Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/KS/prison-legal-news-v-werholtz-judgement-on-remand-kansas-doc-censorship-2007/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:22:51+00:00

Document:
This case has a somewhat lengthy procedural history.
and injunctive relief and actual damages.
to a publisher when KDOC does not deliver a publication.
the Tenth Circuit reversed Judge VanBebber’s decision. Jacklovich v.
moot after they were paroled.
Werholtz, in his official capacity as Secretary of Corrections.
an inmate does not receive a publication.
On February 13 and 14, 2007, this case was tried to the court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).
dismissed by this court’s order.
overview of the facts of this case.
discussed, where appropriate, throughout the decision.
through their facility bank accounts.
funds must be deposited into the inmate’s facility bank account.
not exceed one ounce in total weight.
(d) of this regulation shall be used for censorship of publications.
(A) Contains sexually explicit material, as described in K.A.R.
in subsection (d) of this regulation.
more than 30 days after the date of transfer.
IMPP 11-101 creates four groups of levels for inmates.
rise to Level I until they are transferred to a facility.
cannot spend any funds on publications.
the vendor or service provider only.
e. Purchases of approved handicraft materials/supplies.
After 120 days, an inmate may advance to Level II.
inmate may spend $40 on publications and $110 on canteen purchases.
and $180 at the canteen.
form and a publication form and submit those to the business office.
funds and that the publication is allowable under the regulations.
completing this process, the publication will be censored.
the $40.00 limit for outgoing funds in order to do so.
per every three (3)-month period.
The notice is not sent to the publisher.
(d) Censorship grounds and procedures.
shall be given a reasonable opportunity to protest that decision.
than the person who originally disapproved the correspondence.
Kan. Admin. Regs. § 44-12-601(d)(2)(emphasis supplied).
publisher of a censored publication.
(Doc. 72 at exh. 2).
what the facts may be. As the Court stated in Procunier v.
prohibits inmates on intake level from receiving publications.
Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 420, 426 (10th Cir. 2004).
receipt of money in his facility bank account.
source of the funds and the individual who purchased the subscription.
or trafficking of contraband by another inmate. (Trial Tr. at 52-53).
the prohibition of gift subscriptions and security concerns.
strong-arming was used to obtain gift subscriptions).
more on canteen items than he can on publications.
something that he did not earn.
participate in all activities on Level III.
receive and the amount that can be expended in the canteen.
other privileges through the system.
on publications and the use of the privilege and incentive system.
publications are allowed on Level I.
was the amount that the KDOC determined was reasonable.
canteen do rise for each level.
On Level I, an inmate may spend $40 per month.
and III are allowed $110 and $180, respectively.
exception between Level I and II.
spend an unlimited amount on handicraft materials.
spending time reading and gaining knowledge.
savings of all incoming money in an inmate’s account.
obligations before purchasing any subscriptions.
instead of sending money to that inmate.
testified by prior inmates, to buy canteen items.
and numerous state correctional facilities, allow gift subscriptions.
inmate’s avoidance of personal obligations.
library, which includes numerous publications and internet access.
However, no KDOC facility subscribes to plaintiff’s publication.
that can be in the library is limited.
means to exercise the inmate’s right to receive information.
an increase in the amount of mail that inmates receive.
it was not shown to have a significant effect on the facility.
subscription so that the facility can investigate whether strongarming occurred.
with its privilege and incentive system.
available to guarantee an inmate’s right to publications.
to understand, much less to undertake.
penological interests identified by defendant.
on the facility, inmates and guards.
VI, are constitutionally infirm and therefore invalid.
During trial, witness Werholtz was questioned by the court.
witness have another amount that would be reasonable.
considered reasonable to spend on publications.
individualized notice” that would give it an opportunity to be heard.
Jacklovich, 392 F.3d at 433-34.
if you so request or destroyed.
and the reasons why their publication may not be delivered.
time their publication is not delivered.
notification will be too time consuming and costly.
limiting the funds an inmate may spend on publications.
publication will be censored will be for content.
by utilizing the form proposed by plaintiff.
clerk is hereby ordered to enter judgment for plaintiff.
court's Rule 7.3 is not encouraged.
to reconsider are well established.
when the original motion was briefed or argued is inappropriate.
Comeau v. Rupp, 810 F. Supp. 1172 (D. Kan. 1992).
standards enunciated by this court in Comeau v. Rupp.
to any motion for reconsideration shall not exceed three pages.
day of October 2007, at Wichita, Kansas.

References: v.

 § 44
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.