Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00343/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00343-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRIME, JUSTICE & AMERICA, INC., a )

California Corporation; and RAY ) 2:08-cv-343-GEB-EFB

HRDLICKA, an individual, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

PERRY L. RENIFF, in his official )

capacity of Sheriff of the County )

of Butte, California, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6),

arguing Plaintiffs have no First Amendment right to force Defendant

“to distribute copies of [Plaintiffs’] magazine to inmates in the

Butte County Jail who have never requested the magazine.” (Mot. at

1.) 

Defendant argues since Plaintiffs fail to allege that any

inmates at Butte County Jail requested their magazine, they do not

Case 2:08-cv-00343-TLN-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/06/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant argues in his reply brief that the California 2

Insurance Commissioner has opined that the “distribution of []

Plaintiffs’ publication, either directly or in bulk, is illegal,” and

that “this Court must defer to the Insurance Commissioner’s decision 

. . . .” (Reply at 4:24-8:27.) However, this issue is not reached

since “issues cannot be raised for the first time in a reply brief.”

Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1289 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000).

2

allege facts showing they have a First Amendment right to distribute

the magazine in the jail. (Mot. at 5:26-6:1, 8:27-9:4.) Plaintiffs

counter “[i]t has long been established that publishers have a First

Amendment right to communicate with prisoners by mail, in addition to

inmates’ First Amendment right to receive this mail.” (Opp’n at 5:1-

4.)

Since Defendant has not cited authority addressing the

situation at issue here, the motion is denied.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-00343-TLN-EFB Document 25 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 2