On October 1, 2015, Prison Legal News, a legal news magazine intended for inmates, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons claiming that the U.S. Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence (ADX) illegally censoring the magazine, violating the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and Bureau of Prison regulations. Specifically, plaintiff claimed that the ADX did not deliver certain issues of Prison Legal News to ADX prisoners or give them proper notice that the magazine would not be delivered. Apparently, the BOP's refusal to deliver the magazine was because the issues contained information related to legal proceedings involving ADX prisoners and staff. Plaintiffs contended that the refusal to deliver these issues served no legitimate penological interest, and that the improper notices deprived prisoners of the opportunity to appeal administratively. Plaintiff was represented by Northwestern Law School's clinic and by private counsel; it sought injunctive and declaratory relief.

The case was assigned to Judge Raymond Moore.

On February 23, 2017, pursuant to ADX's motion to dismiss, the Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak recommended that the motion be denied. He found that there was neither constitutional mootness, nor prudential mootness. Judge Varholak also found there were plausible First Amendment, due process, and APA claims. ADX appealed the recommendation to the district court. The District Judge Moore rejected the recommendations on March 28, holding that there was in fact a mootness problem because "ADX fundamentally revised its official policies and procedures with respect to review of publications" after the suit was filed. The court further found that the plaintiff's previously rejected issues were reviewed and delivered to inmates, mooting the need for injunctive relief. The court found that because the policies had changed, the plaintiff's concern for enjoining future conduct was also mooted.

The plaintiff moved to vacate the judgment the next day, arguing that the judgment was entered before the plaintiff could respond to ADX's objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. The court granted the motion on August 14, 2017, renewing its review of the recommendations and objections. Litigation is ongoing as of March 24, 2018.

Amanda Kenner - 01/22/2017
Virginia Weeks - 03/24/2018


compress summary