Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2013/AZ/PLN_v_BabeuOrderPIMSJ/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:25:43+00:00

Document:
Defendants have filed a Response and Cross-motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991).
officers and employees, who failed to deliver PLN materials during 2011.
responsibility for the Pinal County Jail and its policies to Deputy Chief James Kimble.
could also consult Commander Montano if questions arose about policy. (Doc. 99-1, Ex.
took over supervision of the mailroom from Sergeant Delgado sometime in mid-2011.
There is no evidence that the remaining named Defendants2 were involved in this case.
Sergeant Delgado claims to have never told anyone to throw the materials away. (Doc.
either discard the materials or send them back to PLN with the notations described above.
from a recognized publisher, distributor, or authorized retailer.” (Id. at PCSO 000052, id.
relevant provisions were identical. Both provisions are cited.
interchangeable. There is nothing in the policy to that effect.
newspapers and magazines were contraband and should be immediately rejected. (Doc.
request for information about the materials he was expecting from Prison Legal News.
newspapers and magazines were contraband.
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.
(quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250).
statute of the District of Columbia.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006).
Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Turner, 482 U.S.
at 89-90). Examination of each of the prison’s challenged policies is required.
v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925).
correspondence that PLN seeks to have with the inmates at the Pinal County Jail.
inmates have a First Amendment right to receive this mail.” Prison Legal News v.
inmate’s corresponding interest in receiving, unsolicited literature.”), cert. denied, 132 S.
Jail’s mailroom policies as violative of its First Amendment rights.
that enforcing a blanket ban on magazines and newspapers violates the First Amendment.
construction of the publisher-only requirement violated PLN’s First Amendment rights.
(Doc. 98 at 7.) Such an arbitrary limitation is unconstitutional.
lawsuit was filed, however, all PLN materials have been permitted. (Doc. 99 ¶ 94; Doc.
PLN’s vagueness challenge to the publisher-only rule is not moot.
to outside parties on how to become an approved publisher or distributor.
the exercise of first amendment freedoms.
Bullfrog Films Inc. v. Wick, 847 F.2d 502, 512 (9th Cir. 1988).
attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.” Cohen, 92 F.3d at 972.
to the publisher-only rule and the necessity for a permanent injunction in favor of PLN.
is the justification, but assert that such a justification is appropriate under Turner.
decision making of prison administrators.” Cook, 238 F.3d at 1140 (citing Thornburgh v.
Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989)).
(N.D. Cal. 2002), aff’d, 364 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004).
was a Fourteenth Amendment violation.
retailers, and (3) failing to provide notice of rejection and an opportunity to appeal.
record in accordance with the Court’s Order.
supra and declines to grant additional declaratory relief that is unsupported by the record.
when it was not provided with notice and an opportunity to appeal the refusal.
is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983.”).
reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.
the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Id.; see also Anderson, 483 U.S.
884 F. Supp. 2d at 1001 (citing al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2084).
Defendants for the First Amendment and Due Process violations is considered in turn.
constitutional law at the time jail staff either threw away or sent back PLN’s materials.
ban on magazines “carries a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality.” Pepperling v.
determining that right to receive and read newspapers was clearly established); Kincaid v.
on a recipient’s prior request for that information”), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1544 (2012).
A blanket ban on newspapers and magazines violates these well-established principles.
reasonable officer should know, no qualified immunity attaches to the conduct at issue.
everything they should have in the given situation.
exist in a given situation, see Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640-42; Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S.
those situations absolutely requires detailed analysis of the factual scenario.
understood that what he [was] doing violate[d] that right.” al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. at 2083.
The Constitution does not afford a range of discretion to detention aides on this matter.
The general understanding was that newspapers and magazines were not allowed. (Doc.
or even asked to look at the materials. Nor does it appear that they went to Cmdr.
Montano or any of the command staff to determine how to handle this information. (Doc.
personally involved in the constitutional deprivation.
by detention aides. The Court rejects those arguments pursuant to the reasoning above.
Sergeant Delgado and Lieutenant Rushing are liable under § 1983 to PLN.
accordingly no § 1983 liability for those individuals.
term ‘person’ [in § 1983] to include municipalities,” such as Pinal County. Christie v.
adequate training that would prevent constitutional violations like those suffered by PLN.
Hawkins, Dennis Rushing, Hull, Gant, McNeely, Hoyos.
its tolerance or acquiescence in it.” Britton v. Maloney, 901 F. Supp. 444, 450 (D. Mass.
the local government entity.” Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346-47 (9th Cir.
out policy.” Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996).
unconstitutional basis. Consequently, the change in the words of the policy had no effect.
Hinckley v. Thurston County, CV-06-3067-JPH, 2008 WL 706702 at *7 (E.D. Wash.
command staff, Sheriff Babeu, and Deputy Kimble are not liable under § 1983.
Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989); see Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir.
for the due process violation.
with respect to the command staff’s § 1983 liability for the due process violations.
liable on PLN’s Monell claim for denying procedural due process.
inappropriate on the question of the Command Staff’s liability for the due process injury.
proceed to trial on the issue of damages.
are caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights.” Memphis Cmnty. Sch. Dist. v.
constitutional wrongs, and frustration of mission.
inappropriate to reject a damage claim just because damages may be difficult to quantify.
abstract matter, based on its role in our history or system of government.” Id. at 311 n.14.
Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 762 F.2d 753, 760-61 (9th Cir. 1985).
an inherent value to a constitutional right than to compensable injury. In Brooks v.
away from its core mission to investigate the denial of its materials at the jail. In Carey v.
and resources. See Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905-06 (9th Cir.
F. Supp. 2d 1021, 1029 (D. Ariz. 2001).
a frustration of mission theory at trial.
County. See Hammond v. County of Madera, 859 F.2d 797, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988).
evidence that would support such a finding with respect to the individual defendants.
rejection were unconstitutional. Summary judgment is granted for PLN on those points.
deferred. PLN’s Motion for Declaratory Relief is denied.
the question of § 1983 liability.
therefore granted in part and denied in part.
in part, denied in part, and deferred in part.
PLN’s Motion to File a Surreply (Doc. 134) is DENIED.
have 14 days to file any Response.
Dated this 19th day of March, 2013.

References: § 1983
 v. 

v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983