (adg) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
88 BRIEF in Support of 87 Motion for Costs and Fees with Brief In Support by Prison Legal News. (Spears, George) Modified on 12/29/2009 to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (rvb). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
89 DECLARATION of Brian Spears in Support re 87 MOTION for Costs and Fees by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Exhibit "C")(Spears, George) Modified on 12/29/2009 to correct document link and to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (rvb). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
90 DECLARATION of Gerald Weber in Support re 87 MOTION for Costs and Fees by Prison Legal News. (Spears, George) Modified on 12/29/2009 to correct document link and to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (rvb). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
91 AFFIDAVIT of Phillip Friduss in Support re 87 MOTION for Costs and Fees by Prison Legal News. (Spears, George) Modified on 12/29/2009 to correct document link and to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (rvb). (Entered: 12/18/2009)

Case: 1:07-cv-2618 As of: 10/26/2017 11:34 PM EDT 10 of 11

12/18/2009
12/22/2009 12/29/2009
12/31/2009
01/04/2010
01/14/2010
01/25/2010
02/02/2010 03/17/2010 03/17/2010
04/02/2010 04/06/2010 04/09/2010 04/19/2010 04/26/2016 04/26/2016 05/05/2016

92 DECLARATION of Paul Wright in Support re 87 MOTION for Costs and Fees by Prison Legal News. (Spears, George) Modified on 12/29/2009 to correct document link and to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (rvb). (Entered: 12/18/2009)
93 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 2/4/10−2/8/10; 3/12/10−3/19/10; 5/27/10−6/6/10; 6/30/10−7/7/10, by George Brian Spears. (Spears, George) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
Notification of Docket Correction re 92 Affidavit in Support, 90 Affidavit in Support, 89 Affidavit in Support, 91 Affidavit in Support, 88 MOTION for Attorney Fees. Document 88 Motion was terminated since the document is a Brief in support of 87 Motion Costs and Fees. Affidavits 89 , 90 , 91 , and 92 are now correctly linked to 87 MOTION for Costs and Fees instead of 88 BRIEF in support. (rvb) (Entered: 12/29/2009)
94 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time for Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff's Motion for Costs and Fees re: 87 MOTION for Attorney Fees until January 14, 2010 by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman. (McDonald, Nikisha) Modified on 1/5/2010 to correct document link (rvb). (Entered: 12/31/2009)
95 ORDER granting 94 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's 87 Motion for Costs and Fees. Defendant's shall file a response to Plaintiff's Motion for Costs and Fees by no later than 1/14/2010. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr. on 01/04/2010. (rvb) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
96 RESPONSE in Opposition re 87 MOTION for Costs and Fees, 88 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Fulton County, GA, Myron Freeman. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Nwakaego Okparaeke, # 2 Affidavit of Nikisha L. McDonald)(McDonald, Nikisha) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
97 REPLY BRIEF re 87 MOTION for Costs and Fees filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Affidavit Gerald Weber, # 3 Affidavit Brian Spears)(Spears, George) Modified on 2/2/2010 to link to correct docket entry (adg). (Entered: 01/25/2010)
Notification of Docket Correction re 97 Reply Brief. Modified on 2/2/2010 to link to correct docket entry. (adg) (Entered: 02/02/2010)
98 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 87 Motion for Costs and Fees. The total amount awarded is $115,093.20 in attorneys fees, plus expenses in the amount of $4,666.01. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr. on 3/17/2010. (alc) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
99 CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants for $115,093.20 in attorneys fees, plus expenses in the amount of $4,666.01. (alc)−−Please refer to http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov to obtain an appeals jurisdiction checklist−− (Entered: 03/17/2010)
100 MOTION for Writ of Execution by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Spears, George) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
WRIT of Execution issued in the amount of $119,759.21. Original writ mailed to attorney George Spears via US Mail, CMRR. (adg) (Entered: 04/06/2010)
101 Certified Mail Returned Receipt re Writ Issued, delivered to the Office of Brian Spears on 4/7/2010. (adg) (adg). (Entered: 04/12/2010)
102 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT re 83 Consent Judgment, Writ Issued by Prison Legal News. (Spears, George) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
103 NOTICE by Fulton County, GA Regarding Proposed Implementation of New Mail Policy (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Affidavit Lt. Col Rueben Wingfield)(Alexander, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
104 NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly Ann Alexander on behalf of Fulton County, GA, Theodore Jackson (Alexander, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
105 APPLICATION for Admission of Lance Weber Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−6438388)by Prison Legal News. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered:

Case: 1:07-cv-2618 As of: 10/26/2017 11:34 PM EDT 11 of 11

05/05/2016 05/11/2016 05/12/2016 05/12/2016 05/20/2016 05/20/2016 05/23/2016 05/23/2016 06/07/2016 06/07/2016 06/08/2016 06/08/2016 06/24/2016 01/24/2017 01/24/2017

05/05/2016)
106 APPLICATION for Admission of Sabarish Neelakanta Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−6438428)by Prison Legal News. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
107 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): July 4−8,2016, Sept 12−16,2016, Nov 23−25, 2016 and Dec 26−30, 2016, by Kimberly Ann Alexander. (Alexander, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/11/2016)
108 NOTICE of Appearance by Lawrence J. Bracken, II on behalf of Prison Legal News (Bracken, Lawrence) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
109 NOTICE of Appearance by Jason M. Beach on behalf of Prison Legal News (Beach, Jason) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
RETURN of 105 APPLICATION for Admission of Lance Weber Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−6438388) to attorney for correction re: local counsel. (pb) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
RETURN of 106 APPLICATION for Admission of Sabarish Neelakanta Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−6438428) to attorney for correction re: local counsel. (pb) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
110 APPLICATION for Admission of Lance Weber Pro Hac Vice by Prison Legal News. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
111 APPLICATION for Admission of Neelakanta Sabarish Pro Hac Vice by Prison Legal News. (Weber, Gerald) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 110 APPLICATION for Admission of Lance Weber Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Lance Weber added appearing on behalf of Prison Legal News (pb) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 111 APPLICATION for Admission of Neelakanta Sabarish Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Sabarish Neelakanta added appearing on behalf of Prison Legal News (pb) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
112 ORDER granting 110 Application for Admission of Lance Weber Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 6/8/2016. (tcc) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
113 ORDER granting 111 Application for Admission of Neelakanta Sabarish Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr on 6/8/2016. (tcc) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
114 NOTICE Of Filing Plaintiff Prison Legal News' Objection to Defendant Fulton County's Unilateral Change to Court−Ordered Mail Policy by Prison Legal News re 103 Notice (Other) (Bracken, Lawrence) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
115 Certification of Consent to Substitution of Counsel. Ashley Jenell Moore Palmer replacing attorney Steven E. Rosenberg. (Palmer, Ashley) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
NOTICE of Undeliverable Electronic Mail re: 115 Notice of Substitution of Counsel. Mail returned for Lance Weber due to no longer employed with the agency. Electronic notification has been turned off. (aar) (Entered: 01/24/2017)