Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2018/FL/Prison_Legal_News_v_Florida_DOC_Censorship_appellate_ruling_2018/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:44:51+00:00

Document:
act that the law forbids can lead to bad consequences, including imprisonment.
use to carry out that duty, which is what this case is about.
crimes, but also enable them to do so.
notice of them does violate the Fourteenth Amendment. We agree.
victimization within the institution,” and to rehabilitate offenders. Fla.
16,700 officers to oversee 100,000 inmates in 123 facilities throughout Florida.
inmate care, property, and control of contraband).
public. The record is heavy with evidence of that unfortunate reality.
drugs, sexual favors, and anything else they can bargain for. See United States v.
and another inmate used stamps to pay for heroin); United States v. Martin, 178 F.
will exchange the stamps for cash at a percentage of the stamps’ face value.
which facilitates contraband smuggling and the corruption of prison guards.
has prohibited three-way calling, which includes any type of call transferring. Fla.
with monitoring more mail and phone activity. Id. r. 33-602.207(2).
the inmate faced up to 90 years in prison for his scheme. Id.
construction of or use of weapons,” id. r. 33-501.401(3)(a).
admissibility by the Literature Review Committee.” Fla. Admin. Code r. 33-501.401(2)(b).
inmates. About 70% of the magazine’s 7,000 nationwide subscribers are inmates.
It has subscribers in all 50 state prison systems and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Legal News began carrying advertisements in 1996 to cover its publication costs.
schools offering inmate correspondence courses. Nothing wrong with that.
issue to determine whether it complies with the rule. Id. r. 33-501.401(5).
opportunity to exchange stamps for cash at a percentage of the stamps’ face value.
calls made through the discount phone services.
873, 876–78 (11th Cir. 2006) (unpublished).
more problematic ads without changing the proportion of the magazine devoted to such ads.
percentage of problematic ads in the most recent five-year period for which there is data.
people on the outside, enabling them to violate prison rules and commit crimes.
inmate may want to harass or harm.
Department amended Rule (3)(l) to make it clearer and to address its new security concerns.
in the country that impounds Prison Legal News based on its ad content.
reasons for the impoundment are considered.
PLN has abandoned any separate challenge to those publications. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681.
and we review its fact findings for clear error. Proudfoot Consulting Co. v.
of Ga., Inc. v. Angel Flight Am., Inc., 522 F.3d 1200, 1208 (11th Cir. 2008).
agree that the deferential standard established by the Supreme Court in Turner v.
the Supreme Court’s recent First Amendment decisions, mostly in other contexts.
application of the First Amendment to the impoundments.
protections of the Constitution.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 84, 107 S. Ct. at 2259.
have a First Amendment right of access to their inmate subscribers, Thornburgh v.
Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 408, 109 S. Ct. 1874, 1879 (1989).
Department and PLN agree that the Turner standard controls here.
1317, 1328 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted); see also Pope v.
reaffirmed that point time and time again. See, e.g., Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S.
prisoners and the outside world.”).
decreased deference under Turner. See, e.g., United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S.
minors); Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 365, 130 S. Ct.
Supreme Court itself. See Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236, 252–53, 118 S. Ct.
leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.”); Evans v.
that the prison policy at issue in Beard still allowed inmates to receive legal correspondence, id.
defenders, legal aid organizations, agency clerks, and government attorneys. Fla. Admin.
applied with decreased deference in light of recent Supreme Court decisions).
under its Rules (3)(l) and (3)(m) violate the First Amendment.
of Prison Legal News are content neutral, Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 415, 109 S. Ct.
a security breach. PLN’s argument demands too much.
of the inmate defrauding the pen pal is greatly reduced.” Id. (emphasis added).
previously caused a security breach. Id.
the earlier litigation that the same types of ads do not present such a threat. See Robinson v.
will abide by the rule[s].” See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526, 104 S. Ct.
not decide the extent to which it can be applied against a state if at all. See Heckler v. Cmty.
the uncertainty on that point).
service undermines its ability to determine a call recipient’s identity and location.
rational connection. See Perry, 664 F.3d at 1366.
provide a physical billing address. See Fla. Admin. Code r. 33-602.205(2)(a).
compliance with the prohibition on pen pal solicitation is rational.
deposited more than $50,000 into the accounts of Florida inmates.
stamps are easily hidden and the Department processes 50,000 pieces of mail each day.
friends, while banning ads that tempt them to use stamps for illegitimate purposes, is rational.
he was released murdered the chief of the Colorado Department of Corrections.
see why people locator services pose a threat.
about, how to manufacture drugs or construct a weapon. See Fla. Admin. Code r. 33501.401(3)(a), (c).
prison security and public safety interests.
exact, one-for-one substitutes to provide alternative means. See id. at 92, 107 S.
of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 107 S. Ct. 2400 (1987)).
publish a Florida-only version, it can send its other publications to Florida inmates.
Department or, perhaps more accurately, does not disfavor the Department.
prison resources generally.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 90, 107 S. Ct. at 2262.
in order to maintain a safe atmosphere for everyone in the prison environment”).
Upchurch testified, that “ripple effect” increases the burden on Department staff.
Prison Legal News are “an exaggerated response to prison concerns.” Id.
remind inmates not to use the prohibited services.
minimum, offer persuasive reasons why it believes that it must take a different course . . . .” Id.
security concerns differ from those of Arizona’s corrections department.
factors, this final factor favors the Department.
(3)(l) and (3)(m) do not violate the First Amendment.
publications are disapproved for receipt by inmate subscribers.”); Jacklovich v.
all 70 copies, not just one notice for the January issue. Due process does not demand that much.
Turner] based on their assessments of the content of the particular communications”).
monthly issues (42%) impounded between November 2009 and December 2014.
notice and sue them. No.
only a publication’s front cover and a copy of the pages with problematic content. Fla. Admin.
impounded issue when the publisher files its own appeal with the committee. Id. r. 33501.401(15)(a)(2).
prospective relief against the Department. See Friends of Everglades v. S. Fla.
seek only prospective injunctive relief to stop ongoing violations of federal law”).
order to enforce a rule she is statutorily required to enforce. See Fla. Stat.
Department to adhere to its own notice rules.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.