Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2012/OR/PLN_v_ColumbiaPIOrder/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:33:37+00:00

Document:
Defendants confiscate or return prohibited mail sent to or from inmates.
and outgoing inmate personal mail to postcards only.
Jail’s mail policy.” Id. at ¶ 21.
on February 10, 2012, the CCSO adopted additional minor revisions. Dickerson Decl. Exs. E, F.
retains the postcard-only mail policy.
outgoing mail was reduced by one-third (approximately 30 to 60 minutes . . . ).” Id. at ¶ 4.
declaration, and described above, are the “actual policies.” Dickerson Decl. at ¶ 8.
Decl. of Paul Wright (Dkt. 44) at ¶ 35.
(4) Book offers (one double-sided page). See Wright Decl. Ex. OOO.
(6) Fundraising appeals. See Wright Decl. Exs. PPP-QQQ.
informational brochures into a single mailing that it calls a “subscription renewal pack.” Id.
and fundraising appeals. Wright Decl. at ¶ 13-14, 16-17, 26, 28; see also Compl. at ¶¶ 4.5 - 4.64.
stamp listing several options with the line near “Undeliverable as Addressed” checked, e.g. id.
Exs. BB-DD; and a stamp listing several options with the line near “Refused” checked, e.g. id.
Exs. JJ, QQ. In many cases, several of these markings are present on each envelope. See e.g. id.
constitutional rights.” Answer at ¶ 1.1.
“only the current [inmate mail] policy . . . is relevant.” Id. at 4.
correspondents when mail is confiscated or returned.
mailed to or from family, friends, organizations, businesses, or other unofficial entities.” Id. at 2.
delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 5-1/2" tall x 8-1/2"
wide. The jail does not permit any other form of personal mail for inmates.
send. IMP at ¶ 3 (emphasis added).
so long as they receive no more than three periodicals in one day and the periodical is “new and .
quoted above, limits periodicals to those publications that are issued at least four times a year.
mail must be notified pursuant to paragraph 31. . . .
will give the reason and explain how the sender can informally appeal the action.
violates content restrictions. See, e.g., paragraphs 21, 24, 27.
to the sender, one copy is saved in the inmate’s file, and one copy is provided to the inmate.
contend, “allows inmates to receive postcards, junk mail, periodicals and books.” Defs.’ Resp.
such a return occur.” Id.
PLN from sending info packs, subscription renewal packs, and fundraising appeal letters.
forms found in PLN’s mailings. See, e.g., Wright Decl. Ex. FFF (containing PLN reply forms).
must provide notice to inmates when they confiscate inmates’ outgoing mail.
standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).
enforcing the IMP’s postcard-only mail policy would prevent continued injury to PLN.
1011 (9th Cir. 2001) (same).
determining how the IMP has affected inmates and their correspondents. See Dkt. 10-14, 34-40.
on inmates and their correspondents in addition to the effect on PLN alone. See, e.g., Pl.’s Mem.
at 19-22 (discussing importance of letter-writing to rehabilitation and “exchange of ideas”).
correspondents’ interests in this litigation.
public interest.” M.R. v. Dreyfus, 663 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011).
Amendment rights of inmates at the Jail and their correspondents (the “speech claim”).
respect to the speech claim but not with respect to the due process claim.
2012.” Defs.’ Resp. at 3.
regulation “is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S.
journal since implementing the IMP.
objective, a court need not reach the remaining three factors.” PLN II, 397 F.3d at 699.
well as financial burdens, are valid penological interests”).
and handcuff keys,” can be “hidden in between sheets of paper and under postage stamps.” Id.
The Jail’s IMP, “[l]imiting personal mail to postcards reduces these . . . security risks[.]” Id.
2010, the Jail opened and inspected mail for contraband. Cutright Decl. at ¶ 3; Dickerson Decl.
present evidence that inspecting a postcard is more effective than inspecting a letter.
lower than the risk of contraband in mail that is sent bulk rate, third, or fourth class”); Ashker v.
day.” Dickerson Decl. at ¶25.
rational relationship between the postcard-only policy and improving the Jail’s efficiency.
Sergeant Cutright stated that the time-savings per day amounted to 30 to 60 minutes each day.
prevented the introduction of “notepad bindings have been hollowed to conceal contraband.” Id.
inspecting letters. In light of these considerations, the court declines to follow Covell.
not rationally related to controlling volume of mail).
postcards. Defs. Resp. at 18-19.
Decl. of Patricia Mendoza (Dkt. 53); Decl. of Sharon R. Berg (Dkt. 37).
grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989).
Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004).
afforded to the Jail by the postcard-only mail policy is modest, at best.
before implementing the postcard-only policy in 2010, Defendants opened and inspected letters.
required only 30 to 60 additional minutes each day, it is an easy and obvious alternative.
institutions are relevant to consideration of fourth Turner factor).
recognizes that the potential dangers posed by contraband within the Jail are undeniably serious.
the First Amendment rights of inmates and their correspondents.
PLN has established that the IMP’s postcard-only mail policy causes irreparable harm.
injury.’” Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Elrod v.
the modest impact on Defendants’ time and resources.
the operation of national, state, or local government, the public interest factor is largely neutral.
members of the public to more easily communicate with inmates.
personal mail only on a postcard.
the appeals process. IMP at 17.
declines to issue a preliminary injunction at this time regarding PLN’s due process claim.
may not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
fully developed at trial on the merits.
personal inmate mail solely on the grounds that it is not on a postcard.
Dated this 29th day of May, 2012.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.