Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2016/TX/prison-legal-news-v-livingston-et-al-tx-order-tdcj-censorship-2011/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:25:27+00:00

Document:
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
1331 (federal question), 1343(a)(3) and (4) (civil rights).
essential to accomplishing PLN’s mission.
Parenti; and Prison Masculinities, by Don Sabo, Dr. Terry Kupers, and Willie London.
an alternative to “disapprove” or “deny,” without any negative connotation.
November 2008, when it was sent to inmate Lou Johnson at the TDCJ Hilltop Unit.
Johnson appealed the denial, but the decision was upheld on December 3, 2008. (D.E.
subsequently denied on February 25, 2009 at the Allred Unit. (D.E. 67 at 6; see also D.E.
hands over my mouth . . .
start fighting, all you have is one maniac group against another.
than the vicious gang-bangs and there was pride in making my man happy in bed . . . The s & m freaks . . .
The TDCJ book review process begins when a book arrives at a TDCJ mailroom.
(D.E. 75-1 at 105-106 (TDCJ Board Policy BP-03.91)).
was changed in February 2010, to include notice to the sender. (D.E. 75 at 5 n. 33; D.E.
DRC/MSCP has not already censored a book after an appeal.
considerable deference to which prison administrators’ disapproval decisions are entitled.
Props., Inc., v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 973 F.2d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 1992).
speculation are not sufficient to [avoid] summary judgment”).
party. Rubinstein v. Adm’rs of the Tulane Educ. Fund, 218 F.3d 392, 399 (5th Cir.
the importance of distributors in the exercise of free speech rights. See, e.g., Smith v.
distribution of books.”); Lerman v. Flynt Distributing Co., 745 F.2d 123, 139 (2d Cir.
distributors of publications.”). Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are unavailing.
established First Amendment rights as a book distributor, akin to those of a publisher.
have not specifically subscribed or otherwise requested those materials. See Hrdlicka v.
as publishers, lack any First Amendment interest in distributing their magazine. . . .
cannot state a valid First Amendment claim with respect to those books.
Perpetual Prisoner Machine. (D.E. 82 at 11; see D.E. 75-4 at 1 (inmate Michael W.
(Lockdown America and Soledad Brother) must therefore be dismissed.
Thornburgh. (D.E. 82 at 6-7 (citing Thompson v. Patteson, 985 F.2d 202, 206 (5th Cir.
PLN is in fact able to make such an “as applied” challenge.
TDCJ appeal process is irrelevant to its First Amendment claim.
Defendants’ contention with respect to as applied challenges is simply incorrect.
detrimental effect upon the safety and/or rehabilitation interests of the facility.”).
excluded because of an improper application of the correspondence rules . . . .”).
denied access to pornographic magazines such as Penthouse, Gallery, and High Society.
(Prison Masculinities, Perpetual Prisoner Machine, and Women Behind Bars).
Machine, and Women Behind Bars.
constitutional rights under the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Turner v.
regulation at issue, not the state. Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003).
omitted); Mayfield, 529 F.3d at 607 (citing Turner).
have a logical connection to legitimate governmental interests invoked to justify it. . . .
the connection is logical. . . .”).
that term in Turner.” Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 415-16.
considerable deference in their prison management decisions.
between prisoners and the outside world.
respect to Prison Masculinities, Perpetual Prisoner Machine, and Women Behind Bars.
made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.
start up again lies with the party asserting mootness.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env. Servs.
within hours of his admission to prison.
years of a twenty-year-to-life sentence, nods his head in agreement.
Green v. Polunsky, 229 F.3d 486, 489 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing O’Lone).
the decision made and a “legitimate governmental interest.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 89.
decision is entitled to deference, even if subject to reasonable debate.
others would tend to disagree with her conclusions.
provide an appropriate check when a book is unreasonably denied.
disagreement. Prison officials, however, have the authority to make these judgment calls.
to make an independent judgment as to each denial, whenever called upon to do so.
Behind Bars. Mere disagreements do not demonstrate irrationality of the Defendants’ decisions.
Turner, 482 U.S. at 90.
officials . . . in gauging the validity of the regulation.’” Id.
argue that prisoners lack “alternative means” of exercising their rights.
PLN does not dispute this tally. The second factor does not favor PLN.
resources generally.” 482 U.S. at 90.
This factor, though less important, favors PLN.
rehabilitation, the mere ease of accommodation does not change the outcome.
argument on this final factor.
current TDCJ regulations). The neutrality factor is therefore satisfied.
have violated its First Amendment rights.
action with respect to the individual capacity claims against Defendants. (D.E. 53; D.E.
2010 amendments to TDCJ regulation BP-03.91 satisfies PLN’s due process concerns.
disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form.
Judgment (D.E. 75) and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E.
SIGNED and ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2011.
seek any further relief, and this claim must be dismissed.
its dismissal of this action.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.