On July 13, 1999, a state prison inmate in Arizona, filed a pro se complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The complaint alleged that state corrections officials violated the plaintiff's right to procedural due process by denying him his publications ...
read more >
On July 13, 1999, a state prison inmate in Arizona, filed a pro se complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The complaint alleged that state corrections officials violated the plaintiff's right to procedural due process by denying him his publications and failing to provide adequate medical care. Krug's claims of inadequate medical care were dismissed on January 6, 2000.
Previously, in 1973, inmates in the Arizona state prison system and the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) entered into a consent decree in Hook v. Arizona (PC-AZ-006) which authorized the ADOC to exclude publications deemed to be obscene under applicable constitutional standards. Inmates dissatisfied with a particular exclusion were allowed to appeal the decision; however, beginning in 1997, the ADOC adopted a practice of having an inmate's appeal of an exclusion decision adjudicated by the same prison official who made the initial decision to exclude the publication. Under this policy, ADOC officials rejected sixty-three publications addressed to Krug. Krug appealed each rejection, and the same ADOC official who initially rejected each publication also rejected Krug's appeal of the decision.
On March 30, 2001, the District Court (Judge Raner C. Collins) granted Krug's request for injunctive relief and directed the ADOC officials to retract any internal procedures that were inconsistent with the plaintiff's due process right to appeal the exclusion of incoming publications to a prison official other than the one who made the original exclusion. Judge Collins also found that the ADOC officials enjoyed qualified immunity from Krug's request for money damages arising out of the procedural due process violations.
On May 14, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judge Raymond C. Fisher) affirmed the District Court's decision by holding that Krug had a constitutional right to two-level review of decisions to exclude publications. Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2003). Judge Fisher also found that state corrections officials enjoyed qualified immunity since, given the consent decree, they could have reasonably believed that their own conduct did not violate due process.
On July 15, 2005, Judge Collins ordered the state corrections officials to disseminate the amended publication review policy providing for two-level review of exclusion decisions (Director's Order No. 223) into the prison's libraries and computers and to be downloaded to the ADOC Website. On August 3, 2005, notice of compliance by state corrections officials to the order to disseminate the amended publication review policy was submitted. On April 26, 2007, after compliance by the defendant, the Court dismissed the case.Tom Madison - 04/08/2006
Maurice Youkanna - 07/11/2014