Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2018/FL/prison-legal-news-v-secretary-florida-dept-corrections-petition-writ-certiorari-appendix/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:24:40+00:00

Document:
Prison Legal News v. Jones, No.
the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
ed., Oxford Univ. Press 2006) (1890).
(allowing inmates to correspond with pen pals); id.
thwarting efforts to protect inmates and the public.
their release dates and offenses of conviction”); United States v.
Inmates also abuse correspondence privileges.
to kill her. See United States v. Adamson, No.
the Department has sought to prevent that abuse.
includes any type of call transferring. Fla. Admin.
that the call is coming from a Department prison. Id.
and records some inmate calls. Id. r. 33-602.205(1).
stamps as currency to pay for products or services.” Id.
generating revenue or profit while incarcerated.” Id. r.
phone activity. Id. r. 33-602.207(2).
when transferring a call to mask that clicking noise.
years in prison for his scheme. Id.
possessing firearms or other dangerous weapons, id.
the construction of or use of weapons,” id. r. 33501.401(3)(a).
correctional system or the safety of any person.” Id. r.
its admissibility by the Literature Review Committee.” Fla.
a particular issue from an inmate subscriber.
Material Rule, then it impounds that issue. Fla. Admin. Code r.
complies with the rule. Id. r. 33-501.401(5).
percent of the 7,000 subscribers, are Florida inmates.
law to the Department. See Prison Legal News v.
under the Department’s definition of three-way calling. See Fla.
became more widespread and more of a problem.
most recent five-year period for which there is data.
prison rules and commit crimes.
cash-for-stamps exchange services violated Rule (3)(l).
PLN did not appeal that ruling. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S.
the magazine and the reason for the impoundment.
findings for clear error. Proudfoot Consulting Co. v.
information packets by name only once in its 82-page initial brief.
publications. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681.
1200, 1208 (11th Cir. 2008).
Amendment right of access to its inmate subscribers.
First Amendment challenge to the impoundments.
Amendment decisions, mostly in other contexts.
the First Amendment to the impoundments.
109 S. Ct. 1874, 1879 (1989).
But that right is limited. See Lawson v.
535, 126 S. Ct. 2572, 2581 (2006) (plurality opinion).
that point time and time again. See, e.g., Overton v.
challenge.”); Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 408, 109 S. Ct.
urge us to go ahead and effectively do that ourselves.
deference under Turner. See, e.g., United States v.
video games to minors); Citizens United v. Fed.
Supreme Court decisions is the Supreme Court itself.
doubts about their continuing vitality.”); State Oil Co.
precedents.”); Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am.
Davila v. Gladden, 777 F.3d 1198, 1212-13 (11th Cir.
in light of recent Supreme Court decisions).
certain inmates from receiving publications. Id. at 524-25, 126 S.
matters is that the Beard Court did not water down Turner. Id.
government attorneys. Fla. Admin. Code r. 33.210.102(1)-(2).
content neutral, Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 415, 109 S.
penological interests,” Turner, 482 U.S. at 89, 107 S.
Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 415-16, 109 S. Ct. at 1883.
first factor) (quotation marks omitted); Singer v.
security in the future.”); Cal. First Amend. Coal. v.
pass regulations in anticipation of security problems”).
the pen pal is greatly reduced.” Id. (emphasis added).
litigation that the same types of ads do not present such a threat.
See Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir.
2224 (1984) (noting the uncertainty on that point).
See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526, 104 S. Ct.
establish a rational connection. See Perry, 664 F.3d at 1366.
criminal activity conducted over the phones.).
and friends, which can be critical for rehabilitation.
same companies that advertise in Prison Legal News.
Department’s penological interests. See McCorkle v.
book’s teachings about revenge and disobedience).
inmates’ contact with the public.
tempt them to use stamps for illegitimate purposes, is rational.
Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 404-05 & n.5, 418-19, 109 S.
construct a weapon. See Fla. Admin. Code r. 33- 501.401(3)(a), (c).
of regulations doing just that. See 490 U.S. at 404-05 & n.5, 41819, 109 S. Ct. at 1877 & n.5, 1884-85.
U.S. 342, 107 S. Ct. 2400 (1987)).
it could distribute “countless other books” to inmates).
v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 833 F.3d 890, 894-95 (8th Cir.
does not disfavor the Department.
U.S. at 90, 107 S. Ct. at 2262.
about the companies offering the prohibited services.
third factor favors the Department.
“an exaggerated response to prison concerns.” Id.
an accommodation just because others do. See Knight v.
rendered invalid the challenged prison policy).
Department of Corrections does not impound Prison Legal News.
reminding inmates not to use the prohibited services.
not alleviate security concerns. See id. at 419, 109 S.
interests. Turner, 482 U.S. at 91, 107 S. Ct. at 2262.
Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 420, 433 (10th Cir.
argument that magazines sent to subscribers are mass mailings.
publication . . . .”).
for the January issue. Due process does not demand that much.
decide whether that issue can be admitted into the prisons. Id.
assessments of the content of the particular communications”).
committee. Id. r. 33- 501.401(15)(a)(2).
failure to provide notice and sue them. No.
statutorily required to enforce. See Fla. Stat.
due process claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, ECF No. 258.
2015). This order continues to refer to the entity as PLN.
analysis of law, and verdict.
detailed process by which it may impound that mail.
[A] [p]ublication shall be rejected when . . .
cycled through the FDOC during this litigation, Kenneth S.
clause appeared under subsection (3)(l). See Fla. Admin. Code R.
to purchase inmate artwork. See Prison Legal News v.
leave to file a second amended complaint on February 19, 2013.
far too late, and the motion was denied.
trial. Moore Order 2 n.1.
magazine.” McDonough, 200 F. App’x at 875.
challenge to the Rule was moot.
opinion on its constitutionality.” Id.
provide an additional ground for rejection under (3)(l).
(3)(l) would also be rejected. Fla. Admin. Code R. 33501.401(3)(l) (emphasis added).
PLN initiated this suit on November 17, 2011.
First and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
opportunity to brief certain key issues. See ECF Nos.
evidence presented at trial. Most facts are undisputed.
8 The magazine was initially titled Prisoner’s Legal News. Tr.
officials. Tr. of Trial 32:23-33:9 (Jan. 5, 2015).
audience. Tr. of Trial 123:6-:10 (Jan. 5, 2015).
Trial 60:23-71:14 (Jan. 5, 2015).
inmate artwork; proscribed mostly by subsection (3)(l).
promoted prohibited services. Id. at 3.
security threat to the prisons. Moore Order 15.
not, as PLN claims, amended to “moot” the 2005 case.
Tr. of Trial 78:11-:22 (Jan. 6, 2015).
the revised Rule, did not reject Prison Legal News.
vigorously disputed what prompted these changes.
impounded since 2005. See Def.’s Trial Ex. 1; Pl.’s Trial Ex. 79.
September 2009 to the present.
such as renewed security concerns.
advertisements prohibited by subsection (3)(m).
previous security decisions. Tr. of Trial 19:12-:22 (Jan.
employs the latter. Tr. of Trial 19:12-:22 (Jan. 6, 2015).
stamps. Tr. of Trial 59:16-:18 (Jan. 6, 2015).
undermine these reasons all through trial.
FDOC. That means the system works, says PLN.
FDOC offers evidence to refute PLN’s argument.
First, Securus itself admits it is not 100% effective.
or else there would not be so many attempts.
15-16:25 (Jan. 6, 2015). So it goes.
dating back to January 2002); Def.’s Trial Ex. 7.
is necessary to see that.
advertisements averaged 15.07% of the publication.
2015). This Court has no reason to disbelieve Mr. Wright.
the promises made in the 2005 litigation. See, e.g., Tr.
censoring Prison Legal News for its editorial content).
to exclude Prison Legal News.
publication that informs prisoners of their rights.
services for stamps); Def.’s Trial Ex. 15.
Here, the more limited conclusion is the soundest.
security concerns. Tr. of Trial 69-147 (Jan. 7, 2015).
security, order, rehabilitative objectives, and safety.
constitute legitimate security risks. See Tr. of Trial 69147 (Jan. 7, 2015).
prisoner concierge services. Tr. of Trial 73:13-:21 (Jan.
invoking subsection (3)(m) to censor the publication.
Not all of PLN’s evidentiary arguments are duds.
their legitimate penological goals without banning it.
them that certain services are prohibited).
of the true recipient of a call. Tr. of Trial 197-200 (Jan.
end. Id.; see also Tr. of Trial 22:5-:10 (Jan. 6, 2015).
cell phone number with a Tallahassee area code).
40 stamps at any given time. Tr. of Trial 188:3-:4 (Jan.
Prison Legal News despite its censorship.
public, FDOC staff and inmates.
are attached to the copy sent to the LRC.15 Id.
every time would be minimally burdensome.
doing so infringes copyright protections.
of Prison Legal News, nor the issue’s total page count.
been provided to this Court by either party.
same publication pending review by the LRC. Fla.
impounded. This reduces duplicative efforts.
grounds as the initial institution.
Goodman, has been working there since at least 2009.
from 2009 to the present. See Def.’s Trial Ex. 5.
every issue since 2009. PLN is absolutely correct.
This Court finds in favor of PLN on these facts.
(Jan. 5, 2015). From November 2009 to June 2013, Mr.
November 2009 to May 2013. Tr. of Trial 257-263 (Jan.
from the FDOC for many of those months. See, e.g., Tr.
Legal News without notifying PLN. ECF No. 241, at 9.
PLN had an opportunity to appeal. Id.
to its inmates by PLN. See Tr. of Trial 261-262 (Jan.
5, 2015); Tr. of Trial 4-5 (Jan. 8, 2015); Pl.’s Trial Ex.
46; Pl.’s Trial Ex. 86.
There are three principal issues to be resolved.
Prison Legal News under Rule 33-501.401(3)(l).
Amendment challenge to subsection (3)(m) of the Rule.
18 This is the summary provided by PLN in its post-trial brief.
the evidence submitted at trial and agrees with the summary.
Procedure § 4477 (2d ed. 2015).
Ins. Co., 667 F.2d 1162, 1166 (4th Cir. 1982)).
the opposing party if not estopped.
Id. at 750-51 (citations omitted).
other grounds, 537 U.S. 1085 (2002)). “[T]hese . . .
mislead the court.” Ryan Operations G.P. v. SantiamMidwest Lumber Co., 81 F.3d 355, 362 (3d Cir. 1996).
larger, more conspicuous ads did.
2005 to 7 in September 2009. Compare Pl.’s Trial Ex.
the lower end of the teens ever since. Id. at 44-84.
growth, but they have not decreased either. Id.
ad today than it did in 2005.
of a security risk than the other. See Jones v. N.
to 10.19%. Id. It hit 12.66% in 2012, and now hovers above 15%.
particularly those different in kind.
Circuit reiterated this understanding on appeal.
(emphasis added). The format changed in four years.
New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750-51.
of the circumstances counsel against judicial estoppel.
whether the other factors tilt in its favor.”).
objectives are necessary for this analysis.
Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 415 (quoting Procunier v.
‘neutral’ . . . .” Id. at 415-16.
Hatim, 760 F.3d at 61; see also Prison Legal News v.
the gravamen of PLN’s First Amendment challenge.
and the stated penological objectives.
use of these services furthers security is not enough.
This case, PLN insists, is not about those services.
presented sufficient evidence in support.
(quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984))).
Rule 33-501.401 is such a safeguard.
the likelihood that inmates will use those services.
constitutional muster. Tr. of Trial 64:17 (Jan. 8, 2015).
a witness in this case).
Tr. of Trial 66:2-:8 (Jan. 8, 2015).
likewise do not require it. See, e.g., Murchison v.
had previously advertized on Prison Legal News).
irrational application of the Rule.
see also Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 417 n.15.
more to the vagueness of the Rule.
balance” between uniformity and individualized review).
the reasonableness of [the FDOC’s] practices.” Id.
Trial 22:5-:10 (Jan. 6, 2015); Tr. of Trial 188:3-:4 (Jan.
contention that they are a serious hazard in prisons.
See Tr. of Trial 188:3-:4 (Jan. 5, 2015).
tension within prisons. See Tr. of Trial 102-103 (Jan.
7, 2015) (summarizing practical impossibility).
that balance order, security and resources.
invitation to disrupt the balance struck by the FDOC.
be perfect substitutes. Livingston, 683 F.3d at 218.
from corresponding with inmates. 664 F.3d at 1366.
explained, if alternative means existed in O’Lone v.
magazine. 683 F.3d at 219.
responsible for the Rule’s disparate application.
bring its magazine in line with prison regulations.
this fact alone pushes the third factor in FDOC’s favor.
the reasonable relationship standard.” Id. at 91.
side effects or are costly to implement.
for any amount of offending advertising content.
accepting stamps as payment. Tr. of Trial 81-82 (Jan.
the parties did not submit sufficient evidence to do so.
four or five out of one hundred, one thousand.
vagueness in the Turner analysis. See Martinez v.
Waterman v. Farmer, 183 F.3d 208, 213 (3d Cir.
application of Turner test.); cf. Sweet v. McNeil, No.
4:08CV17-RH/WCS, 2009 WL 903291, at *7 (N.D. Fla.
accordingly treats them as separate claims.
In this case, all Turner factors support the FDOC.
penological interests.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 89.
information packets sent to FDOC inmates.
has a meaningful opportunity to contest the deprivation.
entitled to one notice per issue.
grounds for censorship. Livingston, 683 F.3d at 223.
first institution’s reasoning. ECF No. 241, at 12 n.10.
deprivation or whether it extends to the process itself.
resulting from the demolition of a building he owned.
Nos. 86-1476, 86-1825, 1987 WL 44769, at *1(6th Cir.
In contrast, the Third Circuit in Sourbeer v.
provide due process was without fault.
where the relief sought is declaratory and injunctive.
Corps of Engineers, 424 F.3d 1117, 1127 (11th Cir.
rudimentary demands of due process of law”—notice.
state a due process claim). See generally Farmer v.
decisions. Tr. of Trial 159:20-160:2 (Jan. 5, 2015).
likelihood, PLN would not have appealed.
underlying circumstances change over time.
censored, by which institution, and on what grounds.
waive its right to due process by failing to appeal.
issue that the LRC must decide.
little if inmates do not understand them.28 Cue PLN.
when knowledge grows from more to more.
relates to public safety and prison security.
that is precisely what the FDOC has done, repeatedly.
prison library, books, and legal materials.
this going forward absent interjection by this Court.
adopting its current litigation position.
News of due process of law.
communications without due process of law.
communication by Prison Legal News.
not already shared with Prison Legal News.
minimum requirements of due process.
costs and attorney’s fees, if any.
SO ORDERED on October 5, 2015.
publication might facilitate criminal activity.
battery is being or will be committed.
correctional system or the safety of any person.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

v. 
 v.

 v. 
 § 1983
 v.

 § 4477
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.