Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2018/FL/prison-legal-news-v-secretary-florida-dept-corrections-petition-writ-certiorari/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:34:40+00:00

Document:
bans Prison Legal News based on its advertisements.
First Amendment right to free speech and a free press.
the Eleventh Circuit, Prison Legal News v.
Defs’ Resp. in Opp. to Pltf’s Mot. for Prel.
Inj., Human Rights Defense Center v. Sw.
Va. Reg. Jail Auth., No. 1:18-cv-13 (W.D.
Order, Prison Legal News v. Crosby, No.
publications do not pose a material security threat.
has censored every subsequent issue of PLN.
barrier against free speech or free press rights.
interests and the prison’s intrusions on free speech.
sufficient to support this kind of blanket ban.
claim is unreported and reproduced at App.48-112.
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
R. 33-501.401(3), is reproduced in the Appendix.
our nation’s criminal justice system.
commentary largely critical of the prison system.
News (Jan. 31, 2018), https://bit.ly/2PU46J9; David M.
News (Feb. 2, 2016), https://bit.ly/2N1CX8H; David M.
https://bit.ly/2NkRyfp; John E. Dannenberg, U.S.
Female Prisoner Molested by Ohio Prison Guard (Mar.
inmate phone services, and cash-for-stamps services.
Fla. Admin. Code R.33-501.401(3)(l), (m).
prisoner mail for compliance with these regulations.
Material” Rule, he or she impounds it. See Fla. Admin.
publication each future time it comes before the LRC.
every single issue of Prison Legal News it has received.
Most of the issues have been rejected pursuant to Fla.
policy continue, the number of Florida prisonsubscribers will soon be zero.
Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001).
impounded during the 2003-2005 censorship period.
pursuant to a settlement agreement that they reached with PLN.
Order 13-14, Prison Legal News v. Crosby, No. 3:04-cv14-JHM-TEM (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2005), Doc. 87.
on the same representations from the FDOC.
publications based on incidental advertisements.” Id.
circulate led to any security threats.
In November 2011, PLN again sued the FDOC.
claim, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
was an exaggerated response to its security concerns.
without reviewing the entire publication. App.95.
practice of censoring PLN. See App.97.
officials on each Turner factor.
advertisements had actually caused a security breach.
sufficiently “prominent or prevalent.” Id.
related prison rule violations since 2009.
exchange among inmates. See App.37-38.
‘certainly help’ advance those interests.” App.42-43.
policy … ever to succeed.” Beard, 548 U.S. at 533, 535.
decision and this Court’s precedents.
their conviction and confinement in prison.” Bell v.
prisons of this country.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
set forth in this Court’s precedents.
also warrants closer scrutiny. See Martinez, 416 U.S.
at 413 n.14; cf. Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015).
Beard, 548 U.S. at 535.
justified by the FDOC’s stated security interests.
prisons and jails that do not censor Prison Legal News.
and in the entire FDOC system itself.
Florida prisoners are allowed to have pen pals.
directly provide any of the services in question.
account, thereby obviating the need for stamps altogether.
their editorial content and their advertising content.
Application of This Court’s Decisions.
authorities with respect to security needs.” App.26.
taken precisely the opposite view.
evidence. In California First Amendment Coalition v.
prison officials—as “pure speculation.” Id. at 882.
in much less compelling circumstances. In Brown v.
see also Ramirez v. Pugh, 379 F.3d 122, 128 (3d Cir.
infringements on protected speech. See, e.g., Turner v.
prevail on the first element of his claim); Wolf v.
than a conclusory assertion” to succeed).
with a number of its sister Circuits and this Court.
censor’s burden to explain the selective censorship.
Prison Legal News, this Court should grant review.
connection” to a legitimate governmental interest.
connection” is insufficient. Beard, 548 U.S. at 535.
security threats related to certain advertisements.
Legal News without the problematic advertisements.
publications that it seeks to share with inmates.
not to discriminate between speakers, see Reed v.
was lifted when it banned the magazine again in 2009.
asserted (and entirely speculative) security concerns.
security concerns are specific to Florida.
type of restriction.” Martinez, 416 U.S. at 413 n.14.
similarly speculative claims of prison security. Cf.
Florida’s vague “prominent or prevalent” standard.
decision plainly warrants plenary review.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 § 1254
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.