Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2015/CO/prison-legal-news-v-federal-bureau-prisons-co-complaint-censorship-adx-2015/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:16:24+00:00

Document:
had subscriptions continuously for more than twenty years.
institution to reject an issue of Prison Legal News since 2012.
appeals of the improper rejections.
Administrative Procedure Act, and BOP regulations.
of any future rejections and a process to appeal therefrom.
Worth, FL 33460. PLN publishes Prison Legal News.
BOP and its current and former agents.
declaratory relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
Ex. A, Prison Legal News, July 2013.
Savage, Ken Silverstein, Jennifer Vogel, and Noelle Hanrahan.
12-issue subscription to the magazine.
other educational resources such as the Prisoner Diabetes Handbook.
good order of the institution or . . . might facilitate criminal activity.” Id.; see also BOP Prog.
publisher. 28 C.F.R. § 540.71(a)(2).
publication prior to rejection of that publication.” Id. § 540.71(c).
inmate of the decision and the reasons for it.” Id. § 540.71(d).
the rejection letter sent to the inmate. Id. § 540.71(e).
BOP regulations allow both inmates and publishers to appeal rejection decisions.
Inmates may appeal rejections through the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program, see id.
writing to the Regional Director [of BOP] within 20 days of receipt of the rejection letter.” Id.
News sent to inmates at ADX.
2012, November 2012, February 2013, April 2013, July 2013, September 2013, and April 2014.
caused the issue to be censored.
to content in Prison Legal News that refers to ADX inmates or ADX or other BOP personnel.
staff member—current or former—as a security risk.
articles is highly relevant to, and potentially useful for, individuals incarcerated at ADX.
indicted on drug cartel-related charges and had held a leadership role in the Sinaloa Cartel.
prison. Indeed, prisoners often publicize such information via tattoos and other means.
reveal information about ADX and ADX inmates.
the rejected articles were based. See Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031 (10th Cir. 2012).
On information and belief, ADX has not barred inmates from accessing this decision.
2013 issue was also available in the published opinion on which the rejected article was based.
barred inmates from accessing this decision.
resulted in the censorship of significant amounts of admittedly unobjectionable content.
objectionable material would not have imposed a significant burden on prison officials.
As noted above, ADX censored the November 2011 issue of Prison Legal News.
of the rejection only from letters that its inmate-subscribers sent to PLN.
nine months after the rejection occurred.
is purportedly detrimental to the security, discipline, or good order of ADX.
North Central Region, which includes ADX.
fail to satisfy the constitutional standard for providing notice of a rejection.
should not have been rejected.
facility’s law library.” Ex. C, Sept. 11, 2013, Letter from Lance T. Weber to Paul M. Laird.
None of the Regional Director’s letters provides specific reasoning for the rejection.
rejected as it contains information on individuals incarcerated at the U.S. Penitentiary Florence.
Letter from Paul M. Laird to Lance T. Weber. The letter provided no explanation or reasoning.
published court decision available to other inmates.
requested that BOP commit to stop the illegal censorship of Prison Legal News at ADX.
paragraphs 1 through 50 of this Complaint.
Defendant’s actions, as alleged herein, constitute state action and agency action.
information is already available or known to inmates at ADX.
means to publish important legal and other news to its subscribers at ADX.
or good order of ADX, namely redaction or removal of articles deemed objectionable.
News at ADX will continue.
its constitutional rights, for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
paragraphs 1 through 58 of this Complaint.
they have failed to provide PLN with timely and adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.
uninformative, perfunctory language that sheds little or no light on the reason for rejection.
warden to inform inmates and publishers of “the reasons for [rejection].” 28 C.F.R.
of “the reasons for the rejection . . .”).
consideration by the Regional Director at the level of secondary review.
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
reasons for rejecting an issue is deliberate.
notices for future censorship of Prison Legal News.
harm to PLN’s constitutional rights, for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
paragraphs 1 through 70 of this Complaint.
there is no other adequate remedy in a court. They are therefore subject to judicial review.
Defendant has violated the APA in at least five respects.
added), and to send a copy of such notice to the publisher, id. § 540.71(e).
PLN—or its inmate-subscribers—of the actual reasons for a given rejection.
decision making in violation of the APA.
arbitrary and capricious decision making in violation of the APA.
constitutes arbitrary and capricious decision making in violation of the APA.
There exists a substantial threat that such unlawful actions will continue.
is no adequate remedy at law.
The foregoing conduct should be held unlawful and set aside.
A declaration that Defendant’s censorship of Prison Legal News under 28 C.F.R.
Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

References: § 540
 § 540
 § 540
 § 540
 v. 
 § 540