Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2016/GA/prison-legal-news-v-chapman-et-al-ga-aclu-amicus-censorship-mail-policy-2013/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:21:08+00:00

Document:
Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC, et al. v. Bennett, ___ U.S. ___; 131 S.Ct.
Prison Legal News v. Livingston County Sheriff Bob Bezotte, Case No. 2:11-CV-13460 (E.D.
Prison Legal News v. Spokane County, Case No. CV-11-029-RHW, 2011 WL 4073615 (E.D.
all First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with incarceration.
Legal News (PLN) and the inmates themselves.
publications, and newspapers of general circulation.” Berkeley County Sheriff, at ¶¶ 21, 23.
claim under § 1983 for violation of her First Amendment right to freedom of speech); Clay v.
risk and clearly protects such rights.” Id. at ¶¶ 15, 20.
participates in litigation to assert prisoners’ rights and as a form of political expression.
(Declaration of Lance Weber, Esq. ¶¶ 7-8 (“Weber Decl.”)).
the mail, nothing can be written in or added to the book. Hardback books are not accepted.
Books are also available on a regular basis from the facility library. (See policy 5.25).
provided by Inmate Services on a regular schedule.
old book or donate it to the facility library.
(Policy No. 5.25.E (effective date Oct. 1, 2012)).
ability to send its books to the Jail. (Defs.’ Response Brief at 18-19).
provide a supplemental brief analyzing the constitutionality of Defendants’ other mail policies.
prisoner and outsider implicates First and Fourteenth Amendment protections).
spirit.” Martinez, 416 U.S. at 428 (Marshall, J., concurring).
act of writing words on paper. Rather, it is effected only when the letter is read by the addressee.
Amendment . . . .”).
First Amendment right to distribute mail.
legitimate First Amendment interest in access to prisoners.”); see also, Prison Legal News v.
Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 2005); Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 420, 426 (10th Cir.
publications; motion for preliminary injunction granted).
between a regulation and a penological objective,” Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 535 (2006).
hearing is required as to each point.” Walker v. Summer, 917 F.2d 382, 386 (9th Cir. 1990).
Walton County Jail may enjoy greater constitutional protections. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.
preliminary and a permanent injunction should be granted.
rejected unreasonable restrictions on the right to send and receive publications. See Mann v.
(holding that an “absolute ban on newspapers” violates the First Amendment); Parnell v.
magazines is part of the First Amendment is beyond question.”).
prison mail rule that prevented delivery of Prison Legal News); Miniken v. Walter, 978 F. Supp.
in case involving Prison Legal News).
no guarantee that inmates will have access to the publications they request under the new policy.
This de facto publication ban fails each factor of the Turner test.
however, as to how the implementation of this de facto publication ban furthers these objectives.
and the policy constitutes an exaggerated response to those concerns.
exaggerated response”); see also Spellman v. Hopper, 95 F.Supp.2d 1267, 1287 (M.D. Ala.
between their hardcover book ban and a governmental interest.”).
including lighters, which should prevent inmates from lighting fires with their reading materials.
staff caused by accommodation of the right in question appears, in context, to be de minimis.”).
without regard to the remaining three factors.” Jones v. Caruso, 569 F.3d 258, 267 (6th Cir.
2009) (citing Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-91); see also Amatel v. Reno, 156 F.3d 192, 196 (D.C. Cir.
1998) (“Nothing can save a regulation that promotes an illegitimate or non-neutral goal.”).
their materials available to inmates.
publication ban should have little or no impact on penological interests asserted by Defendants.
support their stated penological goals.” Beerheide v. Suthers, 286 F.3d 1179, 1189 (10th Cir.
concerns and thus fails the fourth Turner factor.
current policies that maintain the cleanliness of the facility and reduce the risks of fire hazards.
inmate can possess at any given time.
its monthly journal or brochures because those materials are prohibited under the current policy.
through other forms of communication such as postcards, phone calls or in-person visits.
undermine the safety of the facility.
response to prison concerns and thus fails the fourth Turner factor.
correspond from undue government interference with their correspondence. Martinez, 416 U.S.
mail and that inmates have a First Amendment right to receive mail from publishers).
announced in Turner, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
necessary to effectively allocate resources.
Amendment does not permit the State to sacrifice speech for efficiency.”); O’Bryan, et al. v.
reimprisoned in the years following his release”).
and excluding cost from consideration).
restrictive measure of requiring that general outgoing mail be placed in unsealed envelopes . . .
instead of altogether limiting the type and size of the medium used for such mail.” Id.
unconstitutional as applied to outgoing mail.
transportation to and from the detention facility.
viable alternatives to traditional mail.
implementation of the Jail’s postcard-only mail policy.
those who wish to correspond or associate with them.
determination of the need for a particular type of restriction”).
significant reallocation of prison resources and undermined prison security).
exaggerated response to Defendants’ concern about security and allocation of Jail resources.
wish to communicate with them through the most basic form of communication – letter-writing.
injunction and enjoin Defendants from enforcing these unconstitutional mail restrictions.
Respectfully submitted this 7th day of January, 2013.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.