Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/OR/columbia-county-findings-of-fact-2013/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:17:53+00:00

Document:
Floor, Portland, OR 97205. Attorneys for Defendants.
This case concerns the constitutionality of a county jail’s inmate mail policies.
prohibited magazines or failed to provide constitutionally sufficient procedural due process.
and their correspondents have a Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process.
Defendants’ postcard-only policy failed to satisfy the four-factor test set forth in Turner.
Court noted that Defendants had admitted that they failed to deliver PLN’s journal in practice.
its own right because Defendants rejected dozens of pieces of mail sent from PLN to inmates.
before the court.” 4805 Convoy, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 183 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 1999).
permanent injunction. That issue is discussed in the Conclusions of Law below.
The Court denied PLN’s motions for summary judgment, and the case was set for trial.
resolve liability and, if appropriate, equitable relief.2 After trial, the parties filed post-trial briefs.
Trial Br. at 2; Defs.’ Trial Br. at 2; Pretrial Conference Tr. at 7-8.
considered conclusions of law, they should be treated as such.
system both locally and nationally.” Id.
transcript is prepared, page numbers may differ.
Book offers (one double-sided page). See Ex. 69.
Fundraising appeals. See Ex. 64.
appeals are mailed in envelopes.
inmate mail each day. Miller Test. at 176-77; Dkt. 201.
restriction. Personal mail is inmate mail to or from friends, family, organizations, and businesses.
policy would enhance the security and safety of jails and save time. Dickerson Test. at 144-45.
envelopes” in which to conceal contraband. Carpenter Test. at 150.
After the conference, the CCSO considered implementing a postcard-only policy. Id.
time when contraband may have come in through the mail?
[MR. CARPENTER:] We believe so. Due to our diligence.
eleven years working for the CCSO, never personally found anything “unsafe” in the mail.
policy, no one stated that contraband had been entering the Jail through the mail. Id. at 136.
seconds to open an envelope; is that true?
[COUNSEL:] And it takes a few seconds to a scan a letter, right?
letter that it takes to scan a postcards?
say, yes, that's probably accurate.
out of the envelope; is that correct?
[MR. RIGDON:] Well, I have never timed it, sir but yes.
policy “actually saved any time.” Carpenter Test. at 135.
sheriffs’ offices; (2) to prevent the introduction of contraband into the Jail; and (3) to save time.
the Jail. Dickerson Test. at 54 (emphasis added).
several other states and that they felt it was a legal thing to do.” Carpenter Test. at 152-53.
one court” and that court found that a postcard-only policy was constitutional. Dickerson Test.
The March 2010 IMP was the first IMP at the Jail to adopt a postcard-only policy.
After PLN filed this action on January 13, 2012, the Jail adopted several revised IMPs.
postcard-only policy after the Court issued its preliminary injunction on May 29, 2012.
cases, Jail staff replied that magazines are not permitted. Exs. 143, 194; Cutright Test. at 57-58.
A copy of the notification will be placed in the inmate’s file.
inmates with notice when the Jail rejected incoming mail. Cutright Test. at 61, 64-66.
mail. The January and February 2012 IMPs contained several paragraphs addressing notice.
confiscated mail must be notified pursuant to paragraph 31. . . .
can informally appeal the action.
to reconsideration to senders of confiscated mail.” Id.
inmates should receive notice when the Jail rejected or censored outgoing inmate mail.
reason why the mail was rejected. Id. It also explains the appeal process. Id.
including PLN’s journal, info packs, subscription renewal packs, and fundraising appeals.
numerous grievances with the CCSO protesting the postcard-only policy. Exs. 130-33, 135, 140.
when the Jail censored” mail Ms. Lennox sent to inmates. Id.
their children’s report cards, right?
[SHERIFF DICKERSON:] They couldn’t send the actual card.
being sent to prisoners, right?
[COUNSEL:] Prevent sending doctors’ reports?
newspaper or magazines or on the Internet, right?
sending in lessons, whether religious or otherwise, right?
unable to mail her husband a legal document because of the policy. Mendoza Test. at 7.
Mendoza Test. at 4-5. She was also concerned that her children might read the postcards.
presently before the Court is the issue of liability and, if appropriate, equitable relief.
PLN’s request for equitable relief.
F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 861 (9th Cir. 2001).
is filed.” Clark v. City of Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2001).
customs. As such, PLN has standing to pursue injunctive relief.
allegedly unlawful conduct ordinarily does not suffice to moot a case.” Friends of the Earth, Inc.
The existence and scope of these policies are discussed below.
conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur.
violate the First Amendment. Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. at 6-11.
by mail, and inmates have a First Amendment right to receive this mail.”6 Prison Legal News v.
regulation “is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”7 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S.
Fourteenth Amendment. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 277 (1964).
exaggerated response by prison officials.
mail, but also “to regulations affecting publishers’ rights to send materials to prisoners.” Id.
1059 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (quoting Abbott, 490 U.S. at 414).
indirectly support security or efficiency.
restrictions based on content, and the parties do not dispute that it is neutral.
asserted goal is so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.” Turner, 482 U.S.
than a formalistic logical connection between a regulation and a penological objective.” Beard v.
Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 535 (2006).
common[-]sense connection” between the Jail’s policy and its objectives. Frost, 197 F.3d at 356.
Mauro, 188 F.3d at 1060).
common[-]sense connection” between the postcard-only policy and enhancing security.
enhancing security, PLN presented evidence that convincingly refutes that connection.
contraband problem. Defendants’ postcard-only policy was a solution in search of a problem.
past, . . . their ability to do so certainly strengthens their case.” (internal citation omitted)).
Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 547 (2005) (Thomas, J., dissenting).
searches mail regardless); PLN II, 397 F.3d at 700 (overturning ban on requested bulk mail).
for-profit subscription publications as not rationally related to controlling volume of mail).
their legitimate penological goals. Beard, 548 U.S. at 533.
“inmates may communicate with persons outside the prison by letter and telephone.” Overton v.
ideal . . . ; they need only be available.” Id.
an inmate and his or her unincarcerated family and friends. Mendoza Test. at 4-5.
rather than retards the goal of rehabilitation.” Martinez, 416 U.S at 412.
communication, but inmates retain other avenues.
resources, see, e.g., Bazzetta, 539 U.S. at 135.
the postcard-only is not rationally related to legitimate penological goals.
time, it is an easy and obvious alternative.
The inmate mail policies in other correctional institutions also support this conclusion.
inspecting their contents is an easy and obvious alternative to the Jail’s postcard-only policy.
security and safety, and it is not an exaggerated response to those objectives.” Id. at *6.
different conclusions than the Althouse court regarding the first and third Turner factors.
the Jail did not have an inmate mail security problem before adopting the postcard-only policy.
meaningful amount of additional time to deal with other security assignments.
the PBCSO’s claimed time savings.
otherwise.” Pl.’s Post-Trial Br. at 8.
municipal ‘policy’ or ‘custom’ that caused the plaintiff’s injury.” Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v.
prospective.” Los Angeles Cnty. v. Humphries, 131 S. Ct. 447, 453-54 (2010).
policies are neither followed nor enforced.”).
against the entity.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985).
violated its First Amendment rights.
process safeguards described in Martinez are the minimum owed).
Humphries, 131 S. Ct. at 453-54.
October 2011 IMP, failed to provide a constitutionally adequate minimum degree of due process.
appeal when the Jail rejected their outgoing mail.
and an opportunity to appeal, even when the Jail’s IMPs provided that such notice was required.
an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions when the Jail censored” PLN’s mail. Dkt. 203.
427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976); see also Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Coal. for Econ.
PLN has demonstrated that monetary damages are inadequate.
permanent injunction will affect any other non-parties.
Court concludes that a permanent injunction enjoining the postcard-only policy is warranted.
impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.
quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted).
enough to enjoin the unconstitutional policy).
added.) No provisions in § 802 limit its application to suits brought by prisoners.
has satisfied the first factor of the eBay test.
publishers. Defendants have not stated that a permanent injunction would tax their resources.
ensure that the written policy permitting magazines was followed.” Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. at 13.
Cir. 2012) (quoting W. T. Grant, 345 U.S. at 633; internal alterations omitted).
magazines. Id. The IMPs have consistently provided that inmates may receive magazines.
and have held two training sessions in which the most recent IMPs were read to CCSO staff.
against issuing a permanent injunction with regard to magazines.
subscribe. Accordingly, this factor favors an injunction.
relief.” Morrow v. Harwell, 768 F.2d 619, 627 (5th Cir. 1985).
process, without more, does not automatically trigger a finding of irreparable harm); Siegel v.
applicable to invasion of privacy and violation of First Amendment rights).
Court, therefore, leaves this question for another day or another court.
permanent injunction, the Court declines to address this factor.
character of the past violations. Id.
balance of equities counsels against issuing a permanent injunction.
their correspondents would benefit. This factor favors an injunction.
declaratory relief.” Morrow, 768 F.2d at 627.
declaration of the constitutionality of the disputed governmental action. See Duke Power Co. v.
controversy within its jurisdiction.” Am. States Ins. Co. v. Kearns, 15 F.3d 142, 143 (9th Cir.
discretion to courts in deciding whether to entertain declaratory judgments[.]” Id. at 143-44.
(S.D. Cal. 2007) (citing MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 136 (2007)).
further to amend their IMP. Accordingly, the Court will enter declaratory relief.
injunctive and declaratory relief consistent with these Findings and Conclusions.
Dated the 24th day of April, 2013.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 802
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.