Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/TX/prison-legal-news-v-livingston-texas-censorship-order-denying-motion-to-dismiss-2009/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:26:55+00:00

Document:
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (D.E. 12, 16, 19, 30).
cite only to the first-filed Motion (D.E. 12) when referring to specific arguments made therein.
decision, or told how to present information to the DRC during the review process. (D.E.
how to contest the TDCJ’s censorship decision, or provide any opportunity to do so.
Perpetual Prisoner Machine is published by Westview Press. Both are member of the Perseus Book Group.
On November 4, 2009, Plaintiff PLN filed suit in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
events giving rise to this litigation arose.
11, 2009, respectively. The Court first considers Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue.
other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
exercise of this privilege.” Id. at 313 (internal citations omitted).
Salinas v. O’Reilly Automotive, Inc., 358 F. Supp. 2d 569, 573 (N.D. Tex. 2005).
private interest and public interest factors weigh in favor of transfer.
witnesses at the Hilltop facility would have to be transported at considerable expense.
transferred to Waco, given the numerous witnesses located in the Southern District.
District, the residents of the Southern District have a stronger interest in this litigation.
will govern the case, and no conflict of laws issues exist.
from court congestion.” Finally, no related litigation is pending in another forum.
demonstrate that transfer is proper.
compulsory process, this contention is merely speculative.
also identified witnesses who would also present compulsory process difficulties. (D.E.
22 at 6.) At most, this factor is neutral.
inconvenienced by trial here, any such expenses will likely be reimbursed by the State.
On balance, this factor does not support transfer.
from certain witnesses to others.
shift, not eliminate, transportation costs and related issues.
Houston would do little to increase convenience in this case.
293 F.3d 908, 910 (5th Cir. 2002).
Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.2007); Gregson v. Zurich Am.
Thornburgh extends to book distributors.
right of distributors to challenge regulations restricting the distribution of books. (D.E.
21 at 2-3.) Moreover, Plaintiff argues that it fits the relevant standing requirements.
value.’” 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938) (quoting Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 733 (1877)).
prohibiting the possession of obscene materials anywhere books were sold. 361 U.S.
is of course no matter that the dissemination takes place under commercial auspices.
of books.” 361 U.S. at 150.
Soon after, in 1963, the Court in Bantam Books, Inc. v.
v. Town of Berlin, 644 F.Supp.2d 151, 158 (D. Conn. 2009) (citing Smith, Lerman).
to read.” 238 F. Supp. 846, 847-48 (N.D. Cal. 1964).
to challenge a governmental action that interferes with its constitutional rights.
warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction.” Horne v. Flores, __ U.S. __, 129 S.
Plaintiff’s favor may result in the award of damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief.
that he has been hurt and who has inflicted the injury.’” Dixon v. Hubert, 260 Fed. Appx.
727, 728 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Lavellee v. Listi, 611 F.2d 1129, 1131 (5th Cir.1980)).
distributor, has First Amendment protections, it is entitled to due process when those rights are infringed.
access to prisoners as publishers, it follows that they should have the same due process protections as well.
book list, PLN had no way to know that the book was subject to censorship at the time.
First Amendment protections extend to a book distributor.
Prisoner Machine did not occur until March 2009.
immunity by January 6, 2010, and Plaintiff must respond no later than January 13, 2010.
SIGNED and ORDERED this 17th day of December, 2009.

References: § 1404
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.