On October 29, 2015, Prison Legal News (PLN) filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Plaintiff sued the County of Tulare under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by the Human Rights Defense Center and Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, the Plaintiff asked the court for injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as damages. PLN claimed that the County of Tulare violated its free speech, due process, and equal protection rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Specifically, the Plaintiff claimed that the County of Tulare censored its publication by adopting and implementing mail policies that prohibited delivery of the PLN mail, and the County failed to provide due process notice or opportunity to challenge the censorship. The Plaintiff requested declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages. Four days later, the Plaintiff requested a preliminary injunction.

On December 16, 2015, Judge John A. Mendez, granted in part the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court denied the request that the prison be barred from censoring mail because it contained staples. Because the Defendants already ceased this policy and implemented a new one that allowed delivery of the Plaintiff's publications to jail inmates after staff removed any staples and tapes, the court held that the Plaintiff did not have a likelihood of current irreparable harm. But the court granted the Plaintiff's request that Defendants provide adequate written notice and an administrative appeal process to both prisoners and senders when Defendants refuse to deliver publications to prisoners at the County jails. The court found sufficient likelihood of success on this due process claim, that the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm, and that the preliminary injunction was in the public's interest.

In February 2016, the parties began settlement negotiations and the court appointed Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan to mediate the settlement. The parties reached an agreement and on July 6, 2016, Judge Mendez entered a consent decree. Under the agreement, the Defendants agreed to deliver publications, correspondence, or documents sent by any publisher to prisoners and not refuse them because they contain staples, provided that the Defendants may remove the staples. Additionally, the Defendants agreed to provide adequate written notice and an administrative review process of decisions to refuse any publication, correspondence, or document sent from the publisher. The Defendants agreed to include an explanation of the new mail policy in its handbook and website and pay $15,000 in damages and an additional amount for attorneys' fees and costs. The court retained jurisdiction for the consent decree to remain in effect until a motion for termination by either party. However, the court found that the case concerned the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of a publisher and therefore, was not a case concerning prison conditions under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. On August 8, 2016, the court ordered the Defendants to pay $140,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.

As of March 21, 2020, there has been no additional activity on this case, but it is still ongoing since the consent decree is still in effect.

Kat Brausch - 02/18/2016
Emily Kempa - 05/27/2019
Caitlin Kierum - 03/21/2020


compress summary