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

DMWEST #13240601 v1

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

Lisa Ells – Cal. Bar No. 243657*

Jenny S. Yelin – Cal. Bar No. 273601*

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & 

GRUNFELD LLP

50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105-2235

Telephone: (415) 433-6830

Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

lells@rbgg.com

jyelin@rbgg.com

Lance Weber – Fla. Bar No. 104550*

Sabarish Neelakanta – Fla. Bar No. 26623*

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

Post Office Box 1151

Lake Worth, Florida 33460-1151

Telephone: (561) 360-2523

Facsimile: (866) 735-7136

lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

sneelakanta@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

David J. Bodney

bodneyd@ballardspahr.com

Heather Todd Horrocks

horrocksh@ballardspahr.com

BALLARD SPAHR LLP

1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

Telephone: 602.798.5400

Facsimile: 602.798.5595

* Pro Hac Vice applications to be filed 

forthwith

Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Prison Legal News, a project of the Human 

Rights Defense Center,

Plaintiff,

v.

Charles L. Ryan, in his official capacity as 

Director of the Arizona Department of 

Corrections and in his individual capacity; 

Gail Rittenhouse, in her official capacity as 

Division Director, Support Services of the 

Arizona Department of Corrections and in

her individual capacity; Jeff Hood, in his 

NO. __________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND 

DAMAGES UNDER THE CIVIL 

RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 2

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

official capacity as Deputy Director of the 

Arizona Department of Corrections and in 

his official capacity; Alf Olson, in his 

official capacity as an employee of the 

Office of Publication Review of the Arizona 

Department of Corrections and in his 

individual capacity; and Does 1 to 20, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 3

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS (“PLN” or “Plaintiff”), a project of the 

Human Rights Defense Center, brings this action regarding Defendants’ censorship of 

four issues of its monthly publication mailed to prisoners in the Arizona Department of 

Corrections (“ADC”), in violation of PLN’s clearly established rights under the First and 

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendants have adopted and 

implemented mail policies and a pattern of practices that unconstitutionally prevent 

distribution of PLN’s eponymously named monthly publication. The censored issues 

contain articles that include non-salacious descriptions of sexual activity to make clear 

the factual basis for legal cases of interest to PLN’s readers. In particular, Defendants 

refuse to deliver issues of PLN’s monthly publication to subscribers in ADC facilities 

when those issues contain articles describing sexual contact between jail or prison guards 

and prisoners to which the prisoners did not consent.

2. Defendants’ mail policies and practices also do not afford constitutionally 

adequate notice and an opportunity to challenge Defendants’ censorship, in violation of 

PLN’s right to due process. Defendants’ actions violate PLN’s rights and the rights of 

others under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

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

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

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 

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

matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The Court has 

jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 57.

4. Venue is proper in the District of Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) 

because substantial acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District, 

including Defendants’ implementation of the challenged mail policies and practices, and 

because Defendants reside in this District.

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 4

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

PARTIES

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

Defense Center, a Washington non-profit corporation. PLN publishes a 72-page monthly 

journal of corrections news and analysis called Prison Legal News, and distributes books 

about the criminal justice system and legal issues affecting prisoners to prisoners, 

lawyers, courts, libraries, and the public throughout the country.

6. The Defendants listed below are sued in their official capacities only for 

equitable relief as to each and every violation of federal rights alleged in this complaint. 

Defendants are also sued in their individual capacities for damages.

7. Defendant CHARLES L. RYAN (“RYAN”) is, and at all relevant times 

herein mentioned was, the Director of the ADC, the state agency that manages the 

correctional facilities within the State of Arizona. Defendant RYAN has ultimate 

responsibility for the promulgation and implementation of ADC policies, procedures, and 

practices and for the management of the ADC. As to all claims presented herein against 

him, Defendant RYAN is being sued in his individual capacity for damages, and in his 

official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. At all relevant times, Defendant 

RYAN has acted under color of state law.

8. Defendant GAIL RITTENHOUSE is, and at all relevant times herein 

mentioned was, Division Director, Support Services of ADC. Defendant 

RITTENHOUSE is responsible for the promulgation and implementation of policies, 

procedures, and practices at the ADC. As to all claims presented herein against her, 

Defendant RITTENHOUSE is being sued in her individual capacity for damages, and in 

her official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. At all relevant times, 

Defendant RITTENHOUSE has acted under color of state law.

9. Defendant JEFF HOOD is, and at all relevant times herein mentioned was, 

Deputy Director of ADC. Defendant HOOD is responsible for the promulgation and 

implementation of policies, procedures, and practices at the ADC. As to all claims 

presented herein against him, Defendant HOOD is being sued in his individual capacity 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 4 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 5

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

for damages, and in his official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. At all 

relevant times, Defendant HOOD has acted under color of state law. 

10. Defendant ALF OLSON is, and at all relevant times herein mentioned was, 

an ADC employee who worked or works in the Office of Publication Review. Defendant 

OLSON is responsible for the promulgation and implementation of policies, procedures, 

and practices at the ADC. As to all claims presented herein against him, Defendant 

OLSON is being sued in his individual capacity for damages associated with clearly 

established federal rights, and in his official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. 

At all relevant times, Defendant OLSON has acted under color of state law.

11. The names and capacities of the persons sued as DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, 

herein are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Each of Defendants DOES 1 through 20 is 

or was employed by and is or was an agent of ADC when some or all of the challenged 

prisoner mail policies and practices were adopted and/or implemented. Each of 

Defendants DOES 1 through 20 is or was personally involved in the adoption and/or 

implementation of the ADC’s mail policies for prisoners, and/or is or was responsible for 

the hiring, screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, counseling, and/or 

control of the ADC staff who interpret and implement these prisoner mail policies. Each 

of Defendants DOES 1 through 20 is or was acting under color of state law. Each of 

Defendants DOES 1 through 20 is sued in his or her individual capacity for damages and 

his or her official capacity for injunctive and declaratory relief. PLN will seek to amend 

this Complaint as soon as the true names and identities of Defendants DOES 1 through 

20 have been ascertained.

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

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

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

their official duties as officers, employees or agents of the ADC. Each Defendant was or 

is an agent of each other Defendant in committing the unconstitutional acts alleged in this 

complaint.

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 5 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 6

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

13. Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS publishes and distributes Prison Legal 

News: Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights, a monthly journal of corrections news and 

analysis. PLN also publishes and distributes paperback books about the criminal justice 

system and legal issues impacting prisoners.

14. Prison Legal News has thousands of subscribers in the United States and 

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

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

approximately 2,600 correctional facilities across the United States, including institutions 

within the Federal Bureau of Prisons and all of the adult prisons of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

15. PLN also distributes approximately fifty (50) different books about the 

criminal justice system, legal reference books, and self-help books of interest to 

prisoners. These books are designed to foster a better understanding of criminal justice 

policies and to allow prisoners to educate themselves about related issues, such as legal 

research, how to write a business letter, health care issues, and similar topics. 

16. Plaintiff’s organizational purpose, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation,

is to disseminate legal information on issues affecting prisoners and their loved ones on 

the outside and to educate prisoners and the public about the destructive nature of racism, 

sexism, and the economic and social costs of prisons to society, among other purposes. 

17. For more than 25 years, the core of PLN’s mission has been public 

education, advocacy and outreach on behalf of, and for the purpose of assisting, prisoners 

who seek legal redress for infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed and other 

basic human rights. PLN’s mission, if realized, has a salutary effect on public safety.

18. PLN engages in core protected speech and expressive conduct on matters of 

public concern, such as the operations of corrections facilities, jail and prison conditions, 

prisoner health and safety, and prisoners’ rights. PLN regularly receives correspondence 

from prisoners in correctional facilities around the country, including ADC prisons, in 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 6 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 7

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

which they ask questions and report on jail or prison conditions.

19. Currently, PLN has ninety-seven (97) subscribers to its monthly publication 

at ADC facilities. Despite ADC’s recent censorship of issues of Prison Legal News, PLN 

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

journalistic avenues by sending its monthly publication to prisoners confined at ADC 

prisons.

Overview of Censorship and Lack of Due Process

20. Until approximately March 2014, ADC prisoners who subscribed to Prison 

Legal News or ordered other publications from PLN generally received those publications 

without incident.

21. Beginning in March 2014, Defendants began refusing to deliver certain 

issues of Prison Legal News to prisoner subscribers in the custody of ADC with more 

consistency. In particular, Defendants refused to deliver the March 2014, April 2014, 

July 2014, and October 2014 issues of Prison Legal News.

22. Defendants did not return the censored issues of Prison Legal News to 

PLN, nor did they provide any notice to PLN of their refusal to deliver the issues. PLN 

only learned of the censorship from its subscribers.

23. After PLN notified Defendant RYAN, the director of ADC, on February 6, 

2015 of the unlawful censorship of Prison Legal News in ADC facilities and of 

Defendants’ failure to provide due process to PLN, Defendants reconsidered some of 

their censorship decisions. But to date, Defendants have still not delivered the full, 

uncensored version of the October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News, and some prisoner 

subscribers never received copies of the other three previously censored issues that 

Defendants ultimately agreed to deliver after PLN protested the censorship. 

24. Moreover, in its February 6, 2015 letter to Defendants, PLN asked 

Defendants to identify all issues of Prison Legal News that it censored from March 2014 

to February 2015. Defendants informed PLN about three of the four issues they had 

censored, but never informed PLN that they censored the March 2014 issue. As alleged 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 7 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 8

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

infra, PLN later confirmed Defendants’ censorship of the March 2014 issue from another 

source.

25. ADC’s mail policies (a true and correct copy of which are attached hereto 

as Exhibit A) state that publications are “prohibited” in ADC facilities if they contain, 

inter alia, “depictions or descriptions that incite, aid, or abet riots, work stoppages, or 

means of resistance,” or “pictures, photographs, illustrations, text or other content that 

may encourage unacceptable sexual or hostile behaviors, or creates a hostile environment 

for volunteers, including but not limited to sexual representations of inmates, law 

enforcement, military, professional medical staff, teachers and Clergy.” Exhibit A, ADC 

DO 914.08, Policy Numbers 1.1.1; 1.1.18. ADC policies also prohibit publications with 

“sexually explicit material,” which is defined as “publications that contain any of the 

following acts and behaviors either visually, written, or in audio (non-lyric) form: (1) 

Physical contact by another person with a person’s unclothed genitals, pubic area, 

buttocks, or if such a person is a female, breast; (2) Sadomasochistic abuse; (3) Sexual 

intercourse, vaginal or anal, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality or sodomy; (4) Masturbation, 

excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals; (5) Incestuous sexual activity; 

(6) Sexual activity involving an unwilling participant, or a participant who is the subject 

of coercion, or any sexual activity involving children.” Exhibit A, ADC DO 914.07, 

Policy Number 1.2. 

26. Defendants’ policies do not contain an exception permitting delivery of 

publications that describe sexual acts in a non-salacious way as part of an article 

reporting on the facts of a court case or published legal decision, such as the articles in 

the issues of Prison Legal News that Defendants censored. 

27. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that ADC’s 

censorship policies and practices are widespread. In addition to their censorship of 

Prison Legal News, Defendants have also recently refused to deliver issues of 

publications such as Bloomberg Business, The Economist, National Geographic, and 

Newsweek to prisoner subscribers in ADC facilities. 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 8 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 9

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

28. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants’ 

policies and practices continue to deprive publishers such as PLN of any notice or 

opportunity to appeal when their publications are not delivered to prisoner subscribers.

Censorship of March 2014 Issue of Prison Legal News

29. On or about March 10, 2014, PLN mailed its March 2014 Prison Legal 

News publication to ninety-seven (97) of ADC prisoners in Defendants’ custody at the 

following ADC facilities: Arizona State Prison-Kingman; ASPC Aspen; ASPC Douglas; 

ASPC Eyman-Browning; ASPC Eyman-Cook; ASPC Eyman-Meadows; ASPC EymanRynning; ASPC Eyman-SMU; ASPC Florence Central; ASPC Florence East; ASPC 

Florence North Unit; ASPC Florence South; ASPC Lewis-Barchey; ASPC LewisBuckley; ASPC Lewis-Rast; ASPC Lewi-Stiner; ASPC Perryville-Lumley; ASPC 

Perryville-San Pedro; ASPC Perryville-Santa Cruz; ASPC Santa Maria; ASPC TucsonCimarron; ASPC Tucson-Manzanita; ASPC Tucson-Rincon; ASPC Tucson-Winchester; 

ASPC Winslow; ASPC Yuma-Cheyenne; ASPC Yuma-Cibola; ASPC Yuma-Dakota; 

Central Arizona Correctional Institute; Central Arizona Correctional Facility; and 

Florence Correctional Center. A true and correct copy of the March 2014 issue is 

attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

30. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that many of the 

prisoner subscribers incarcerated at the ADC facilities did not receive the March 2014 

issue of Prison Legal News. Several subscribers in ADC facilities wrote to Plaintiff to 

notify it that they did not receive the March 2014 issue, and/or sent Plaintiff copies of 

notices they received from Defendants informing them that the March 2014 issue was 

being withheld for purportedly violating Defendants’ mail policies. 

31. PLN has never received any notice from Defendants that the March 2014 

issue, or any article in it, would not be delivered or was not delivered to the addressed 

recipients, even after PLN asked Defendants to identify all issues of Prison Legal News

from March 2014 to February 2015 that were censored in ADC facilities.

32. In 2015, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) submitted a request 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 9 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 10

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

pursuant to the Arizona Public Records Law, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 39-121 et seq. to the 

ADC. The ADC, in response, produced to the ACLU a copy of an ADC “Notice of 

Result-Publication Review” dated May 9, 2014 (“May 9, 2014 Notice”), which excluded 

the March 2014 issue of Prison Legal News from distribution in ADC facilities. A true 

and correct copy of that notice is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

33. The May 9, 2014 Notice states that the March 2014 issue of Prison Legal 

News was excluded because of “Riots/Work Stoppages/Resistance,” and “Unacceptable 

Sexual or Hostile Behaviors,” and cites to Department Order (“DO”) 914.08, Policy 

Numbers 1.1.1 and 1.1.18 (see Exhibit A). The Notice does not specify which article(s) 

or page(s) of the March 2014 issue of Prison Legal News purportedly violated those 

policies.

34. There are no articles in the March 2014 issue of Prison Legal News which 

“incite, aid, or abet riots, work stoppages, or means of resistance,” or that “may 

encourage unacceptable sexual or hostile behaviors.” Exhibit A, DO 914.08, Policy 

Numbers 1.1.1 and 1.1.18. 

35. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the article in the 

March 2014 issue to which Defendants objected is on page 54 of the issue, and is entitled 

“Ninth Circuit Holds Staff Sexual Abuse Presumed Coercive; State Bears Burden of 

Rebutting Presumption.” See Exhibit B at 54. The article describes the facts underlying 

a Ninth Circuit reported decision, including a non-salacious description of sexual contact 

between a prison guard and a prisoner in an Idaho prison, to which the prisoner did not 

consent. 

36. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have 

never delivered the March 2014 issue to any PLN subscribers incarcerated in ADC 

facilities.

Censorship of April 2014 Issue of Prison Legal News

37. On or about April 4, 2014, PLN mailed its April 2014 Prison Legal News

publication to one-hundred and fourteen (114) ADC prisoners in Defendants’ custody at 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 10 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 11

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

the following ADC facilities: Arizona State Prison-Kingman; ASPC Aspen; ASPC 

Douglas; ASPC Eyman-Browning; ASPC Eyman-Cook; ASPC Eyman-Meadows; ASPC 

Eyman-Rynning; ASPC Eyman-SMU; ASPC Florence Central; ASPC Florence East; 

ASPC Florence North Unit; ASPC Florence South; ASPC Bachman; ASPC LewisBarchey; ASPC Lewis-Buckley; ASPC Lewis-Rast; ASPC Lewi-Stiner; ASPC 

Perryville-Lumley; ASPC Perryville-Piestewa; ASPC Perryville-San Pedro; ASPC 

Perryville-Santa Cruz; ASPC Santa Maria; ASPC Tucson-Cimarron; ASPC TucsonManzanita; ASPC Tucson-Rincon; ASPC Tucson-Winchester; ASPC Winslow; ASPC 

Yuma-Cheyenne; ASPC Yuma-Cibola; ASPC Yuma-Dakota; ASPC Phoenix-Alhambra; 

ASPC Safford-Tonto; Central Arizona Correctional Institute; Central Arizona 

Correctional Facility; and Florence Correctional Center. A true and correct copy of the 

April 2014 issue of PLN is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 

38. PLN did not receive any notice from Defendants that the April 2014 issue, 

or any article in it, would not be delivered or was not delivered to the addressed 

recipients.

39. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that many of the 

prisoner subscribers incarcerated at the ADC facilities did not receive the April 2014 

issue of Prison Legal News. Several subscribers in ADC facilities wrote to Plaintiff to 

notify it that they did not receive the April 2014 issue, and/or sent Plaintiff copies of 

notices they received from Defendants informing them that the April 2014 issue was 

being withheld for purportedly violating Defendants’ mail policies. 

40. On or about March 20, 2015, in response to a letter from PLN regarding the 

censorship of its publications in ADC facilities, Assistant Attorney General Pamela J. 

Linnins informed PLN that the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News had been excluded 

from ADC prisons. Ms. Linnins did not identify the reason for the censorship of the 

April 2014 issue.

41. In the same letter, Ms. Linnins also notified PLN that, after PLN objected 

to the censorship, Defendants had reconsidered their decision to withhold the April 2014 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 11 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 12

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

issue of Prison Legal News from distribution to subscribers in ADC facilities.

42. On or about May 26, 2015, after PLN sent a follow-up letter objecting to 

the censorship and requesting Defendants’ basis for doing so, Defendants provided PLN 

with a copy of the Notice of Result-Publication Review for the April 2014 issue of Prison 

Legal News, which had a “Review Date” of November 25, 2014 (“November 25, 2014 

Notice”). A true and correct copy of the November 25, 2014 Notice is attached hereto as 

Exhibit E.

43. The November 25, 2014 Notice states that the April 2014 issue of Prison 

Legal News was excluded from ADC facilities pursuant to DO 914.08, Policy Number 

1.1.18, “Unacceptable Sexual or Hostile Behaviors.” See Exhibit A. The Notice does 

not specify which article(s) or page(s) of the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News

purportedly violated those policies.

44. There are no articles in the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News that 

“may encourage unacceptable sexual or hostile behaviors.” Exhibit A, DO 914.08, 

Policy Number 1.1.18.

45. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the article in the 

April 2014 issue to which Defendants objected is on page 20 of the issue, and is entitled 

“Kitchen Supervisor Gets Prison Time for Sexually Abusing Two Prisoners.” See

Exhibit D at 20. The article describes the facts underlying a criminal case in the United 

States District Court for the District of Arizona, including a non-salacious description of 

non-consensual sexual contact between a prison kitchen supervisor and two prisoners in a 

federal prison in Arizona.

46. In the May 26, 2015 correspondence from Ms. Linnins, Defendants 

provided PLN with a copy of a follow-up Notice of Result-Publication Review for the 

April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News, with a “Review Date” of March 18, 2015 

(“March 18, 2015 Reconsideration Notice”). A true and correct copy of the March 18, 

2015 Reconsideration Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit F. The March 18, 2015 

Reconsideration Notice states that the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News would be 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 12 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 13

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

allowed.

47. On June 22, 2015, Defendants notified PLN that the April 2014 issue of 

Prison Legal News had been distributed to subscribers.

48. Plaintiff is informed and believed and thereon alleges that while some 

subscribers to Prison Legal News incarcerated in ADC prisons ultimately received their 

copies of the April 2014 issue, others never did, even though those subscribers remained 

in custody after the March 18, 2015 Reconsideration Notice and Defendants’ June 22, 

2015 confirmation that the issue had been delivered. 

49. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that some of 

the subscribers to Prison Legal News who were incarcerated in ADC facilities in April 

2014 never received the April 2014 issue of Prison Legal News because they were no 

longer in custody when Defendants decided to reverse their initial censorship decision 

approximately one year later.

Censorship of July 2014 Issue of Prison Legal News

50. On or about July 1, 2014, PLN mailed its July 2014 Prison Legal News

publication to one hundred and thirty-five (135) ADC prisoners in Defendants’ custody at 

the following ADC facilities: Arizona State Prison-Kingman; Arizona State Prison –

Kingman/Cerbat; ASPC Aspen; ASPC Douglas; ASPC Eyman-Browning; ASPC 

Eyman-Cook; ASPC Eyman-Meadows; ASPC Eyman-Rynning; ASPC Eyman-SMU; 

ASPC Florence – Globe Detention; ASPC Florence Central; ASPC Florence East; ASPC 

Florence North Unit; ASPC Florence South; ASPC Bachman; ASPC Lewis-Barchey; 

ASPC Lewis-Buckley; ASPC Lewis-Rast; ASPC Lewi-Stiner; ASPC Perryville-Lumley; 

ASPC Perryville-Piestewa; ASPC Perryville-San Pedro; ASPC Perryville-Santa Cruz; 

ASPC Santa Maria; ASPC Tucson-Cimarron; ASPC Tucson-Manzanita; ASPC TucsonRincon; ASPC Tucson-Winchester; ASPC Winslow; ASPC Yuma-Cheyenne; ASPC 

Yuma-Cibola; ASPC Yuma-Dakota; ASPC Phoenix-Alhambra; ASPC Safford-Tonto; 

Central Arizona Correctional Institute; Central Arizona Correctional Facility; and 

Florence Correctional Center. A true and correct copy of the July 2014 issue is attached 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 13 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 14

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

hereto as Exhibit G. 

51. PLN did not receive any notice from Defendants that the July 2014 issue, or 

any article in it, would not be delivered or was not delivered to the addressed recipients.

52. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that many of the 

prisoner subscribers incarcerated at the ADC facilities did not receive the July 2014 issue 

of Prison Legal News. Several subscribers in ADC facilities wrote to Plaintiff to notify it 

that they did not receive the July 2014 issue, and/or sent Plaintiff copies of notices they 

received from Defendants informing them that the July 2014 issue was being withheld for 

purportedly violating Defendants’ mail policies. 

53. On or about March 20, 2015, in response to a letter from PLN regarding the 

censorship of its publications in ADC facilities, Assistant Attorney General Pamela J. 

Linnins informed PLN that the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News had been excluded 

from ADC prisons. Ms. Linnins did not state the reason for the censorship of the July 

2014 issue.

54. Also in that letter, Ms. Linnins notified PLN that Defendants had 

reconsidered their decision to withhold the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News from 

distribution to subscribers in ADC facilities. 

55. On or about May 26, 2015, after PLN sent a follow-up letter objecting to 

the censorship and requesting Defendants’ basis for doing so, Defendants provided PLN 

with a copy of an undated “Complex Publications Review – Sexually Explicit Material” 

form (“Undated Complex Publications Review Form”) from the ASPC-Tucson facility 

for the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News, completed by an ADC staff member 

identified as “AA II Vasquez” from the “Complex-Level Publications Staff.” A true and 

correct copy of the Undated Complex Publications Review Form is attached hereto as 

Exhibit H.

56. The Undated Complex Publications Review Form states that the July 2014 

issue of Prison Legal News was excluded from ADC facilities pursuant to DO 914.07, 

Policy Numbers 1.1 through 1.2.2.6, which prohibit “publications that feature nudity 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 14 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 15

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

and/or sexual behaviors and/or the publication is promoted based on such depictions.” 

See Exhibit A. The Notice does not specify which article(s) or page(s) of the July 2014 

issue of Prison Legal News purportedly violated those policies.

57. There are no articles in the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News which 

“feature nudity and/or sexual behaviors,” and Prison Legal News is not “promoted based 

on such depictions.”

58. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the article in the 

July 2014 issue to which Defendants objected is on page 36 of the issue, and is entitled 

“New York Jail Guard Sentenced for Sexually Abusing Seven Prisoners.” See Exhibit G

at 36. The article describes the facts of a state criminal case and federal civil rights cases, 

including a non-salacious description of forced sexual contact between a jail guard and 

seven prisoners in a New York correctional facility.

59. In the May 26, 2015 correspondence from Ms. Linnins, Defendants 

provided PLN with a copy of a Memorandum from Defendant OLSON in the Office of 

Publication Review to a prisoner whose name was redacted, dated January 15, 2015 and

regarding “Prison Legal News, July 2014, V25 N7” (“January 15, 2015 Memorandum”). 

A true and correct copy of that Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit I.

60. The January 15, 2015 Memorandum notified the prisoner that upon second 

review, the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News was determined “not [to] contain 

material that meets the sexually explicit criteria,” that the “prior decision to exclude this 

publication is rescinded,” and that the publication “shall be distributed to those inmates 

who were to receive the edition.” Exhibit I (emphasis in original).

61. On June 22, 2015, Defendants notified PLN that the April 2014 issue of 

Prison Legal News had been distributed to subscribers.

62. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that while some 

subscribers to Prison Legal News incarcerated in ADC prisons received their copies of 

the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News, others did not, even though they remained in 

ADC custody after January 15, 2015 Memorandum and Defendants’ June 22, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 15 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 16

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

confirmation that the issue had been delivered. 

63. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some of the 

subscribers to Prison Legal News who were incarcerated in ADC facilities in July 2014 

never received the July 2014 issue of Prison Legal News because they were no longer in 

custody when Defendants decided to reverse their initial censorship decision 

approximately six months later.

Censorship of October 2014 Issue of Prison Legal News

64. On or about October 9, 2014, PLN mailed its October 2014 Prison Legal 

News publication to one hundred and forty-two (142) ADC prisoners in Defendants’ 

custody at the following ADC facilities: Arizona State Prison-Kingman; Arizona State 

Prison – Kingman/Cerbat; ASPC Aspen; ASPC Douglas; ASPC Eyman-Browning; 

ASPC Eyman-Cook; ASPC Eyman-Meadows; ASPC Eyman-Rynning; ASPC EymanSMU; ASPC Florence – Globe Detention; ASPC Florence Central; ASPC Florence East; 

ASPC Florence North Unit; ASPC Florence South; ASPC Bachman; ASPC LewisBarchey; ASPC Lewis-Buckley; ASPC Lewis-Rast; ASPC Lewi-Stiner; ASPC 

Perryville-Lumley; ASPC Perryville-Piestewa; ASPC Perryville-San Pedro; ASPC 

Perryville-Santa Cruz; ASPC Santa Maria; ASPC Tucson-Cimarron; ASPC TucsonManzanita; ASPC Tucson-Rincon; ASPC Tucson-Winchester; ASPC Winslow; ASPC 

Yuma-Cheyenne; ASPC Yuma-Cibola; ASPC Yuma-Dakota; ASPC Phoenix-Alhambra; 

ASPC Safford-Tonto; Central Arizona Correctional Institute; Central Arizona 

Correctional Facility; and Florence Correctional Center. A true and correct copy of the 

October 2014 issue is attached hereto as Exhibit J. 

65. PLN did not receive any notice from Defendants that the October 2014 

issue, or any article in it, would not be delivered or was not delivered to the addressed 

recipients.

66. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that many of the 

prisoner subscribers incarcerated at the ADC facilities did not receive the October 2014 

issue of Prison Legal News, and none of the prisoner subscribers incarcerated at the ADC 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 16 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 17

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

facilities received a full, unredacted copy of the October 2014 issue. Several subscribers 

in ADC facilities wrote to Plaintiff to notify it that they did not receive the October 2014 

issue, and/or sent Plaintiff copies of notices they received from Defendants informing 

them that the October 2014 issue was being withheld for purportedly violating 

Defendants’ mail policies.

67. On or about March 20, 2015, in response to a letter from PLN regarding the 

censorship of its publications in ADC facilities, Assistant Attorney General Pamela J. 

Linnins informed PLN that the October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News had been 

excluded from ADC prisons. Ms. Linnins did not state the reason for the censorship of 

the October 2014 issue.

68. On or about May 26, 2015, after PLN sent a follow-up letter objecting to 

the censorship and requesting Defendants’ basis for doing so, Defendants provided PLN 

with a copy of the Notice of Result-Publication Review for the October 2014 issue of

Prison Legal News, which had a “Review Date” of February 11, 2015 (“February 11, 

2015 Notice”). A true and correct copy of the February 11, 2015 Notice is attached 

hereto as Exhibit K.

69. The February 11, 2015 Notice states that the October 2014 issue of Prison 

Legal News was excluded from ADC facilities pursuant to DO 914.07, “Sexually Explicit 

Material.” See Exhibit A. The February 11, 2015 Notice does not specify which 

article(s) or page(s) of the October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News purportedly violated 

that policy.

70. On or about June 22, 2015, Defendants informed PLN that, after further 

review of the October 2014 issue, Defendants distributed a redacted version of the issue 

to subscribers. A true and correct copy of the page of the October 2014 issue with those 

redactions is attached hereto as Exhibit L. PLN did not authorize Defendants to make 

any redactions or modifications to its publication at any point.

71. The unredacted version of the article Defendants censored appears on page 

32 of the October 2014 issue, and is entitled “Tenth Circuit Holds ‘Consensual’ Sex 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 17 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 18

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

Defeats Prisoner’s Eighth Amendment Claim.” See Exhibit J at 32. The article 

describes the facts underlying an opinion by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Graham 

v. Sheriff of Logan County, 741 F.3d 1118 (10th Cir. 2013), including a non-salacious 

description of sexual contact between a prisoner in a county jail and two jail guards, to 

which the prisoner asserted she did not consent.

72. Defendants’ unauthorized redaction of the October 2014 issue violates 

Defendants’ own mail policies. ADC DO 914.06, Policy Number 1.12 prohibits ADC 

staff from “remov[ing] pages of any publication to make the publication acceptable,” 

because “[r]emoving pages alters the publication rendering it as contraband.” See

Exhibit A.

73. PLN has never received an updated Notice of Result-Publication Review 

for the October 2014 issue that indicates that the issue was delivered to subscribers, with 

or without the redactions. 

74. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some subscribers 

to Prison Legal News incarcerated in ADC prisons received copies of the redacted 

October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News between March 18, 2015 and June 22, 2015.

75. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some of the 

subscribers to Prison Legal News who were incarcerated in ADC facilities in October 

2014 never received the October 2014 issue of Prison Legal News because they were no 

longer in custody when Defendants decided to reverse their censorship decision. Plaintiff 

is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that additional subscribers may not 

have received the redacted issue, even though they remained in custody after March 18, 

2015.

Defendants Failed to Provide Due Process to PLN

76. Defendants did not provide PLN with constitutionally adequate due process 

when censoring PLN’s written speech. Defendants provided neither notice nor an 

opportunity to appeal the aforementioned censorship decisions at or shortly after the time 

they occurred.

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 18 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 19

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

77. Defendants failed to provide notice to PLN of the reason for rejecting 

issues of Prison Legal News by, among other inadequacies, failing to notify PLN directly 

of their refusal to deliver the issues to Prison Legal News subscribers in a timely fashion 

(or at all), failing to explain the basis for their censorship decisions or to identify the mail 

policies relied on at the time of the decision, and otherwise failing to give meaningful 

notice of the censorship. Even when Defendants notified PLN of the censorship months 

after it occurred, in response to inquiries from PLN, Defendants failed to identify specific 

articles or pages of the issues of Prison Legal News that they found objectionable, and 

failed to notify PLN that they had censored the March 2014 issue. At no time did 

Defendants provide an opportunity for PLN to appeal the rejection of its mail.

78. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants fail 

to provide notice and an opportunity to appeal to other senders of censored mail 

addressed to prisoners at the ADC prisons. 

79. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants fail 

to provide constitutionally adequate notice to some of the prisoner subscribers when 

ADC censors issues of Prison Legal News. Defendants also fail to provide the same 

prisoner subscribers with any opportunity to be heard to challenge the censorship 

decisions. 

ADC Policies and Practices Do Not Provide for Notice and Are Overbroad

80. ADC policies do not provide for any notice to be given to the publisher or 

sender when a publication or mailing is censored by ADC staff. Exhibit A, ADC DO 

914.02, Policy Number 1.7 specifies that “[u]nauthorized property or material discovered 

in incoming mail shall be removed,” and a “Notice to Sender of Rejection of Incoming 

Mail, Form 909-3, shall be completed and sent to the inmate.” The policy is explicit that 

the ADC “shall not pay for the cost of notifying the sender.” Exhibit A, ADC DO 

914.02, Policy Number 1.7 violates constitutional requirements regarding notice to 

senders of mail to prison prisoners.

81. Moreover, ADC policies explicitly prohibit appeals of “decisions to 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 19 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 20

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

exclude publications” from ADC facilities. Exhibit A, ADC DO 914.06, Policy Number 

1.13 states that “[p]reviously excluded Publications shall not be re-submitted for review 

or appeal under this Department Order.” Exhibit A, ADC DO 914.06, Policy Number 

1.13 violates constitutional requirements regarding due process for senders of mail to 

prison prisoners.

82. Similarly, while ADC DO 914.07, Policy Number 1.5 provides an 

opportunity for a prisoner recipient of a publication deemed to contain “Sexually Explicit 

Material” to request second-level review of ADC staff’s decision to exclude the 

publication, it has no such provision for the publisher or sender to request a second-level 

review. Exhibit A, ADC DO 914.07, Policy Number 1.5 violates constitutional 

requirements regarding due process for senders of mail to prison prisoners.

83. As noted above, Defendants’ policies prohibiting distribution of 

publications with sexual content do not contain any exception for discussion of sexual 

acts in a non-salacious manner for the purpose of discussing the facts underlying a 

reported decision or legal proceeding, and are therefore overbroad.

84. Allowing PLN to distribute publications with articles that contain a 

discussion of sexual acts in a non-salacious manner for the purpose of discussing the facts 

underlying a court case will not have any negative impact on the operation of ADC

facilities or programs.

85. Defendants’ mail policies, practices, and customs have been used to censor 

PLN’s correspondence with prisoners at ADC prisons, in particular PLN’s monthly 

publication.

86. Defendants’ conduct prohibiting distribution of at least four issues of 

Prison Legal News in a seven month period in 2014 to prisoners confined at ADC prisons 

violates the First Amendment. Defendants’ policies, practices and customs censor PLN’s 

expressive activities and have a chilling effect on PLN’s future speech and expression 

directed toward inmates confined there. Defendants’ policies, practices and customs are 

unconstitutional both facially and as applied to PLN. Defendants’ censorship of Prison 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 20 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 21

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

Legal News serves no legitimate penological purpose.

87. PLN publishes and distributes content concerning the rights of prisoners 

and the means by which they may obtain relief from unconstitutional conditions of 

confinement. As a result, PLN is informed and believes and thereon alleges that 

Defendants have retaliated against PLN by refusing to deliver PLN’s written materials to 

inmates held at ADC prisons.

88. Defendants’ actions have violated, continue to violate, and are reasonably 

expected in the future to violate PLN’s constitutional rights, and have caused Plaintiff 

financial harm in the form of lost subscriptions and diversion of resources to address the 

censorship. In addition, Defendants’ actions have frustrated Plaintiff’s mission of 

education and advocacy, including the dissemination of PLN’s political message, and the 

reporting and publishing of news regarding the human and legal rights of persons held in 

prisons and jails. Further, Defendants’ actions have interfered with PLN’s ability to 

recruit new donors, writers and supporters.

89. Defendants’ actions and inactions were and are malicious, oppressive, and 

were and are all committed under color of law with reckless disregard to PLN’s rights.

90. Defendants CHARLES L. RYAN, GAIL RITTENHOUSE, JEFF HOOD, 

ALF OLSON, DOES 1 to 20, and other agents of the ADC are responsible for or 

personally participated in creating and implementing these unconstitutional policies, 

practices, and customs, or for ratifying or adopting them. Further, Defendants are 

responsible for training and supervising the mail staff whose conduct has injured and 

continues to injure PLN.

91. Defendants’ unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs are ongoing, 

and continue to violate PLN’s rights. It is likely that Defendants will continue to censor 

future issues of Prison Legal News in violation of the First Amendment and without 

providing due process. As such, PLN has no adequate remedy at law. 

92. PLN is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from refusing to 

deliver its publication without any legal justification, and prohibiting Defendants from 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 21 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 22

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

censoring mail without due process of law.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Against all Defendants – For Violations of the First Amendment Under Color of 

State Law – Free Speech; Section 1983)

93. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every 

allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-92.

94. The acts described above constitute violations of Plaintiff’s rights under the 

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

caused and will continue to cause damages and irreparable injury to Plaintiff.

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

compensatory damages, against all Defendants.

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

the conduct alleged herein, the individual Defendants acted with the intent to injure, vex, 

annoy and harass Plaintiff, and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in 

conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intention of causing Plaintiff injury and 

depriving it of its constitutional rights.

97. As a result of the forgoing, Plaintiff seeks nominal and compensatory 

damages against Defendants in their individual capacities.

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

engaging in the conduct alleged herein, the individual Defendants’ actions were 

malicious, oppressive, and/or in reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, and therefore 

Plaintiff seeks exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants in their individual 

capacities.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Against all Defendants – For Violations of the Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment Under Color of State Law)

99. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every 

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 22 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 23

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

allegation set forth in paragraphs 1-98.

100. By failing to give Plaintiff sufficient notice of the censorship of its written 

speech, and by failing to give an opportunity to be heard with respect to that censorship, 

Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiff of liberty and property 

without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United 

States Constitution via 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

Plaintiff.

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

compensatory damages, against all Defendants.

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

engaging in the conduct alleged herein, the individual Defendants’ actions were 

malicious, oppressive, and/or in reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, and therefore 

Plaintiff seeks exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants in their individual 

capacities.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the Human Rights 

Defense Center, prays for judgment against Defendants CHARLES L. RYAN, in his 

official capacity as Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections and in his 

individual capacity; GAIL RITTENHOUSE, in her official capacity as Division Director, 

Support Services of the Arizona Department of Corrections and in her individual 

capacity; JEFF HOOD, in his official capacity as Deputy Director of the Arizona 

Department of Corrections and in his individual capacity; ALF OLSON, in his official 

capacity as an employee of the Office of Publication Review of the Arizona Department 

of Corrections and his individual capacity; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, as follows:

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

First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 23 of 24
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

DMWEST #13240601 v1 24

Ballard Spahr LLP

1 East Washington Street

Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

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

all persons acting in concert with them from further violating Plaintiff’s and other 

senders’ civil rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 

Constitution.

3. Nominal damages for each violation of Plaintiff’s rights by the Defendants.

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

5. Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

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

under other applicable law.

7. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 6th day of November, 2015.

BALLARD SPAHR LLP

By: /s/ David J. Bodney

David J. Bodney

bodneyd@ballardspahr.com

Heather Todd Horrocks

horrocksh@ballardspahr.com

1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555

Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

Case 2:15-cv-02245-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/15 Page 24 of 24