Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2013/NV/CoxShowCauseMotion/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:30:27+00:00

Document:
hereto and any further argument and evidence as may be presented at a hearing.
as Exhibit A, and the associated Exhibit One.
held in contempt for this willful failure.
and Protecting Your Health and Safety (PYHS).
Judgment/Order,” Prison Legal News v. Crawford et al., CV-N-00-0373-HDM-RAM. (D. Nev.
in office” to “implement and maintain” this policy. Id. at 3: 4-7.
All publications mailed to NDOP prisoners shall be reviewed according to the same criteria.
of the reasons for the rejection, as well as the opportunities for independent review.
NDOC Consent Decree at 4: 15 – 25.
mandates of the Consent Decree, as well as Constitutional First Amendment principles.
or to Prison Legal News, the publisher.
following summary demonstrates pervasive censorship taking place from 2011 to present.
of Lance Weber at ¶ 7 (attached as Exhibit A to this motion).
immediate and satisfactory response to these concerns to which there also has been no response.
cause as to why they should not be held in contempt.
and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings.
U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947).
lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.” 18 U.S.C. § 401 (1982).
In re Crystal Palace Gambling Hall, Inc. 817 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir. 1987).
‘judicial power of the United States' would be a mere mockery.” Chicago Truck Drivers v.
(9th Cir.1971); Gifford v. Heckler, 741 F.2d 263, 266 (9th Cir. 1984).
them in contempt for their failure to do so.
has been many times decided and may be regarded as settled law.
largely ended its involvement in a case. See Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S.
with a court order or to compensate the complainant for losses sustained, or both.
power to impose a fine for civil contempt), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 869, 72 S.Ct.
112, 96 L.Ed. 654 (1951).
willful. In re Crystal Palace Gambling Hall, 817 F.2d at 1365.
effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired." Whittaker Corp v.
the contempt order is civil.” Portland Feminist Women's Health Ctr. v.
remedial, and the district court properly denominated the contempt as “civil.” Id.
sanction was “remedial,” and contempt was properly characterized as civil).
452 F.3d at 1130 n. 5.
F.3d at 504. Thus, a finding of civil contempt is appropriate.
Lance Weber at ¶ 5.
solely, with the authority to reject a publication. NDOC Consent Decree at 3:13-18.
the prisoners’ First Amendment rights by cutting off the receipt of books. 350 F.3d at 924.
and the inmate will receive a notification of unauthorized property.
disbursement, and the invoice placed into the inmate’s property file.
per the Department’s Administrative Regulation 711.
will be held pending the decision/outcome of the grievance process.
permitted to appeal such a rejection. This will be discussed in further detail below.
to appeal a rejection decision.
does not take place consistently. Id.
U.S. Constitution ensures due process protections attach to prison mailings. Procunier v.
establish a mechanism for the protest of a rejection decision. Procunier, 416 U.S. at 417-419.
mailings. Declaration of Paul Wright at ¶ 16.
AR 750 provisions are prohibited by the Consent Decree and by existing precedent.
raised by NDOC mailing policies and practices.
DATED: This 28th day of June 2013.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 401
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.