Two prisoners at a facility for sex offenders filed this §1983 action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, against the state of New Jersey, alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that a New Jersey law banning " ...
read more >
Two prisoners at a facility for sex offenders filed this §1983 action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, against the state of New Jersey, alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that a New Jersey law banning "sexually oriented materials" in the state's Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (ADTC) was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague, as well as a violation of their right to free speech.
On June 1, 1998, the Court (Mag. Judge Joel A. Pisano) issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting defendant from enforcing the relevant state law. On June 29, the Court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant from enforcing that law. 12 F.Supp.2d 364 (amended July 21, 1998). On July 22, the Court (Judge Alfred M. Wolin) found New Jersey's statute unconstitutional and permanently enjoined state officials from enforcing it. 12 F.Supp.2d 378. On August 11, 1998, the Court permanently enjoined defendants from prohibiting inmates to possess and view recreational movies.
On June 30, 1999, the Court of Appeals (Circuit Judge Alito) reversed, holding that the state statute did not violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for defendant. 183 F.3d 208.
On March 3, 2000, the district court (Magistrate Judge Pisano) denied plaintiff's request for attorney fees, holding that the applicable statute precluded recovery when the suit merely catalyzed (but did not compel) state curative action, and such denial of the catalyst basis for fees recovery did not violate plaintiffs' equal protection rights. 84 F.Supp.2d 579. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.
On September 27, 2000, the Court of Appeals amended the cost taxed against the defendant, adding an additional $598.40. We don't have the order, but it appears that the Court of Appeals did not alter the attorneys' fee part of the judgment. Nothing more appears in the district court docket.Timothy Shoffner - 04/30/2013
Jessica Kincaid - 02/14/2016