Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2013/TX/PLN_v_UpshurPIOrder/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:18:55+00:00

Document:
PLN publication due to its content, or otherwise censored PLN’s publications in any way” (Dkt.
delivery or, given the transient nature of jail populations, no longer reside in the UCJ. Id., at 4.
mailed from the publisher to the inmate.
recipient) could appeal the Jail official’s decisions.
consider appeals or rejected mail listed under c.
of this action. . . .
Correspondence Plan, and have no plans to revive the previous policies (Dkt. No. 42-1, at 3).
injunction is granted, and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest.
reasonableness standard. Id. at 413-14 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).
Turner, 482 U.S. at 89, and Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413 (1974)).
to the United States Constitution. See Davenport v. Garcia, 834 Sw.2d 4, 10 (Tex. 1992).
safeguards constitutionally required to protect PLN’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
carried its burden with respect to these claims.
First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
PLN from communicating with inmates, it offers the declaration of Devadus Nelson (Dkt. No.
more declarations but was refused access by jail officials (Dkt. No. 29, at 5 n.3).
based on content—requires adequate procedural safeguards under the Constitution.
Defendants suggest that either Mr. Nelson is lying or that PLN might not have sent Nelson his missing issues (Dkt.
Mr. Nelson’s sworn statement in the absence of any evidence in contradiction.
actions before September of 2013.
meeting and principles of decision).
likelihood of success on the merits with respect to its ongoing claims for injunctive relief.
(e.g., a loosely enforced “No Newspapers” policy) or with policies that are unconstitutionally arbitrary (Dkt. No. 261, at 2).
necessary to protect underlying rights. See Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976).
constitutes irreparable injury justifying the grant of a preliminary injunction.’” Palmer ex rel.
irreparable injury.” Doe v. Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist., 994 F.2d 160, 166 (5th Cir. 1993).
e.g., Advocacy Ctr. for Elderly and Disabled v. La. Dept. of Health and Hosps., 731 F.Supp. 2d 603, 625-26 (E.D.
and does not reach the issue of whether a violation of due process in the abstract is irreparable.
of inmates’ constitutional rights. Id. at 7.
of Upshur County officials, it sees merit in a “trust but verify” approach.
drafting inadequacies should not be overlooked.
of imminent harm in the future.
necessary to remedy the threat of imminent and irreparable harm. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt.
5-7), except with respect to Sections (IV) and (VI) of said plan.
rejection of mail pursuant to (a), (b), or (c) above, or Section (VI), below.
of Upshur County (“Chief Deputy”) may consider and decide the appeal.
the hearing official’s decision within 24 hours of the decision being made.
signed by the prisoner and so indicating such refusal.
opportunity for an appeal as described in Section (IV) above.
SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of September, 2013.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3626